In their attempt to escape the implications of the fact that the universe we exist in is improbable, some physicists (and others) have reified the notion of possible worlds into that of multiverses. One example is provided by Martin Rees in his Simonyi Lecture, Oxford, 2003:
In the same way that we might marvel at the chances that the Earth supports life, we might marvel at the chances that the laws of physics support such a complex universe.
One possible answer, which is currently purely speculative, is that there may be infinite universes – or several universes packed into the same space in such a way that we are unaware of them because of an extra dimension that we cannot perceive. In the same way that, with zillions of stars, it is not surprising to find at least one biofriendly planet, if there had been zillions of big bangs it would not be surprising to find at least one complex universe. 'This is not metaphysics, but science – albeit speculative science'.
One wonders what happened to that principle so beloved of scientists, occam's razor? We have been told by physicists, mathematicians and others for decades that the simplest solution is best. Now that they fear this might let God in, some seek to avoid this difficulty by reference to what we might call 'occam's snake oil'. After all, why produce a simple solution to a problem, when a complicated one will do?
Is this, to quote William Grassie, 'the 21st century equivalent of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin'?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Having just watched a Rees' explanation of the possibility of a multiverse, I'm inclined toward sympathy with your observation. I wanted to slap him and say, "Stop that!"
ReplyDelete