An edited extract from Professor Edgar Andrews’ new book, What is Man? Adam, alien or ape?
Before answering the question ‘What is Man?’ we need to ask ‘Where is Man?’
For if the universe is the undesigned product of material forces, then mankind is likely to be a meaningless accident. But if the universe is God’s creation, then we also must be created beings.1
Why, I wonder, do scientists, like Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees and the late Stephen Hawking, believe in the existence of a multiverse (MV for short)? Although there is no experimental evidence to support the idea, they propose that the cosmos in which we live is just one of many parallel universes. What’s the point of such speculations? They offer materialists an escape route from things that science cannot, or does not want to, explain – especially the theological implications of the origin of the universe and its life-supporting properties (‘fine-tuning’). the Multiverse In his book In Search of (2010), science writer John Gribbin assures us that ‘the true multiverse idea strikes at the heart of our understanding of science, addressing puzzles such as the reason why the laws of physics are the way they are, and why the universe is a comfortable home for life… Universes in which dinosaurs have developed cities, space-probes and computers using silicon-based microchips undoubtedly exist.’
We’ll get to the dinosaurs later [though not in this extract], but let’s begin with Alexander the Great.
An infinite number of worlds
In his essay On Contentment of the Mind, the Greek historian Plutarch (46–120 AD) wrote: ‘Alexander cried when he heard Anaxarchus talk about the infinite number of worlds in the universe. One of Alexander’s friends asked him what was the matter and he replied: “There are so many worlds, and I have not yet conquered even one.” ’
Fortunately, some modern scientists are made of sterner stuff. Tired of exploring our own universe, they have invented a huge number of alternative universes and set out to conquer them – at least in terms of speculative thought. One of them is David Deutsch, a physicist and author of The Fabric of Reality. John Gribbin declares; ‘Deutsch is completely convinced of the reality of the multiverse… He accepts that there is, for example, a vast array of universes with different versions of himself in them, so that in some he is (not ‘might be’ but really is) a professor in Cambridge instead of Oxford, while in others he is not a scientist at all.’
Gribbin isn’t being funny; he is himself quite convinced about the reality of some kind of multiverse. Admittedly, neither Deutsch nor Gribbin can see, hear, or otherwise communicate with their multi-versal cousins. Indeed, these doppelgängers are utterly undetectable and unknowable. But the current enthusiasm for MVs among leading scientists must surely mean that the multiverse does really exist?
Escape route
Well, actually, no. What we shall see is that the MV concept is like a get-out-of-jail-free card in the game of Monopoly – an escape route from various unwelcome difficulties and implications thrown up by modern physics and cosmology. Instead of struggling with the intransigent realities of the one universe we actually know, we can explain away these difficulties by invoking the MV. It intrigues me that some of the MV’s greatest enthusiasts accuse theists of appealing to a ‘God of the gaps’ to account for things that science cannot explain, while they themselves insist that an inaccessible multiverse can explain otherwise inexplicable scientific observations.
Speculation-of-the-gaps
In reality, the MV is the ultimate speculation-of-the-gaps, being (almost by definition) that which lies beyond the reach of science. This statement will be challenged, so let me elaborate. One attraction of the MV is that the laws of nature could be different in different universes.
There are exceptions, but the MV loses much of its appeal (and indeed purpose) if all those other universes work, scientifically speaking, in the same way as our own. Yet the only science known to man is that which explores and describes the universe in which we actually live. Our own ‘local’ science cannot therefore be used to investigate, or even recognise, alleged universes which may operate on different principles and according to different laws of nature. Any such exo-universe remains firmly beyond the reach of science as we know it.
The home-alone multiverse
There are different versions of the MV, based on different and often conflicting speculations. So let’s look at some of them. The ‘home-alone’ or ‘anthropic’ MV is the bargain-basement version discussed by Martin Rees in his book Just Six Numbers. It claims that our own universe is indeed rare or even unique in its ability to sustain life, but that this is just a lucky accident. There exist such a vast number of universes with different laws and constants of nature that, by sheer luck, one of them had to be just right for life.
However, lurking in the shadow of the home-alone MV is the unavoidable idea that the laws and constants of nature are arbitrary and fortuitous. They can take on any character or value they care to, and must do so in an infinite array of universes. If this is so, there can be no rationality in the laws we observe in our own cosmos – and thus no rationality in the science that depends on their existence.
This should be deeply troubling to any thoughtful person because it implies that the holy grail of physical science – the ‘theory of everything’ diligently sought by scientists since Albert Einstein set us on its trail – is a mirage. If an MV exists in which the laws of nature vary arbitrarily from one universe to the next, there can be nothing fundamental or even meaningful about these laws in any universe, including our own.
The dilemma is well summarised by MIT physicist Alan P. Lightman, writing in Harper’s Magazine in 2011: ‘Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that … features of our particular universe are … a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe … in terms of fundamental causes and principles…. and the philosophical ethos of science is torn from its roots.’
Affecting society
You may not personally be overly concerned about the philosophical ethos of science but, surprisingly perhaps, it does affect the outlook of society generally. During the past two centuries, modern science has transformed both our way of life and our understanding of the cosmos – and thus of ourselves. Most of the pioneers of modern science were not only men and women of science but also of faith, believing that their research was, in some way, uncovering ‘the mind of God’ evidenced by an orderly cosmos. Even Stephen Hawking seemed to accept this concept in his 1988 book A Brief History of Time.
But that ethos has been swept away, and science is today commonly recruited to promote agnosticism, atheism or mere indifference to anything of a spiritual nature. At a popular level at least, science is being used (wrongfully and aggressively) to convert Western society to materialism. That is its current ethos and we need to beware of it. When Lightman says ‘the philosophical ethos of science is torn from its roots’, he is simply pointing out that the MV hypothesis undermines the age-old concept of an orderly and rational creation on which modern science has hitherto been grounded. It’s a classic case of sawing off a tree branch while sitting on the wrong side of the saw-cut.2
Edgar Andrews is Emeritus Professor of Materials Science at the University of London. In retirement he serves as co-pastor of the Campus Church, Welwyn Garden City.
