Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary

Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary

Noson S. Yanofsky

How does one explain all this structure? Why do the laws seem so perfect for producing life and why are they expressed in such exact mathematical language? Is the universe really as structured as it seems?

Platonism leaves a lot to be desired. The main problem is that Platonism is metaphysics, not science. However, even if we were to accept it as true, many questions remain. Why does this Platonic world have these laws, that bring intelligent life into the universe, rather than other laws? How was this Platonic attic set up? Why does our physical universe follow these ethereal rules? How do scientists and mathematicians get access to Plato’s little treasure chest of exact ideals?

The multiverse is another answer that has recently become quite fashionable. This theory is an attempt to explain why our universe has the life-giving laws that it does. One who believes in a multiverse maintains that our universe is just one of many universes. Each universe has its own set of rules and its own possible structures that come along with those rules. Physicists who push the multiverse theory believe that the laws in each universe are somewhat arbitrary. The reason we see structures fit for life in our universe is that we happen to live in one of very few universes that have such laws. While the multiverse explains some of the structure that we see, there are questions that are left open. Rather than asking why the universe has the structure it does, we can push the question back and ask why the multiverse has the structure it does. Another problem is that while the multiverse would answer some of the questions we posed if it existed, who says it actually exists? Since most believe that we have no contact with possible other universes, the question of the existence of the multiverse is essentially metaphysics.

There is another, more interesting, explanation for the structure of the laws of nature. Rather than saying that the universe is very structured, say that the universe is mostly chaotic and for the most part lacks structure. The reason why we see the structure we do is that scientists act like a sieve and focus only on those phenomena that have structure and are predictable. They do not take into account all phenomena; rather, they select those phenomena they can deal with.

Some people say that science studies all physical phenomena. This is simply not true...

One possible conclusion would be that if we look at the universe in totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, the mathematics we would need would have no axioms at all. That is, the universe in totality is devoid of structure and needs no axioms to describe it. Total lawlessness! The mathematics are just plain sets without structure. This would finally eliminate all metaphysics when dealing with the laws of nature and mathematical structure. It is only the way we look at the universe that gives us the illusion of structure.

With this view of physics we come to even more profound questions.

It is interesting, but I think this is a remarkably weak attempt at an explanation for fine tuning. Yanofsky clearly identifies a major flaw later in his exposition:

There are a few problems with this explanation of the structure found in the universe. For one, it seems that phenomena that we do select and that have laws of nature are exactly the phenomena that generate all the phenomena. The laws of particle physics, gravity, and quantum theory all have symmetries and are studied by physicists. All phenomena seem to come from these theories, even those that do not seem to have symmetry.
..................
Despite this failing of our explanation for the structure of the laws of nature, we believe it is the best candidate for being the solution. It is one of the only solutions that does not invoke any metaphysical principle or the existence of a multitude of unseen universes. We do not have to look outside the universe to find a cause for the structure that we find in the universe. Rather, we look at how we are looking at phenomena.

It is evident that this scheme still involves forms of fine tuning starting with the one Yonofsky himself mentions: "(The) phenomena that we do select and that have laws of nature are exactly the phenomena that generate all the phenomena."

Further, I don't see how there is no metaphysical principle involved in the new hypothesis of chaos. No matter what scheme he posits, Yanofsky invokes the problem of origin - why is there this, rather than absolutely nothing. And the problem of the fact that there still seems to be a form of fine tuning required by his scheme of existence. This is the evident fine tuning necessary to originate the system he posits, where the universe in totality just happens to be totally devoid of structure and needs absolutely no axioms to describe it - an infinite expanse of chaos that occasionally in some isolated spots or levels of existence at random coheres into organized structures and laws. If he posits that it has existed forever and therefore doesn't require there to have been an origin, that, too, invokes metaphysics.

Lastly, even if no metaphysical principles were necessary for the new scheme, I don't see why having no metaphysical principles automatically makes the scheme more likely to be the truth of reality. Except of course Ockham's Razor. However, the principle of parsimony is itself a metaphysical principle.