Multiverse not needed with bottom-up design

Stephen Hawking believes infinite multiverses dispense with the need for any intelligence in the process of this Universe. The other 'verses' are conceived to explain this one as just an accident of dumb matter. Is something being missed?

The multiverse story runs kind of like the old story with infinite monkeys, typewriters, time and bananas. Eventually one of them is supposed to crank out the complete works of William Shakespeare. In chronological order perhaps? If you really believe in this then by the same logic one of those monkeys would get it from the word go.

Since the existence of our Universe is so inexplicable, we are asked to believe in an infinite number of "multiverses," just so that one of them might accidentally have come up with the specific sequence of myriad events, forces and phenomenon needed for it to hold together and develop intelligent life (meaning us).

The multiverse route is an odd road for physicists to take considering the complete lack of evidence, measurements or even hints of anything other than the known Universe. Perhaps they take this road believing the only other option is an equally undetectable supernatural character who planned and designed it all - from somewhere else (like humans try to do). But an unsupportable theory in opposition does not prove the cloud cukoo land multiverse idea, heavens no!

There is another road to take and it doesn’t need a name (pantheism or animism come close).; it's just the way things are  Wherever we look in the world we see organization taking place from the bottom up. In the rainforest nobody plots the frog distribution, rainfall patterns and river routes; they self-organize. There is no one architect to the termite mound, with its buttressed walls, perfect ventilation, 'road' network, nurseries and even fungus farms. Entire weather systems self-organize out of water moisture, wind and solar power. Each human cell has 5-10 million inhabitants, functioning and  communicating with each other and other cells - doing life. The brain reading these lines has no central controller telling a hundred billion neurons what to do. 

There is intelligence within the system. It does not need an 'outside' agent to oversee it. We inhabit a living intelligent Universe that is the sum of its parts, not a dead and accidental accumulation of matter. Call it God if you like. Quantum physicists have noticed self-organization on the subatomic level, with the famed David Bohm describing electrons as taking on the qualities of living beings. We bandy about terms like Chi, Prana and the Holy Spirit without considering the implications of such a spirit being all-pervasive.

That this idea should seem strange is stranger than the idea itself.  Though unfamiliar at first, the concept of self-organizing bottom-up intelligence not only makes more sense than the logger-headed alternatives, it makes good sense.

Step into a Universe brimming with intelligence and design, which needs no Intelligent Designer.

Sun of gOd, Discover the Self Organizing Consciousness that Underlies Everything, the book by Gregory Sams, published by Weiser Books

 

Comments

[Jim Buck]

Three goldilocksfish swimming around in a bowl.. One says to the others:

`If there is no God, how come: 1) The temperature in here is just right; 2) Food arrives regularly; 3) The water gets cleaned?

The second goldilocksfish (who happens to be a Professor for the Goldilocksfish Understanding Of Science) replies:

` It is probable that we live in a multiverse that contains an astronomically large number of fish-bowls. Most of those bowls will be completely fishless. The fact that we are here able to discuss the matter means that we are fortunate to live in one of the tiny number of bowls capable of sustaining evolved life.

The third goldilocksfish bursts into song: We' re here because we' re here, because we're here! `

[Gregory]

Thanks Jim,
An essential point well made, the corollary being that since we are here we might as well enjoy it. What could be more fun, after all?

[masterymistery]

Excellent post. presents a highly complex issue in a clear and easy-to-understand way. Reminds me of just how much I dislike "the Anthropic Principle" beloved of cosmologists and other horse thieves. Which, if one were feeling wicked, could be summarised by the statement: "we're here because we're here"

[masterymistery]

Sorry for double comment but I also wanted to raise the issue of how the word "universe" has come to be debased. At some point in the past, "universe" meant "everything". Now the word has been hijacked to mean much less than it once did, particularly since the advent of "multiverse", "maxiverse", "mega-verse" and "pocket universe". After all, if there are multiple universes, then they are not universes.

masterymistery at cosmic rapture

[Puny Human]

"Step into a Universe brimming with intelligence and design . . ." Yup, that's what we experience, and we don't need high tech equipment to show this to us. Why not honor and adore the intelligence and design we see? We don't need to explain it away. We don't need to make up a Super-Mono-God to explain it.

The universe, the er, the whatever the hell it is, exists in all its complexity and glory. I agree with you Gregory: let's party!

[mark]

Many thanks for your words and thoughts. What you say makes total sense to me. In most cultures, this energy is perceived at a fundamental level. As you say, Chi, Prana, Quantum machanics, even the Aether of pre-enlightenment science (I use the word "enlightenment" with regret in this context).

An underlying bottom up organising intelligence would seem, to me, a better explanation than a number of proposed theories. It intrigues me that a scientist claiming there is no God is guilty of ignoring a basic tenet of empirical scientific process. Namely, one can not draw a conclusion without unequivocal and repeatable evidence. It also concerns me, at times, how certain scientists bring an illogical zeal to the defence of their beliefs. Ultimately, certain things may prove unprovable, in the scientific sense, an example could be the quantum experience of the observer affecting the outcome of a process. Ultimately, it may be the case that faith and the power of thought has to be enough without trying to break things down to their constituant parts.

[Gregory]

Thanks for your comment Mark. One would have thought that chaos theory would have made scientists cognizant of bottom-up design in rainforests, crystals, weather systems and even our own neuron-filled brains. But it seems that they cannot recognize intelligence as being inherent in any but the last example, however clever the design.
Oh well...perhaps in time.

[Gianmarco Lorenzi Shoes]

Don't know what is wrong what is rite but i know that every one has there own point of view and same goes to this one