The Multiverse Theory Supports Creationism's Young Age Hypothesis

Introduction Though not a young earth creationist myself, I recently found some irony with regard to both the Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH hereafter) compared to Young Earth Creationism (YEC hereafter). The Many Worlds Hypothesis MWH employs a world ensemble of real universes so that vast possibilities are actualized; like laws with values necessary for life. In order for MWH to work theorists needed to propose a mechanism for generating so many realities, and inflationary cosmology provided the best shot at a good mechanism. Inflationary cosmology, the mechanism, often contends that our universe is but a small "pocket" within a much larger multiverse. At the heart of the multiverse idea is a theory offered by Alexander Vilenkin sometimes called 'Everlasting Inflation.' For to ensure such a vast array of universes, inflation must be eternal. In Everlasting Inflation, primordial scalar fields yields a slope issuing in many false vacuums which rapidly expand into true vacuums creating "island universes." The enormous expansion rate of these vacuums ensure that they separate exponentially. Each island universe is subdivided into O-regions that have a universe complete with an event horizon. Even though the geometrically closed multiverse is finite, its false vacuum will continue on to potential infinity while true vacuums (observable universes) are continually produced, forever. So from a global view, big bangs occur simultaneously as the false vacuum expands. The whole theory presupposes the B-theory of time (which is a compatible, static-like ruler view of time as opposed to the A theory--more like a temporal becoming in which actual infinity is impossible, though potential infinity is possible). The Problem There's a problem the theory faces that also plagued Ludwig Boltzmann's many worlds scenario, which is in step with the problem YEC faces; a problem of probable illusionism. Or in other words, If our universe is but a small fleck in a world ensemble, then it's overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a tinier region of thermodynamic disequilibrium than we do. Why? Because a small fluctuation from equilibrium is vastly more probable than the huge, sustained fluctuation necessary to create the universe we see, and yet a small fluctuation would have to be sufficient for our existence on a world ensemble. For example, a fluctuation that formed an orderly region no bigger than our solar system would be enough for us to be alive and would be incomprehensibly more likely to occur than a fluctuation that formed the whole orderly universe we see! Meaning the MWH lends itself to the same type of bizarre illusionism YEC does; our biological, astronomical, geological age estimates would be wrong, giving the appearance of an old earth, while having a young age. This forced the majority of scientists to reject Boltzmann's theory. For that sort of world is much more probable than a universe that has, in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics, moved away from equilibrium for billions of years to form the universe we observe. Conclusion Our best of Bayesian application together with the current evidence base, specifically the low entropy state of the early universe, shows that the multiverse, normally accepted as science, is the best hope for creationism, which is normally rejected as unscientific. Citations A paper explaining the Many Worlds Ensemble, http://cdsweb.cern.ch... A paper explaining the Paradox, http://arxiv.org... A paper on Boltzmann’s Brains, http://arxiv.org...