God and the Multiverse: Humanity’s Expanding View of the Cosmos by Victor J. Stenger (PDF)

Description

Cosmologists have reasons to believe that the vast universe in which we live is just one of an endless number of other universes within a multiverse-a mind-boggling array that may extend indefinitely in space and endlessly in both the past and the future. Victor Stenger reviews the key developments in the history of science that led to the current consensus view of astrophysicists, taking pains to explain essential concepts and discoveries in accessible terminology. The author shows that science’s emerging understanding of the multiverse-consisting of trillions upon trillions of galaxies-is fully explicable in naturalistic terms with no need for supernatural forces to explain its origin or ongoing existence.How can conceptions of God, traditional or otherwise, be squared with this new worldview? The author shows how long-held beliefs will need to undergo major revision or otherwise face eventual extinction.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Victor John Stenger (born 1935) is an American particle physicist, philosopher, author, and religious skeptic; he is also a regular featured science columnist for the Huffington Post. He has written many other books, such as

⭐,

⭐,

⭐,

⭐,

⭐, etc.He wrote in the Prologue to this 2014 book, “Inflation [of the universe] strongly implies that our universe is not alone but is just one of an unlimited number of universes in what has been termed the ‘multiverse.’ This multiverse exists endlessly in space and time. It had no beginning, no creation. It always existed and always will… The aim of ‘God and the Multiverse’ is to show how the current picture of our vast universe and the real possibility of multiple universes developed over the millennia since humans first looked at the sky and asked what was out there. We will examine how the ancient notion of a supernatural creation arose to explain what eventually became explicable by purely natural processes.” (Pg. 18)He adds in the Preface, “In this book I … examine how humanity’s view of the cosmos has dramatically changed over the last ten thousand years… We will explore how the disciplines of particle physics and cosmology have collaborated to give a common picture of a boundless and eternal multiverse in which our universe is just one among countless others and has neither a beginning nor an end. Of course, the existence of other universes besides our own has not been empirically established—at least not yet. We will see that the verification of the multiverse is not beyond the realm of possibility.” (Pg. 19)He gives a lengthy history of ancient to modern cosmology, noting that “Today there is no dispute that [Georges] Lemaître was the first to associate the redshifts of galaxies with the expansion of the universe. However, Lemaître was not an observer, and theories in science are useless without data to verify them. [Edwin] Hubble’s role… was to provide the clinching observations.” (Pg. 158) Later, he adds, “[Edward Arthur] Milne’s theory suffered the fate of most theories that put too much emphasis on reason, logic, and mathematics… and not enough on data: it failed to provide a falsifiable empirical test. In science, a theory that is not falsifiable is history… and so Milne’s cosmology was ultimately ignored as general relativistic cosmology and the big bang, aided by developments in submicroscopic physics came to the fore.” (Pg. 167)Still later, he states, “In science, a model that is not falsifiable is not science. But when a model passes a very risky, falsifiable test … it earns the right to be taken seriously. Still, a note of caution must be added based on the history of science. Even when a model passes a test that could have falsified it, this does not mean that the model has been proved conclusively and will not someday be superseded by a better model.” (Pg. 265)In chapter 15 [“The Eternal Multiverse] he further cautions us, “The reader should keep in mind that I do not claim to depict what actually exists in some ultimate, metaphysical reality… my philosophical position is that we cannot access precise knowledge of that reality. All we can do is make observations, as quantitative as possible, and describe those with mathematical models. These are based on our own human notions, operationally defined, such as time, space, and temperature… it is a simplified model and certainly not the final word.” (Pg. 309)He states, “we can’t look forward to a ‘big crunch’ in which the expansion stops, the universe contracts back down … and everything begins all over again. This ‘oscillatory universe’ was once very popular, but that was before the discovery of dark energy… If the source of dark energy is a cosmological constant, or something that looks very much like it, the energy density will remain constant while the radiation and matter die away and the universe continues to expand forever.” (Pg. 316-317)He critiques Christian apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig, who “proceed[s] to argue, without theoretical proof of empirical evidence, that anything that begins has a cause and, in the case of the universe, in a huge leap of incongruity, that cause must be the personal God of Christianity… Craig has come up with yet another argument for everything having a beginning and thus a creator. If it did not, Craig says, then it would have begun an infinite time ago, in which case we would never have reached the present… However… an eternal universe would not have had a beginning, an infinite time ago. It had no beginning… there is no reason for it to have an end. Cosmology indicates that our current universe will simply go on expanding forever… even if we can identify a point in the past as the beginning of the big bang, that need not have been the beginning of everything. If there is no end, there must be no beginning.” (Pg. 317-320)Of his own theories, he states, “While I cannot prove this is how our universe came to be, no one has proved that it did not. That is, we have a plausible scenario for the natural, uncreated origin of the universe based on established physics and cosmology. It … strikes me as by far the simplest since it requires no new assumptions… If nothing else, the biverse serves to refute any claim that our universe could have originated only by means of a supernatural creation.” (Pg. 327)He suggests, “A common argument against other universes is that we have no way of ever observing them. However, perhaps we can. Early in our universe another universe may have been sufficiently close for its gravity to affect the isotropy of the CMB. Or, the bubbles may have collided, leaving a bruise on each. A detection of a large-scale anisotropy in the CMB could provide evidence for a universe outside our own. The Planck space telescope has confirmed several unexplained anomalies of this nature… Since the observation of another universe beside our own would be the greatest scientific discovery in history, don’t expect any cosmologists to make such a claim until they have ruled out every other possibility … In the case of Planck, the investigating team has not deemed the evidence sufficiently significant to make any published claim… At some point, our theories may be able to make a prediction of the quantitative derivation from spherical symmetry expected in the multiverse model. And, at some point, the CMB data from future experiments may become sufficiently precise to test that prediction. This would make the multiverse hypothesis falsifiable. This prospect alone should be sufficient to permit the notion of multiple universes to remain a part of legitimate scientific discourse.” (Pg. 333)He asserts, “The multiverse provides a very simple, purely natural, solution to the fine-tuning problem. Suppose our universe is just one of an unlimited number of individual universes that extend for an unlimited distance in all directions and for an unlimited time in the past and future. If that’s the case, we just happen to live in that universe that is suited for our kind of life. Our particular universe is not fine-tuned to us; we are fine-tuned to it… Note the multiverse does not need to be proved to exist to refute fine-tuning claims. It just must be plausible. Those who dispute this have the burden of proving otherwise. This they have not done.” (Pg. 351) Later, he adds, “The fine-tuners are … wrong to reject the multiverse solution as ‘unscientific.’ It is not unscientific to speculate about invisible, unconfirmed phenomena that are predicted by existing models that, so far, agree with all the available data.” (Pg. 364)He contends, “Why is there something rather than nothing, that is, why is there ‘being’ rather than ‘nonbeing’? … I have a simple retort… Why should nonbeing… be the default state of existence rather than being? Why is some creative act needed to convert nonbeing to being?… If nonbeing is the natural state, then why is there God? Once theologians assert that there is a God as opposed to nonbeing, they can’t turn around and demand a cosmologist explain why there is a universe as opposed to nonbeing. They claim God is a necessary entity. Why can’t a godless universe be a necessary entity?” (Pg. 368) He adds, “we must recognize that currently God is an additional hypothesis not required by the data… we know of no observed fact that requires the existence of God. Indeed, many observed facts that are inconsistent with the God hypothesis serve to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a God who plays an active role in the universe and in human lives does not exist… God has left no footprints in the snows of time.” (Pg. 371)He concludes, “cosmologists have inferred that our universe is but one in an unbounded, eternal multiverse that contains an unlimited number of other universes. Although one has not yet been observed, the possibility exists that another universe may have left a detectable imprint on ours. While the multiverse hypothesis is hardly confirmed, it has sufficient backing to take it seriously and consider the philosophical and theological consequences.” (Pg. 372)Whether or not one agrees with all of Stenger’s proposals and conclusions, this is a book that will be “must reading” for anyone interested in such cosmological theories.

⭐The conducting and reporting of scientific research requires a degree of intellectual honesty, both personal and public, that is usually not required in religion and politics. Typically, the goal of the latter two is control, both personal and public, and any counterexamples found to its dogmas or beliefs are usually dealt with by force, censorship, or marketing hype. False professionalism, namely the feigning of intellectual competence, is characteristic of many who inhabit these areas, and evidence or supporting data is usually thought of as a necessary evil instead of a guide for decisions or revisions of thought. There are only a few examples that the reviewer is aware of where sound, scientific and constructive inquiry takes place in the fields of religion and politics.This book, with its dramatic and beautifully designed cover, is not of course free of marketing hype, but within its pages one will find a highly interesting and informative account of the physics and astronomy behind some of the new conceptions that are beginning to be hotly debated among physicists and astronomers. It also serves as a counterweight to those assertions made by religious apologists who want to use astrophysical research to support their beliefs as to the divine origin of the things that be. Both the author and the religionists he quotes are biased, but the author is aware of his biases and freely admits them, knowing full well that a privileged apodictic point of view is not possible in science (or even desired).Along these lines, the author describes himself as being an instrumentalist, and promotes instrumentalism as the view that the models built by scientists don’t correspond exactly to reality. His opinion on the reality of quantum fields in the book is a clear example of his stance on the “ontological status” of scientific models. He is careful to distance himself though from some religious apologists who want to label him and others as subscribing to what is called “ontological pluralism”, which as the name implies assets that there are many independent “valid” realities. Some readers, even of a purely scientific persuasion, may object to the instrumentalist “worldview”, and might be tempted, because of its emphasis on empirical results, to classify it as yet another manifestation of positivism, the latter of which has become almost a dirty word in some professional circles in the philosophy of science.One should not view the contents of this book as promoting an instrumentalist worldview however, and there are many surprising scientific facts that will be encountered between its covers, even for readers with a solid background in physics or astronomy. One example of this is the discussion of the entropy at the Planck time, and another is the discussion (albeit brief) on the ACDM model. And as is always the case in rational discussion of physical models, charts and data abound. For readers who are pressed for time and are not able to consult the original literature, these are welcome additions.One could argue perhaps that the author has wasted page space in attempting to refute or even address the arguments of religionists such as William Lane Craig and Robin Collins that the author feels he has to deal with in this book, even if they appear to be “physics savvy” as the author describes them. These individuals, as well as physicists who are interested in this problem, need to show that life, even if based strictly on carbon chemistry, would be impossible without the “fine-tuning” hypothesis. To show this would require a solution of the bound state problem in quantum field theory, which to this date is the major unsolved problem in quantum field theory. But the reviewer has not found any written record that fine-tuning religious apologists are interested in solving physics problems of this kind, difficult as they are and requiring massive commitments of time and resources. As it stands, and the author gives several examples showing the weaknesses of their assertions, colloquially speaking their arguments are to be viewed as a slice of bread lying in a bowl of milk. When picked up for examination, it falls to pieces.

⭐Having read a few of these types of cosmology for the layman books in my opinion this is one of the best. Some of the concepts are difficult to comprehend but the author does a cracking job of breaking down these ideas into manageable chunks that fit together nicely for the reader. The information is based on the latest data available at the time of print which becomes apparent early on. The structure is well thought out with a clear timeline throughout. The emphasis is more on the science rather than theology which suits me fine but may be a disappointment for some readers. This was the authors last book before he sadly past away in August 2014 and in my view he saved the best till last.

⭐Rather confused popular science book. God and the Multiverse are discussed only in the final two chapters so I do not quite understand the title. This is simply a history of astronomy and latterly cosmology. Aimed at the general reader it can be quite technical at times and assumes the reader has an extensive knowledge and understanding of physics–at least to graduate level. Also poorly written with many typing errors. Was very disappointed with this book. There are far better popular books out there covering these subjects.

⭐Great product, swift delivery. Thanks.

⭐The very best book that I have read for many years. A book that I must read several times to fully understand and absorb the cosmological update Victor provides without excessive jargon. I can recommend this book to all amateur astronomers who retain a vestige of religious faith that was not shattered by the Hubble Space Telescope images.

⭐Good book . . . but for a person who doesn’t know very much about astrophysics it’s a little over my head. Haven’t finished the book yet, but I will read it to the end any way. I’m sure I’ll learn something however difficult it is to understand.

Keywords

Free Download God and the Multiverse: Humanity’s Expanding View of the Cosmos in PDF format
God and the Multiverse: Humanity’s Expanding View of the Cosmos PDF Free Download
Download God and the Multiverse: Humanity’s Expanding View of the Cosmos 2014 PDF Free
God and the Multiverse: Humanity’s Expanding View of the Cosmos 2014 PDF Free Download
Download God and the Multiverse: Humanity’s Expanding View of the Cosmos PDF
Free Download Ebook God and the Multiverse: Humanity’s Expanding View of the Cosmos