Humanism - The Dangers Of Believing In Parallel Worlds | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,204
Clay Farris Naff

Science Writer, Editor, Broadcaster and Blogger

Brian Greene, the people's physicist, is everywhere these days. He's appearing on behalf of his new book, The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Indeed, if we take him at his word, he may be making an infinite number of appearances to promote it. That ought to please his publisher.

But it should not necessarily please us. The ideas at the heart of Greene's book are both unproven (as he cheerfully admits) and corrosive. They violate what I call "The Moral Principle." Not to worry, I will explain. But first, some context.

Big Ideas, such as Newton's universal gravity, Darwin's descent with change from a common ancestor, and Einstein's relativity, are tremendous achievements in science. More than monuments in intellectual history, they make everyday life better. Newton laid the framework for flight; Darwin's theory makes new cures possible; and Einstein's relativity enables GPS, to name a few "apps."

All the same, Big Ideas have a way of filtering into popular culture, where they sometimes mutate and do harm. The prime example is eugenics, a mishmash of Darwin's theory of evolution and Herbert Spencer's political philosophy.

Invented by Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin's, this pseudoscience caught the imagination of many powerful nonscientists, ranging from Theodore Roosevelt to Adolph Hitler. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for people in power to imagine that they know bad genes when they see them. The harm that followed was appalling. Forced sterilization, institutionalization of "{censored}s," and, some say, the Holocaust.

Opponents of evolution like to argue that Darwin's theory was responsible for all these ills. This is demonstrable nonsense, but even if the charge were valid I would resolutely defend the teaching and application of evolutionary theory for one simple reason: all the evidence supports it. Evolution, as an explanation for the diversity and common ancestry of life, towers above other major scientific theories as the best supported, most coherent and most fruitful of them all.

Contrast that with the conjecture of parallel universes. It grows out of quantum physics. That's a problem to begin with: Quantum theory, though experimentally verified to an astonishing number of decimal places, is incomplete. Something in our understanding is wrong, because it doesn't fit with the also verified theory of general relativity. Quantum and gravity theories mix like oil and politics.

Greene and many others believe that string theory may resolve that conflict. Indeed, it might. But string theory exists entirely in dense mathematics. None of it can so far be tested, and much of it lies beyond confirmation in principle. Yet, from these mathematical speculations arise conjectures of parallel universes set in an infinite multiverse. It's quite a leap.

Let's get specific. There are numerous varieties of parallel universe conjectures. The late Hugh Everett III created the Many Worlds theory to explain how quantum "choices," such as whether a beam light will be a wave or a packet of particles, are made. He argued that at every decision point, the universe splits in two, with the decision being realized in opposite ways in each new whole. Possible, but profoundly absurd.

More recently, the mathmanauts who explore string theory have found hints that the gigantic bubble we inhabit may be just one of an infinite number of such bubbles, each a random dice-roll of particles and laws. That's where the trouble starts. For, if true, it means that every possible variation exists, and not only exists, but exists an infinite number of times. So, as in Star Trek, there are worlds where the Roman Empire never fell, worlds where Hitler won and so on. But there are also worlds that are precise duplicates of ours -- indeed, an infinite number of such worlds.

Though there be method in it, that way madness lies.

Enter, the Moral Principle. It states that we should resist accepting any proposition that tends to disable moral reasoning, unless and until the scientifically interpreted evidence compels us.

I honed this principle in the context of my critique of religion, but it applies, for example, to the secular idea of the philosopher's zombie. The Moral Principle prevents us from accepting the idea that anyone else is a zombie who appears to be just like any other person, except that there's no real consciousness inside. If we were to accept that idea, there would be no moral barrier to torturing or murdering "zombies." In fact, it would be much like Hitler's dehumanization of the Jews.

Now, please don't think that I am accusing Brian Greene of any such intent, let alone any misdeed. He seems to be a likable man, and he's clearly brilliant. His ideas are sound, and he is careful to qualify his claims.

The danger lies in how they take root in popular culture. If we come to believe that choices do not matter, that any action is matched by its opposite somewhere, we risk losing our capacity for moral reasoning. History shows that, inbuilt though that capacity may be, ideas can short-circuit it.

In short, what I am saying is that those of us who are NOT so brilliant as to be able to follow the math need to resist being seduced by visions of parallel bubbles in a multiverse. They may exist. Indeed, I think it likely that they do.

Whether they exist in untrammeled profusion, however, is another question. It is one that has to be weighed against the possibility that, orderly as our universe generally is, there may be a higher order to the arrangement of the multiverse. In fine, lacking definitive evidence we need to keep alive the possibility of a moral order. If there is indeed a multiverse, it may yet prove to be but a part of the ultiverse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clay-naff/the-danger-of-believing-i_b_817349.html
 

Seeker9

Cleverness is not wisdom
SPNer
May 3, 2010
650
980
UK
Enter, the Moral Principle. It states that we should resist accepting any proposition that tends to disable moral reasoning, unless and until the scientifically interpreted evidence compels us.
Interesting article although I'm not sure I understand why the multiverse interpretation of Quantum Physics should give anyone an excuse to reckless abandonment of what they know to be fundamentally right or wrong

Even if there are multiple versions of existence, and some are incredibly close to your own reality, you're not going to switch are you?

That at least is still very much the stuff of Science Fiction......
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,204
Seeker9 ji


My impression has been for some time that a pop science understanding of Quantum Physics, the Quantum Soup, and string theory resulted in distortion of scientific discovery in the first instance, and psueoscientific speculation in the second and third examples. What happens is that by misunderstanding, the quantum "universe," a very respectable psychological model of multiple realities has also been distorted.

If one argues that multiple realities have a scientific basis, then the idea of "verifiable fact" evaporates as a meaningful term. At that point there is no "right" or "wrong" in the phenomenal world. It is a short hop to the idea that goodness and wickedness are fictions. At that point the moral principle, or more generally, principles of morality, lose their meaning as well.

The psychological theories of multiple realities have been wrongly linked to quantum theory in the popular imagination. Amorality is the logical result of this paradigm that confuses the science of quantum theory with distorted, popular theories of the mind.

Not science, but "a little learning," " is a dangerous thing."
 

Seeker9

Cleverness is not wisdom
SPNer
May 3, 2010
650
980
UK
Hmmnn..ok...I understand what you say

Just seems a bit convoluted though....

People will believe what they want to believe and distort and re translate to suit themselves...
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,204
Just seems a bit convoluted though....
Seeker9 ji

That is probably because I made it complicated. Too much detail. Here is the simple form of what I was saying earlier. I was trying to explain that popular interpretations of quantum theory/string theory, and popular theories of "mind" are twisted. One is used to support the other.

Both quantum theory and modern psychology discuss multiple realities. In both the rightness or wrongness of "facts" is dependent on changing, subjective perceptions. This does not help the cause of morality or ethics. We can never have morality, if we are unable to see some actions as clearly right and others as clearly wrong. In a scenario where all realities are equally true or valid, there is no right or wrong.

The unfortunate side of this is that neither quantum theory nor modern psychology are properly understood by popular audiences. A little learning is a dangerous thing.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

istock_000003997254xsmall~s600x600.jpgThis week I took inspiration from the SPN jukebox. Literal English translation by Sant Singh Khalsa in black, my understanding in green underneath...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top