The Believing Brain - Michael Shermer [178]
How can a universe create itself? The answer has to do with the total energy of the universe, which Hawking and Mlodinow state must be constant and always remain zero. Since it costs energy to create a body such as a star or planet, locally there are non-zero energy imbalances. “Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the earth and the moon,” the authors explain. “This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter.” But how do entire universes arise? “On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.… Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” Although the authors admit that the theory has yet to be confirmed by observation, if it is, then no creator explanation is necessary because the universe creates itself. I call this auto ex nihilo.
At present there is no positive evidence for the multiverse hypothesis, but neither is there positive evidence for the traditional answer to the question: God. For both hypotheses we are left with the reductio ad absurdum question of What came before the multiverse or God? If God is defined as that which does not need to be created, then why can’t the multiverse be defined as that which does not need to be created? Perhaps both are eternal and need no creation explanation. In any case, we have only negative evidence along the lines of “I can’t think of any other explanation,” which is no evidence at all.
If there is one lesson that the history of science has taught us, it is that it is arrogant to think that we now know enough to know that we cannot know. So for the time being it comes down to cognitive and emotional preference: an answer with only negative evidence or no answer at all. God, multiverse, or unknown. Which one you choose depends on your own belief journey and how much you want to believe.
Epilogue
The Truth Is Out There
When I call myself a skeptic I simply mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. Science is skepticism and scientists are naturally skeptical. Scientists have to be skeptical because most claims turn out to be false. Weeding out the few kernels of wheat from the substantial pile of chaff requires extensive observation, careful experimentation, and cautious inference to the best conclusion.
What makes science so potent is that there is a well-defined method for getting at answers to questions about the world—a world that is real and knowable. Where philosophy and theology depend on logic and reason and thought experiments, science employs empiricism, evidence, and observational experiments. It is the only hope we have of avoiding the trap of belief-dependent realism.
Science and the Null Hypothesis
Science begins with something called a null hypothesis. Although statisticians mean something very specific about this (having to do with comparing different sets of data), I am using the term null hypothesis in its more general sense: the hypothesis under investigation is not true, or null, until proven otherwise. A null hypothesis states that X does not cause Y. If you think X does cause Y then the burden of proof is on you to provide convincing experimental data to reject the null hypothesis.
The statistical standards of proof needed to reject the null hypothesis are substantial. Ideally, in a controlled experiment, we would like to be at least 95 to 99 percent confident that the results were not due to chance before we offer our provisional assent that the effect may be real. Everyone is familiar with the process already through news stories about the FDA approving a new drug after extensive