Level II Multiverse, Every disk is a bubble un...

Image via Wikipedia


Since Hugh Everett proposed his “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, physicists and cosmologists have speculated about the existence of multiple universes. In Everett’s theory, whenever there was an event of quantum uncertainty, the universe splits. Thus, in the famous story of Schoedenger’s Cat, in which a subatomic particle is fired at a batch of poison, there is a period of uncertainty in which is seems the cat is neither alive nor dead. This is the view according to the standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. But Everett said that what actually happens is that the universe splits into one universe in which the cat stay alive, and into another universe in which the bottle of poison breaks, the cat drinks it, and the cat dies. Since such events occur a near-infinity of times, there are an uncountable number of different universes.

Since then various theories of multiple universes have been proposed. In some theories all possible states of affairs take place, so that there is no contingency in nature–the “multiverse” is a metaphysically necessary being, and there is no need for the existence of God as a necessary being. In fact, multiverse theories seem to be a convenient way to avoid the existence of God.

Empirically, since other universes are said to be causally closed to one another, we could not detect another universe. Thus, what we really have in these theories are mathematical constructs that may explain some of the data. How to decide between the various multiverse theories or between them and m-theory or supergravity or some other global cosmological theory is the rub.

Theists, those who believe in a transcendent God, are often mocked by scientists because of the role of faith in theism. Yet what takes the stronger faith: to believe that the universe is created and sustained by an infinite mind or to believe that there are an infinite number of universes in which all possible states of affairs take place? Both views take faith. It seems to me that rather than believing an a near replica of me living in some other universe or on many universes, it makes more sense to affirm that this universe is the only one that exists, that it is by nature contingent–it does not have to exist–and thus it requires a necessary being to create and sustain it. If scientists wish to say otherwise through their multiverse theories, they have a right to do so, but they are not within their intellectual rights to deceive and claim that their positions require no faith.