Complexity of the universe, why?

August 23, 2014. Why has the universe/multi-verse emerged or been created with such complexity? Was there no alternative? Does the complexity of the universe point to intelligence or random lack of it? Would a genuinely intelligent source create a universe so infinitely and bizarrely complex?

Complications are innumerable; to name a few: singularities, black holes (singularities or portals?), sub-atomic particles of all kinds with variable electric charges, invisible energy, invisible mass, near zero mass photons, electrons, quarks, neutrinos, and particle/wave duality. Atoms exist with almost zero mass, yet function with an alleged uncertainty principle in which near zero mass within atoms seems randomly and totally filled with electromagnetic fields. And how about E=MC squared? The speed of light (186000 mps) squared is unimaginably fast. Do such seemingly unnecessary complexities point towards intelligent design? Or do they not rather signal random emergence from nothingness? (Even nothingness, as we know it, is filled with micro-entities.)

An opposite set of complexities would point beyond random nothingness to an intelligence working inside-out within the whole of the solar system. The sun has to burn at just the precise temperature not to freeze or fry the planet. The moon seems indispensable for tides and life as we know it. Earth must orbit at just the right position and tilt. Antarctic currents spur other life-giving currents world-wide, and trigger atmospheric and indispensable electric grids, which shield the earth and occasion primal life-forms in oceans, etc. All coincidence?

Beyond earth’s solar system endless other factors had to be “just so” for the big bang to occur, for mass to form, or for galaxies not to implode or expand too quickly, to name just three examples.

In response, string theorists (about the origin of the cosmos) wonder whether these “just so” occurrences can be explained by the existence of endless universes, which would make this one mathematically possible. Wow, that’s a leap of faith! Of course, there’s no evidence of such a multi-verse, let alone one numerically infinite.
In short, though all these coincidences may not yet constitute proof, they seem to point beyond randomness to an intelligent source behind this planet and perhaps many other planets, which are similarly suitable for living beings who “think for themselves” without always yielding to indoctrination by religious, scientific, or other cultural leaders. Religious leaders are not the only ones for whom the “laity” must take enormous leaps of faith. As much as we can, we need to “think for ourselves.” What do you think?

3 Comments

  1. Laura August 11, 2014 at 11:03 pm #

    It is very difficult to try and concentrate about all the wonderful complex variables and at the same time, make sure I am thinking for myself. Are my thoughts (about the little information I understand of the universe) already too concrete? Will it be difficult to try and look at new perspectives? I hope not! I appreciate the questions you have posted involving such a profound topic.

    • Roderick Hindery August 13, 2014 at 3:06 pm #

      Laura, your insightful concern about how overly concrete and specific data might overload our thinking and interfere with autonomous thinking suggests the following analogy. If viewers stand too close to an impressionistic painting, they may conclude too quickly that they perceive only a faded jumble of random dots and splotches. But if they step back far enough, their perspective morphs into a coherent and intelligent painting. Similarly, scientists who stand too closely to the data they’ve uncovered may perceive a vague picture randomly and not very intelligently coherent.

      But if they step back to view all the “just so” occurrences which happen in the solar system and universe (like solar temperature having to be “just right” not to freeze or fry our planet, or like boson conditions having to be “just right” to enable mass to form) they may well arrive at a different perspective. They may conclude that if cosmic complexities are viewed from a more distanced perspective, the data suggest and reveal an innate intelligence within. Data overload is one of the most effective ways we can indoctrinate ourselves or others, unless we back away to perceive how the data disclose a more coherent and meaningful view of things.

  2. Dredd August 21, 2015 at 2:11 pm #

    Good points Mr. Hindery.

    It is useful to rebel against complexity propaganda with soothing simplicity sometimes (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion – 48).

Leave a Reply