The Probability of the Multiverse and How It Would Change Our Lives
Author: Leon Wang
October 07, 2022
This essay is concerned with the following thought experiment; if we entertain a hypothesis that multiverses do exist and this is common knowledge, will it make any difference to our lives? It must be recognised that there is a vast array of multiverse theories. Some allow cross-universe interactions, as seen in theories which involve the use of quantum tunneling where travel between multiverses may be possible.1 This essay, however, rests upon the assumption that the type of multiverse we are discussing does not allow cross-multiverse interactions, so I will limit this inquiry within these boundaries. Firstly, whilst the multiverse hypothesis might disprove God, I will argue that these arguments lack strength given the endless possibilities for creation. Secondly, whilst the endlessness of the multiverse, where infinite situations may play out infinitely, might lead one to nihilism, I will argue that our actions will still have consequences in our own realities. As such, I will conclude that existential philosophies such as James Williams’ ‘Will to Believe’, Nietzsche’s’ Übermensch, and Stoicism can help us find our own meaning regardless of the despair an infinite multiverse may bring us.
To begin, what, exactly, is the multiverse? Many scientists hold the view that our universe came from the big bang. Yet what if the big bang that produced our universe wasn’t the only one? What if, speculatively, the big bang actually occurred an infinite number of times? This may have created many universes beside ours. They could be chaotic, without any life, or perhaps very similar to our own world. There can be all kinds of worlds given the nature of infinity.2 This is the general foundation of multiverse theories. The multiverse concept can be traced back to 5 BCE, when Democritus raised the idea of “infinite worlds”. This meant that with the movement of many molecules, infinite worlds were formed. Similarly, Epicurus suggested in 4 BCE that there may be infinite worlds, yet he postulated that they probably all consist of plants and animals just like our own world. Finally, in the First Century, Lucretius thought that there were other worlds that could not be observed by people where other kinds of humans lived.3 Hinduism also includes concepts similar to the multiverse theories. Hindu cosmology postulates that the universe is circular, which means it forms and is then destroyed infinite times beyond what can be known by humans.4 The multiverse theory, clearly, is far from a new idea.
In contemporary physics, Hugh Everett III first raised the concept of a multiverse in a modern setting through the lens of quantum mechanics.5 From this perspective, each observation produces a new world, thus the quantum will shift form and produce another multiverse. This links to a popular understanding of the multiverse theory nicknamed the ‘Mandela Effect’. As many people claim to remember things that have not actually happened, some theorists suggest that perhaps these memories were actually true. People who claim to have had these experiences may have somehow transferred from one particular universe to a similar one of ours.6 This theory may compliment Max Tegmark’s understanding of the multiverse, who postulates that there are infinite events happening in infinite multiverses, and each choice we make creates a new world.7 Another prominent theory is M-theory or string theory, which is quite complex and requires mathematical explanations beyond the scope of this essay.8 To summarise it briefly, M-theory deduces that any universe within the multiverse cannot interact with others.9 As such, it has no consequences that people can be aware of. This is the specific multiverse form we will adopt for this essay.
In what way, however, can this type of multiverse affect our approach to life on a personal level? Firstly, this form of multiverse might lead one away from any religious beliefs they hold, as it may dispel one’s belief in God and divine creation. This is because it could counter the ‘fine-tuning’ argument that many theologians believe is a strong argument for intelligent design. The fine-tuning argument puts forth the idea that our planet and very universe maintains the perfect conditions for human life, thus there must be a divine creator of some sort. Yet if there are infinite multiverses which include every single possibility, some or maybe even most completely unfit for life, perhaps there is no need for divine creation. This line of reasoning suggests that as our universe was not carefully designed by God, it just emerged from the endless probability of infinity. This may result in some people rejecting their faith as there is no need for there to be a God to explain the nature of existence anymore.10 This is an argument put forth by multiple multiverse theorists such as Cosmin, who notes that there has been a prevailing view that divine creation is incompatible amongst those who subscribe to the M-Theory concept.11 Consequently, those who believe in the theological concept of creation may see their world view shattered.
Arguably, however, this line of thinking lacks strength. Cosmin may also be underestimating the scientific community as a whole, given that only 18% thinks the multiverse theory ‘undercuts’ (weakens) the fine-tuning argument, whilst 43% believe it does not do that at all.12 Firstly, the multiverse may not disprove creation, as God may just be the creator of all possible universes chaotic or stable.
Secondly, theologians such as Saint Thomas Aquinas may offer some more in-depth insights. Aquinas argues for the existence of God in five ways: motion, causality, possibility, and necessity, gradation of things, and argument from design. To provide a brief explanation, the argument from ‘motion’ entails that the universe it put into motion from an initial state which originated in a God. This concept also compliments his argument from ‘casuality’, which means that all things that have a cause must have a cause from something before it, thus there must have been a first ‘cause’ (God).
The third is the argument of contingency and necessity, which states that if the universe were contingent, it may cease to exist. Therefore, there must be an entity which is not contingent which is God. Fourth is the argument from ‘perfection’, which stipulates that if all things are graded from perfect to corrupt, there must be the highest point on each side; the most perfect being God. The fifth argument, the argument of design, points to the beauty of creation for proof of God and is the most famous of Aquinas’ works.13 If one considers these theses, only the third argument, which pertains to necessity and possibility, may question the multiverse theory. All the others, however, offer powerful and convincing arguments for the existence of God.
Whether or not the multiverse theory disproves God, however, an acceptance of the multiverse as a fact may present another problem: nihilism. In the endlessness of the multiverse, where our actions produce an infinite array of consequences in infinite realities, do our actions hold any weight at all? Perhaps they do not have any real consequences given the infinite nature of any action that will inevitably produce any and every result.14 From my perspective, this argument also lacks strength. Although it may seem that there are no consequences for your actions, it does not matter what you choose from your own point of view because the other ‘you’s’ are still not really “you”. Subjectively, we will never feel or see the consequences of any given choice for any multiverse. From both our perspective in this universe and all others, our infinite ‘doubles’ will always see the consequences of their actions, at least in their own reality. In this sense, does it really matter objectively that you are not actually making decisions if you are a result of another multiverse? For me, the answer is no, it doesn’t matter. Since we cannot directly interact with those who influence us or those we influence, our experience of reality is essentially no different.
However, for those that do find the infinity of the multiverse to be meaningless, existential philosophy may offer remedies for nihilism. Williams James’ ‘Will to Believe’ theory, for instance, is a philosophy that may provide a solution to this problem. James values ‘truth’ as what is useful for one to live a meaningful life, rather than what is empirically true. He stated that:
If there be any life that it is really better that we should lead, and of there be any idea which, if believed in would help us to lead that life, then it would be really better for us to believe in that idea.15
As such, those who find hopelessness in an infinite multiverse may find comfort in belief systems that enable them to live a fruitful and happy life. Why choose nihilism when one can choose humanism, for instance, or Christianity as William James did?16 Even if the multiverse theory is objectively true, does we need to pay attention to it or give it value? I would argue no; we should adopt belief systems that enrich us.
Another philosopher that can escape the nihilism of multiverse theory is Friedrich Nietzsche. Ironically, Nietzsche was a philosopher that viewed nihilism optimistically as he viewed it as an opportunity. For Nietzsche, the term ‘nihilism’ does not entail hopelessness. Instead, it encourages individuals to find a reason and meaning for living, a concept summed up with the quote: “He who has a why to live can bear almost any how”. This leads to his concept of the ‘Ubermensch’, also known as the ‘Overman’, which encourages one to satisfy their desires and reach a higher level of self-actualisation. As such, Nietzsche viewed Christianity as a moral system that actually made people weak as it required them to control their desire.17 His famous phrase “God is dead”, therefore, leaves people with more freedom and possibilities to discover oneself. From this point of view, whether God exists or not does not really matter. It is much more satisfying to just enjoy life by reaching our human potential.
Finally, the ancient philosophy of stoicism may also grant us a solution to any feelings of nihilism a multiverse may cause. Stoicism was created by Zeno, an Athenian who believed that all people are part of the universe and should aim to find contentedness in life. This means that a person should bear any unhappiness and pain as we cannot change how things are but can change the way we consider things.18 There are four virtues according to stoicism. These include courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom, all of which can be achieved by obeying one’s destiny. At its core, it’s a theory that encourages one to accept things as they are.19 Hence, as we cannot change the fact that the multiverse may or may not exist, stoicism may lead us to just accept it and life as well as we can. Consequently, the existence of a multiverse does not make any difference to if one adopts a stoic philosophy.
In conclusion, this question can spark one’s interest as it encourages us to delve into metaphysics, theology, and philosophy. Whilst I may not personally agree with all the ideas above, especially given that I view stoicism as another form of meaningless existence, all the theories discussed render the existence of a multiverse as non-consequential for our live. Whilst Aquinas offers some interesting insights, I am most convinced by the existential philosophers Friedrich Nietzsche and William James, philosophers who argue that what really matters is power and control over own thoughts, feeling, and reality. Among these two theories, I prefer Nietzsche most of all, as I agree that Christianity it too restrictive to individual freedom. Nietzsche theories encourages one to be energetic and optimistic towards life, one that is lived freely and not dependent on others’ opinions. Notwithstanding, as noted, there are also many variants of the multiverse theory which do propose that we can interact with this multiverse. In what way could this have changed my answer? This question offers an opportunity for further research for others who wish to tackle this fascinating question.
2 Bodiut, Victor Andrei. (2016). The Multiverse, (working paper).13140/RG.2.1.4131.0323. p.1-2
3 Chen, Q. (2004). section 4.4. In Zi Ran Zhe Xue (pp. 153–243). essay, Fu dan da xue chu ban she.
4 Detechter, Unknown. “The Concept of Multiverse in Hinduism - Hindu Cosmology.” Detechter, 15 Dec. 2018, https://detechter.com/concept-multiverse-hinduism-hindu-cosmology/.
5 Byrne, Peter. “The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett.” Scientific American, vol. 297, no. 6, 2007, pp. 98–105., https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1207-98.
6 Bhattacharjee, D. (2020). The Mandela effect, déjà vu and possible interactions with the parallel world, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.35543/osf.io/gjtfk
7 Remeo, J. (2022, January 7). The real science of the multiverse - JSTOR daily. The Real Science of the Multiverse. Retrieved April 18, 2022, from https://daily.jstor.org/the-real-science-of-the-multiverse/
8 Becker, K., Becker, M., & Schwarz, J. H. (2007). String theory and M-theory: A modern introduction. Cambridge university press.
9 Hurd, S. (2020, August 15). Quantum theory: Do parallel universes exist and interact with our own? Learning Mind. Retrieved April 18, 2022, from https://www.learning-mind.com/new-quantum-theory-suggests-parallel-universes-exist-and-interact-with-our-own/
10 Manson, Neil. (2019). The Multiverse: What Philosophers and Theologians Get Wrong. Theology and Manson, Neil. (2019). Science. 18. 10.1080/14746700.2019.1710348. p.8-9
11 Ciocan, Cosmin. (2013). God, the Creator of the multiverse. The theory of concomitance. p.295
12 Manson, Neil. (2019). The Multiverse: What Philosophers and Theologians Get Wrong. Theology and Science. 18. 10.1080/14746700.2019.1710348. p.11
13 Wilburn, Heather, “Aquinas’s Five Proofs for the Existence of God.” In The Catholic Faith Handbook for Youth, Teacher Guide. 2011 by Saint Mary’s Press, Retrieved June 26, 2022, from https://www.smp.org/resourcecenter/resource/7061/
14 Uncommon Descent (Blog), Science Writer: Many Worlds (Quantum Multiverse) As A Fantasy, Verging On Nihilism, February 18, 2015, Retrieved June 26, 2022, from https://uncommondescent.com/contact-us/
15 James, William. The Will to Believe. Antiquarius, 2021.
16 Ibid
17 Fortich, Ingrid. (2010). Nietzsche's Übermensch: the notion of a higher Aristocracy of the future. Civilizar Ciencias Sociales y Humanas. 10. 75-80. 10.22518/16578953.16. p.77-79
18 Wenley, R. M. Stoicism and Its Influence. Kessinger Publishing, 2011. p.3-10
19 Inwood, Brad. “1. Ancient Stoicism and Modern Life.” Stoicism: A Very Short Introduction, 2018, pp. 1–17., https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198786665.003.0001.
Bibliography
Becker, K., Becker, M., & Schwarz, J. H. (2007). String theory and M-theory: A modern introduction. Cambridge university press.