All Episodes - Discussion

Thank you guys for this podcast! I have really enjoyed listening to it. I understand that you are working on a miniseries on the concept of the multiverse, and I am looking forward to that one too.

Meanwhile I want to share with you my question about the multiverse. I am neither a physicist nor a rabbi, but here goes. If I misstate anything please correct me!

My understanding of the concept of the multiverse or “many worlds interpretation” is that it began as an interpretation of quantum physics. It supposes that whenever a random quantum event occurs, anywhere in the universe, the universe splits and follows two different paths. In one path, the quantum event occurred, and in the other one it didn’t.

If we take this very strange idea at face value, we can imagine all the quantum events occurring over the last 13.8 billion years, all the way back to the Big Bang. Each moment when some quantum event occurs – say an atom of uranium decays into smaller atoms – then the alternative universes created at that moment only differ by that one event. In one, the atom decayed, and in the other it didn’t. Otherwise the universe is unchanged, and in particular the laws of physics must be the same in both versions of the universe, because they are inherited from the conditions which existed just prior to the quantum event.

Therefore the multiverse is only about alternative random events, and the subsequent downstream effects of those events, not about alternative physics. In fact this process presupposes that all of the virtually infinite versions of the universe share the same laws of physics including quantum mechanics.

So when I hear people saying that the multiverse is an explanation for the fine tuning of the constants and laws of physics, that sounds like nonsense. If the multiverse is real then logically all of the many worlds share the same basic laws and constants of physics that originated at the Big Bang. Then the problem of the atheist is greatly multiplied, because now he has to explain why not just one, but an infinite number of worlds all have laws and constants fine tuned to support a complex universe capable of harboring living things, in at least one of its versions!

Anyway I hope that this makes sense, and would love to hear your thoughts.

me gustó mucho leerlos.

Me gustaría saber cómo responderían a los criticos que apelan a sucesos altamente improbables para afirmar que simplemente el ajuste fino es uno de ellos, por ejemplo, un crítico del ajuste fino dijo lo siguiente:

" te reto a que calcules la probabilidad de tu nacimiento y no sólo la probabilidad del espermatozoide concreto en el óvulo concreto en el tiempo concreto y todas las posibilidades dentro de la vida de tus padres"

Thank you both for the further elaboration! I will check out the paper and I look forward to further Episodes.

Best regards,

Matthew

Rabbi Zimmer and Rabbi Dr. Feder,

I have enjoyed your pod cast, but I do have a couple of thoughts I'd appreciate hearing your views on. I am not an expert in physics or God, but I do study both when I can. My personal belief is that at least some physical "constants" are not truly constant, but rather relatively constant at this point in time. Examples of such constants for me are the speed of light and permittivity of free space. If they do change over time, what would that say about "fine tuning". I'd be interested in your opinions.

Second, I think part of the problem is identifying what is truly fundamental. Asking why does the system break if I change one parameter may be the wrong question. A better question may be what else do I need to modify to bring the system back into balance if one parameter is changed. It could be that what is truly fundamental is not so much the values of the parameters themselves, but rather the relationships between the parameters. Again, I would appreciate to hear your thoughts. Perhaps in your next podcast.

Respectfully,

Matthew