April 26, 2012
Based on the current theory of quantum mechanics the particular orientation of the particles in the Big Bang randomly took on an extremely rare state which led to intelligent life. As I understand it, such a chance occurrence might be exemplified by a deck of cards being shuffled fairly with a single ensuing deal of four hands where each hand holds a royal flush.
Now if a fair deck of cards were shuffled and dealt out in four hands trillions and trillions of times mathematicians would expect to find four royal flushes once and a while. And since this outcome is expected occasionally, there is certainly no reason not to find such an outcome on the first deal. Unexpected but not impossible.
Science is not satisfied with this thinking, it seems, and wants to make the random shuffle of the elements work out to where our world with intelligent life is expected. There are two ways to do this.
One way is to conceive of the Big Bang as a boomerang phenomenon where the particles expand, slow down and then finally reverse and return to a single point for another Big Bang. This would be like considering the shuffle and deal in our analogy as one of trillions of shuffles and deals and so where this rare four royal flush deal would be expected. However this will not work for our known Big Bang because instead of slowing down and preparing for a return, the elements and worlds are expanding apart at an accelerating rate.
The only remaining way for our Big Bang to be expected is for there to be trillions and trillions of Big Bangs going on in separate, parallel universes simultaneously. And this then would be like having trillions of separate gaming rooms, in each of which a single honest shuffle and deal is taking place. Then again a shuffle and outcome of four royal flushes would be expected with a few of those deals.
This, as I understand the matter, is the justification for the multi-verse theory of modern physics. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest any such thing, but only a desire on the part of science to come up with the expected rather than the unexpected with regard to our actual universe. It is not a need of science, but only a desire.
The only actual fact is this single Big Bang (or, by analogy, a one-time shuffle and deal). Thus based entirely and solely on what we know and have actual evidence for,* the scientist will have to accept our universe and existence as an exceedingly unexpected, random outcome. “It just happened to work out that in this unique and thoroughly honest shuffle and deal we have four royal flushes.”
[* Which excludes the multi-verse theory as just that, a theory and not a fact.]
The alternative is the hypothesis that the Big Bang or the four royal flushes is the result of a stacked deck. Science cannot accept any such hypothesis, for although there is just as much evidence for the stacked deck as for the honest and random shuffle, i.e., no evidence in either case, and just as little means of testing either, a stacked deck will not fit into the overall Weltanschauung of science.
In the end then it is only certain that a single shuffle and deal has been made with the four royal flush outcome (the present Big Bang). As an observer the theoretical scientist would respond, “This is no proof of a stacked deck,” while that same scientist as a player would say, “I certainly don’t intend to play at that dealer’s table.”
So theoretically the outcome is fine, but practically speaking (regarding any betting) the honest deck and deal are highly suspect.
In a word: there is no scientific evidence or possibility of such evidence for the existence of God, and so science rejects the existence of God; and there is no scientific evidence or possibility of such evidence for the existence of the multi-verses, and yet science accepts the multi-verses.*
[* Kant would remind us that this is the proper conclusion, for if science were to accept the existence of God it would cut off further scientific inquiry. And besides, he would add, the existence of God is sufficiently established through out knowledge of the moral law.]
I guess the final question is this: upon observing such a hand of four royal flushes, are we facing an honest dealer, or is it a magician who can just make things happen and come out in a particular way?
Filed under: Journal