Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards, The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004).
This weekâs jolly adventure into epistemic na-na-world includes a prelude from the current issue (August [!] 2005) of Astronomy magazine. Hereâs a teaser quote from Adam Frankâs âSeeing the Dawn of Timeâ: âEARTH EXISTS only because the physical laws in our universe are just right. Thatâs a natural result of the multiverse, from which countless pocket universes bubble off from the wholeâ (p. 38; emphasis, the editors of Astronomy). Yow! If there was ever more of a motley juxtaposition of randomness and determinacy in print, Iâd like to see it. (Oh, I already have; but you will have to wait until I get to G & Râs handling of the hijacked Copernican Principle, chapter 11). One of the headings of the article even presumes the alleged principle of mediocrity: âOur mediocre universe.â I wonder how it will be when all the math washes out and we find new ways to observe particles that apparently disappear into others of the âmultiverseâ and we discover that the present universe in 4, 5, or 6 dimensions is all that there is. Remember that there were a lot of good mathematicians that had the hammer of good math shattered on the anvil of physics. One might think of Einsteinâs defense of the static and eternal universe:
In an historical instance of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, Albert Einsteinâs General Theory of Relativity had already predicted that the universe was either expanding or contracting. Unfortunately, Einstein found the notion so distasteful that he had introduced a âfudge factor,â a variable called a cosmological constant, theoretically retrofitted to keep the universe in steady, eternal equilibrium. But upon learning of Hubbleâs discovery, Einstein made a widely publicized trip to California to see Hubbleâs data for himself. As a result of Hubbleâs discoveries, and the works of Georges Edouard Lemaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest and physicist who had studied under Arthur Eddington, and Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann â whose solutions to Einsteinâs theory implied an expanding universe â he repented of his cosmological constant, famously calling it the âgreatest blunderâ or his career (G & R p. 171; see also Stephen Hawking
The Universe in a Nutshell [New York: Bantam, 2001], pp. 21, 49, 96-97.)
One thing that you rarely get in popular level articles is that not everybody agrees on the theories that are trotted out ex-cathedra style by the peoplesâ pontiffs of physics. In defense of Frank, he does leave the doctrine at the level of theory and states plainly that some of the more eccentric assumptions and conclusions are hotly debated. But in everything from string-theory, to n universes, you get nothing like the monolithic presentations force-fed my high-school kids. Anyway, lest I be accused of wasting your time, read the article yourself. The history lesson for the study of cosmology over the last 30 years or so is worth the price of the subscription. The major problem with the article is that it does not tell you why the three problems (causality problem, flatness problem, magnetic monopole problem) are real problems to inflation theory or Big Bang Cosmology in the first place.
Perhaps in an effort to distance himself from the craziness of the positions, the author of the article quotes Mario Livio: âInflation naturally produces a multiverse.â To which I ask, why? No answer is forthcoming. âIf you believe in some form of inflation, then it is almost inevitable that some form of eternal inflation will occur.â âAlmost inevitableâ is not good enough. You said that it naturally produces a multiverse and now you say that it is âalmost inevitable.â The math must not be very good and the observations nonexistent. Yep: âThe different universes would not be causally connected. . . .â Frank, now: âNo signals from one pocket universe could ever reach another. That means there is no way to study them.â How convenient! Non-falsifiable! The multiverse exists because I say so! I am a âscientistâ and can therefore say any crazy thing I want and not be wrong. Oh, and by the way, that also means that you cannot short change me in government grants. Along with my omniscience, that would, after all, impinge upon my omnipotence. It is too bad whenever there is the request for an accountability in respect to their eccentricities, the cretins who would dare question the validity or value of the theoreticiansâ product are branded right-wing fundamentalist wackos. Academicians have insulated themselves, with their inflated salaries, in the tiny bastion of the academe. Like supreme court justices, they are virtually unimpeachable. Also like supreme court justices, we question the validity of their opinions. The beauty of the religion of scientism is that most every assumption they rest on and many of the conclusions they reach for fall to the fallacy of non-falsifiability. Isnât it fascinating that this is exactly the same charge they level at theists? Overall, if you find the article compelling, at least no one will ever fault you for your lack of creative imagination. . . . But if youâre into the multiverse, I would rather recommend âThe Chronicles of Riddick.â Meanwhile back in the real universe. . . .