From a review of Leonard Susskind’s The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design with the author’s words quoted:
Susskind says, “By now most string theorists have realized that, although their theory may be correct, their aspirations were incorrect. The theory itself is demanding to be seen as a theory of diversity, not uniqueness.” (pg 274) Susskind thinks that this is something of `religious’ importance because he thinks that if there exists a mind-bogglingly huge enough number of universes (10 to the 500th power and growing), then inevitably ours, however unique or special it may seem to those of us who contemplate its apparently fine-tuned laws, is just a `run of the mill’ inevitability. He believes that such an ensemble construction can make the world a safer place for non-theists and for philosophical materialism generally: “If String Theory itself is wrong, perhaps because it is mathematically inconsistent, it will fall by the wayside and, with it, the String Theory Landscape. But if that does happen, then as things stand now, we would be left with no other rational explanation for the illusion of a designed universe.” (pg 355) He suggests that “many scientists” do not live up to their “moral” duty and calling, by sufficiently resisting the possibility that our universe is as special as it has come to be seen since the “cosmic coincidences” began to be catalogued in the 1980s. His persistent metaphysical insistence is that the appearance of design MUST be an “illusion.” Of course, when one begins with this metaphysical demand, it is virtually inevitable that one concludes with it too. What Susskind seems unable to notice, is that, theologically speaking, he’s just mashing his face against a wall. Indeed the `megaverse’ conjecture is of significant interest to theologians (who have never had any reason to doubt God’s interest in diversity), but while it may stimulate theological discussions, it hardly puts the theologian out of business! In this regard, the theological conception of a First Cause of causes is (obviously) mathematically scalar, and the big question “why is our world special” would simply give way to a now bigger question, “why a huge ensemble of worlds perhaps infinitely diverse?” As Aristotle and Leibniz asked, “why is their something . . .” Any argument in which design and purpose could be said to have been eliminated by string/brane theory’s “megaverse”, seems naïve and is easily enough sacked. If Susskind intended to wax theological, he should have taken a couple of minutes to investigate his topic. For reasons cited above, the subtitle that has been affixed to this title is misleading, whether Susskind understands that it is or not.
The subtitle of the book points to Intelligent Design, calling it an “illusion”. This is an indirect admission that the universe “appears to be designed”. Mr. Susskin goes on to say that if his theory (unsupported by observations of “other universes”) is wrong — then there is no rational argument against the Intelligent Design proposal.
I find this an amazing concession about the strength of Intelligent Design ideas. Mr. Susskind admits that there is presently no rational defense against ID theory, with the exception of his own theory, which itself could “fall apart”.
Beyond this, as the reviewer states above, the proposal of a huge number of universes or perhaps an infinite number does not solve very much scientifically or philosophically. We would be stuck with the unknown origin of those universes, as well as the many problems that follow from an infinite string of self-generating universes.
I’d put it this way, if the multiverse/string theory is the best defense available against ID theory, then that is a very strong statement in itself. It certainly says a lot about any scientist who dismisses ID theory as if it is some kind of joke. It also leads to some important questions about why scientists like Mr. Susskind, after admitting that ID is consistent with the obvious appearance of design in the universe (which he calls “an illusion”), do not investigate the evidence on the existence of God with an open mind.
He reluctantly and indirectly admits that the existence of God (supreme, purposeful intelligence directing/designing the universe) is relevant. Why not leave that as one rational possibility and then seek out the evidence given to support it?
Is there more evidence that God exists than there is direct, observed evidence of a multiverse? That’s an important question, especially for a scientist who claims that his own theory is the only possible argument against Intelligent Design theory.
More on the concept of cosmological fine-tuning:
There has been considerable debate lately in the physics community over an idea called the “anthropic cosmological principle” (Barrow and Tipler, 1986; Barrow, 2002; Susskind, 2003). According to this idea, the universe is made just right for life to occur. As one author puts it, “The universe must be suitable for life, otherwise we would not be here to wonder about it” (Overbye, 2003). There are numerous features and mathematical constants in the equations of physics and cosmology which do not seem predictable by any known theory, and which seem to be miraculously tuned to allow life. Any slight deviation from these settings would be disastrous, causing things like stars to collapse and atoms to evaporate. One of the most striking examples of the anthropic principle is the cosmological constant, a number that measures the amount of cosmic repulsion caused by the energy in empty space (Carroll and Press 1992). As predicted by quantum theory, empty space should be brimming with this energy. In fact, recent discoveries have shown that cosmic repulsion is indeed present and seems to be helping in the expansion of the universe. However, the observed cosmological constant (lambda) is perhaps as much as 1,000 times lower than its estimated value (Weinberg, 1989; Carroll and Press, 1992). So why is the cosmological constant what it is? Why is it different from that expected based upon mathematical formulas? It is at this point that people invoke the anthropic principle.
The anthropic principle is often used as a religious argument for special creation with reasoning like this, “The reason our universe is so peculiar and well-fitted to life is because the Creator wanted (willed) it to be that way for the formation of life.” Dr. Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate from the University of Texas, puts it like this. “A person is dealt a royal flush in a poker tournament. It may be chance, but on the other hand, the organizer of the tournament may be our friend” (Overbye, 2003; Susskind, 2003).
Jerome Goddard – Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences, July 2005
