Next up in our list of discussion topics is the origin of the universe. I’ll confess that I’ve long wondered why so many people get riled up about evolution but don’t seem to have much trouble with the universe itself. Presumably it is simply because “man” doesn’t really show up much. However, if you think about it, the same kind of thinking that lies behind biological evolution lies behind most cosmology. The same anthropic reasoning that one often finds in evolution pops up in cosmological discussions as well. One quickly realizes that if any of the basic constants of physics or of the evolution of the universe varied much, human life would be impossible. Some calculate the probabilities of having a universe arranged just right physically so as to develop an earth. (I’ll not give them – Google them if you’re interested in various speculations.) They make most evolutionary probabilities look downright common.

So it seems to some religious people that the universe must be crafted in such a way that it formed “just right” for life. Further, as most know, most modern physics points to a “big bang” or absolute “beginning” to the universe. Now for most religious people this is a great way to invoke God. God got the universe started, and did so in such a fashion that man was possible.

Now before Mormons start joining in on that chorus, consider a major problem. Mormons believe that we were co-eternal with God and that there was no absolute beginning. Now ignoring the philosophical issues of such an infinite past, consider the scientific problem. If there really is a Big Bang then Mormon doctrinal claims are impossible. (At least as constituted in traditional LDS theology — but we all recognize that LDS theology is a moving target, much like science itself.) How can this be resolved?

One way out goes back to the Russian physicist Andrei Linde (now at Stanford). He suggested, with an appeal to quantum mechanics, that instead of there being just one universe, there may be an infinite number. Further, each universe forms from a prior universe. This notion often is called inflationary universes (a poor term, since there are other senses of inflation in cosmology) or bubble universes. Surprisingly, Linde’s notion has caught on surprisingly well among theoretical physicists. Some, like physicist Lee Smolin, suggest that the state of one universe affects the state of all “daughter” universes. This allows something quite like evolution to occur on a multiverse level. This has led Smolin to argue, against some other physicists, that the very notion of an anthropic principle is unneeded. The reason is obvious: Just as evolution explains that man doesn’t arise by “pure chance” but via survival of the fittest and various feedback routes, so too does universal evolution. One might also add that with inflationary universes there will be an infinite number of universes and in at least one of these there will be the conditions necessary for our kind of life.

Now the obvious argument against the bubble universes is that they are speculative and ungrounded in empirical evidence. However, to be fair, nearly everything theoretical physicists have been doing the last 20 years is ungrounded in empirical evidence. There’s not a lot of evidence for superstring theory, for instance. Further, even the Big Bang model has come under criticism by various cosmologists. They note that there is an abundant lack of strong evidence for dark matter and suggest that dark matter and dark energy might turn out to be a “fudge factor” to maintain the current physics models.

Now I suspect dark matter will survive these critiques. Further, there is always a danger of tying one’s notions to the moving target of current theoretical models. Most importantly, everything that happens in the early moments of the universe, prior to the planck time, is really largely hand waving. I say that because prior to planck time quantum gravity rules, and we just don’t have a trustworthy theory of quantum gravity just yet (cries of superstring and loop quantum gravity proponents notwithstanding).

This means that there really isn’t any stable notion of the origin of the universe in physics. However, to the degree there is one, it seems that Linde’s model is a great way to reconcile certain aspects of Mormon theology with physics. Having said that though there is one gaping hole in the reconciliation. Thus far, from what I’ve been able to see, there is no claim that significant information flow between universes is possible. That is, you can’t move between universes the way one might move between solar systems. Even people like Smolin who argue for some information flow generally take it as the boundary conditions on the big bang of the new universe. Why does that matter?

Well, being speculative, that means that if we as spirits entered this universe, we had to enter in at the beginning. Furthermore, any entity that appears within the universe did as well. Problematic? Perhaps.

Here’s the more controversial point: If God is outside of the universe, at least according to some period of his subjective time, does he see our universe as a whole (in four dimensions)? The implication of such a view is that certain views of free will become invalidated. Further, if we do allow “more robust” movement between universes, as I suspect many might prefer, then such four-dimensionalism is required. (After all, it is nonsensical to compare the flow of time between universes so as to get a “now” — if one can move between universes outside their beginnings, it seems likely one could move to any time within the universe.)

Of course, I should once again caution that with regard to the origin of the universe, no one really knows. It simply isn’t a subject on which one can be dogmatic. It may turn out that many of our theories are completely wrong. So I’d suggest that worrying too much about it theologically isn’t really worth the effort.