Godless Multiverse—Part 2

There is another fascinating aspect to the multiverse idea that some researchers have noted: It not only offers a solution to cosmologists who are exploring different fields of research, but it accords with some ancient religious beliefs. Hindu cosmology describes our current universe as the latest manifestation of periodic cycles of existence. This concept describes how each universe was once born and then dies, followed by the rise of a continuing infinite sequence of universes. Some Buddhist theologies posit the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, right now. So the Hindu view perceives and infinite string of universes, one after another; while the Buddhist view posits an endless existence of universes—spread across space, rather than time.

In ancient Greece (some 500 years BCE) a few philosophers described an atomistic universe—a very prescient idea, given that the existence of atoms was not verified for another 2500 years or so. Their concept was that our universe—or any universe—is composed of an infinite number of atoms that randomly collide and form the material components of existence. Those Greek atomists were consciously offering an alternative to the then-current view, that gods had created our universe. They especially opposed the practice of people making sacrifices (often human) to the gods, in order to appease them. So here we have a fascinating convergence of a current scientific theory with ancient religious beliefs.

I find it compelling that physicists and theologians are both making assumptions in their explanations of existence that are untestable and even possibly unrealistic. In the case of cosmologists, for example, they assume that the laws of physics that we have discovered in our universe prevail in other universes. We don't know that. (We don't even know if they exist.) We may never know that. Thus, even if the cosmological parameters are allowed to randomly vary, these cosmologists posit the fact that the basic laws of physics must prevail everywhere. That is a debatable assumption.

I find these scientific and theological conjectures fascinating, but also seem to be stemming from a similar place. They both represent humanity's attempts to explain our world, from whatever perspective speaks to each camp. Although religious and scientific points of view have often been at odds with each other, there is some common ground here. Science and religion have feuded for a few hundred years now, and the feud has often become acerbic. It's too bad that each of them can't let go of their narrow perspective and join together in exploring these issues.