Multiverse, M-theory, and God the Creator

Wojciech P. Grygiel

AbstrACt: From a physical point of view, the no-boundary Hartle-Hawking model put
forward in 1983 was an attempt to demonstrate that the incorporation of quantum effects into
the general theory of relativity would solve the problem of singularities that make the theory
of relativity incomplete. this was achieved by imposing the so called “no-boundary condi-
tions” whereby the Universe could emerge with non-zero probability from a non-existing
state. stephen Hawking quickly turned this result into a metaphysical claim that physical
laws explained away the necessity of the Divine intervention at the origin of the Universe.
this paper offers an inquiry into the line of arguments presented by Hawking and Mlodinow
in their book The Grand Design and supported with the claim that the yet unknown version
of the superstring theory, the M-theory, is an ultimate theory of the Universe. the upshot of
the paper is that although the argument in the Grand Design relies on the newer achievements
of physics embedded in the controversial multi-verse setting, it does not escape the ques-
tion of the origin of the most general laws of physics that bring the Universe into existence.

INtrODUCtION

t He DOCtrINe OF CreAtION of the Universe ex nihilo by an entirely free

act of the Divine will is one of the central tenets of the Christian theology. In
the thought of the ancient Greece—such as that of the neoplatonists—the origin
of the Universe was perceived as a necessary emanation from a first principle.
the knowledge of such a principle is sufficient for an exhaustive study of nature
by means of a chain of logical deduction whereby the derivation of a complete
set of the laws of nature becomes possible. should such a principle be associated
with the Divine, this purely mental endeavor can be likened to the exploring of
the mind of God.
the advent of Christianity, however, has considerably modified the idea of
creation by insisting on the contingency rather than the necessity of the Universe,
with the contingency being consistent with the free act of the Divine will. thus the
Universe becomes a mystery and the proposed theoretical schemes require their
empirical verification to account for their validity. the contingent character of
the observable Universe, in turn, has provoked inquiry into the possible existence
of a necessary being, leading into the formulation of the proofs of the existence
of God, as exemplified in the works of st. thomas Aquinas (the cosmological
proof). Interestingly enough, however, the observation of the Universe is not the
only strategy for demonstrating the existence of God. st. Anselm’s way, heavily
criticized by st. thomas, was to resort to the exploration of the content of the
notion of God to arrive at the necessity of God’s existence. the thomistic proofs
rely in their entirety on the Aristotelian picture of the world where one of the key

International Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 53, No. 1, Issue 209 (March 2013) pp. 23–35
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ipq20135313
24 WOJCIECH P. GRYGIEL

concepts, that is, causality, bears its fourfold meaning, with the efficient causality
being understood as an action of an agent remaining in a direct contact with the
object moved. It must be emphasized that much of the theological reasoning
concerning creation involves this kind of common sense conceptual basis for its
expression, especially that of creatio continua whereby God continuously bestows
existence upon the Universe.1
It does not seem surprising at all that the formulation and the spectacular success
of such contemporary physical theories as quantum mechanics and the theory of
relativity (not to mention the ongoing efforts towards their unification) has provoked
questions regarding the existence and the nature of a being (whatever that may
mean) that can be considered to be the ultimate reason of all that exists. In other
words, the comprehensive knowledge of how the Universe operates brings back
the question of why the Universe exists and why it follows a specific set of laws in
its evolution. It generated vivid discussions among physicists, philosophers, and
theologians on whether cosmology can give scientific grounds for the idea that God
created the Universe.2
the discussions are by no means finished, for one hears stephen Hawking repeat
the classical question posed by Leibniz of why there is something rather than noth-
ing, and—following einstein—one hears discussions about whether God had any
choice in creating the Universe or whether the notion of the creator of the Universe
can be all together dispensed of. Hawking’s arguments in this regard were boldly
presented in his famous bestseller A Brief History of Time, published in 1988. since
these arguments do take the existence of the Universe as their point of departure,
they can be thought of as a version of the cosmological proof, with the important
qualification that they have been formulated within the context of a conceptual basis
of a physical theory with abstract mathematical structures at its foundation. Although
some of the classical concepts such as time, space, and causality have migrated into
the theoretical language of physics, their meaning has been considerably altered,
e.g., the meaning of causality in the special theory of relativity.
three kinds of answers have been given to Hawking’s discourse on the existence
of God. the most vocal response came from the popular mass media claiming that
science had finally provided the long expected proof that God does not exist. the
highly rhetorical character of these claims combined with the entirely misguided
interpretation of what the theory actually states rids them of any scientific value.
the negative response given to Hawking’s arguments by the theologians, on the
other hand, turned out to be an attempt to evaluate Hawking’s arguments from the
perspective of the standard understanding of the cosmological proof with its proper
conceptual basis.3 Consequently, to answer the questions whether stephen Hawking
does indeed disprove the existence of God demands the so called exegesis of the
theoretical structure of his main weapon in that regard, that is, the Hartle-Hawking
1
Cf. richard swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford UK: Oxford Univ. Press, 2004).
2
William L. Craig and Quentin smith, Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford UK: Clarendon
Press, 1993), pp. 59–84.
3
robin Le Poidevin, “Creation in a Closed Universe, or Have Physicists Disproved the existence of
God?” Religious Studies 27 (1991): 39–48.
MULTIVERSE, M-THEORY, AND GOD THE CREATOR 25

model of the Universe with no boundary conditions. In other words, one needs to
investigate the conclusiveness of Hawking’s statements on the existence of God
and on his role as the Creator of the Universe from within the theory by taking into
account only what is implied by its structure and its conceptual content.
such an analysis has been already suggested by Christopher Isham in a brilliant
study where he demonstrated the virtual irrelevance of the notion of creation as
developed within the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary model for theological discourse.4
some possible philosophical and theological implications and their limits were
exhaustively discussed by Willem b. Drees5 and Joseph M. Życiński.6 First and
foremost, however, the scope of the paper will regard the assessment of the exten-
sion of Hawking’s line of arguments on the existence of God as presented in his
recent book co-authored with Leonard Mlodinov, entitled The Grand Design7 in
the context of the proposed model-dependent realism as an operative ontology of
the theoretical entities. In their persuasive study, the authors attempt to supplement
Hawking’s original conviction on the superfluous character of the hypothesis of the
divine creator by means of the new achievements of physics, namely, the M-theory
and Hawking’s speculative top-down cosmology embedded in the ontology of
the multiverse.
the article is divided into four sections. In the first section, the principles of the
model-dependent realism are laid out with special emphasis on how the concept of
the Universe is to be understood. the second section deals with the basics of the
Hartle-Hawking no-boundary model as it pertains to the exposition of the meaning
of creation ex nihilo in its context (presented in the third section). In the forth sec-
tion, the conceptual novelties of the Grand Design are discussed in order to establish
their impact on the presented attempt to obviate the existence of God. the article
ends with a summary of the matters discussed in its course.

tHe UNIVerse Is tHe tHeOrY

before taking up the analysis of the enhanced line of arguments on the existence of
God by Hawking and Mlodinow, one needs to make several preliminary comments
on what constitutes the universe, as is proper for any type of the cosmological
proof. As typically discussed by theoretical physicists, the idea of the Universe as it
pertains to their inquiry does not correspond to the common sense perception of an
observer-independent reality composed of distinguishable objects such as stars and
galaxies. Although these notions come up quite frequently in Hawking’s discourse,
their content is given solely by the abstract mathematical concepts employed in
the framework of the general theory of relativity. Yet before the publication of the

4
Christopher J. Isham, “Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process” in Physics, Philosophy, and
Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, ed. robert J. russell, William r. stoeger, and George V.
Coyne (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 1988), p. 375.
5
Willem b. Drees, Beyond the Big Bang: Quantum Cosmologies and God (Lasalle IL: Open Court. 1990).
6
Joseph M. Życiński “Metaphysics and epistemology in stephen Hawking’s theory of the Creation of
the Universe,” Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science 31 (1997): 269–84.
7
stephen W. Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (London UK: bentam Press, 2010).
26 Wojciech P. GryGiel

Grand Design, Hawking made numerous comments on his understanding of the

ontological status of theoretical entities:

a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that
relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds
and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory
if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations
on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make
definite predictions about the results of future observations.8

In The Grand Design, however, Hawking and Mlodinow consolidate these com-
ments into a more coherent philosophical standpoint by introducing the notion
of the model-dependent realism. It is an alternative to the so-called naïve realism
where, as already mentioned, the objects are assumed to exist as perceived. Accord-
ing to this standpoint, there is no apriori given ontology of the external physical
reality and the only legitimate view of reality is set by the theoretical framework.
the validity of such a framework is judged solely on the grounds of its agreement
with observation. since the contemporary physical theories provide very accurate
means of organizing and predicting the outcomes of the experiment, a postulate of
scientific realism is often put forward stating that the ontology of the objectively
existing reality is refracted in the structure of a theory. Hence comes the claim of
the mathematicity of the Universe that is supported by a considerable portion of
theoretical physicists.9 For Hawking and Mlodinow, on the other hand, these con-
jectures are unjustified, for theoretical entities exist only in the mind and there is
no mind-independent picture of reality. Moreover, in consonance with the proposed
model-dependent realism, the authors make a claim that “model-dependent realism
solves, or at least avoids, the meaning of existence.”10 Although the authors remain
silent on the philosophical background of such a standpoint, it corresponds to Willard
V. O. Quine’s famous restriction of the meaning of existence to what is warranted
by the discourse of the theory:

Our acceptance of an ontology is, I think, similar in principle to our acceptance of a

scientific theory, say a system of physics: we adopt, at least insofar as we are reasonable,
the simplest conceptual scheme into which the disordered fragments of raw experience
can be fitted and arranged. Our ontology is determined once we have fixed upon the over-
all conceptual scheme which is to accommodate science in the broadest sense; and the
considerations which determine a reasonable construction of any part of that conceptual
scheme, for example, the biological or the physical part, are not different in kind from the
considerations which determine a reasonable construction of the whole. to whatever extent
the adoption of any system of scientific theory may be said to be a matter of language,
the same—but no more—may be said of the adoption of an ontology.11
8
stephen W. Hawking, A Brief history of Time (New York NY: bantam books, 1998), p. 10.
9
Cf. roger Penrose, The road to reality. A complete Guide to the laws of the universe (New York NY:
Alfred Knopf, 2005), pp. 7–24, 1010–47.
10
Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p. 47.
11
Willard Van Orman Quine, “On What there Is” in his From a logical Point of view (New York NY:
Harper & row, 1963), p. 17.
MulTiverSe, M-Theory, AnD GoD The creATor 27

the application of such an ontology to a physical theory that constitutes the basis
of Hawking’s discourse on the existence of God demands some methodological
attention in order to reveal how such an effort may be carried out in its context. In
most general terms, each physical theory is founded upon a set of basic equations
(e.g., einstein’s general theory of relativity is based on a system of equations known
as einstein’s field equations). In order to obtain mathematical expressions permit-
ting the description of physical processes observed in nature, these equations need
to be solved with a set of given boundary conditions. As a result, the theory under
study yields a set of expressions that display functional dependences of measurable
physical quantities on such parameters as time or space. In the so-called classical
paradigm of physics, these functional dependences are strictly deterministic, which
means that, for example, each time evolution is unique. this in turn implies that the
theory is in itself incapable of specifying the boundary conditions of the physical
systems that it purports to describe. should such a theory be thought of as the theory
of the Universe—and the general theory of relativity surely enjoys this status in the
classical regime—there arises the question about the way in which the boundary
conditions of the Universe were specified.
since it is commonly known that the Universe is indeed fine-tuned to a re-
markable degree, three kinds of responses can be generated to this question. In
the first response it is stipulated that the boundary conditions were specified by
an external agent. If such an agency is supposed to be equated with the divine
action, then the danger of the methodological fallacy known as the God of the
gaps becomes immediately operative.12 the second response rests on the highly
speculative multiverse ontology. the fine—tuning of the Universe inhabited by the
mankind is justified by means of the anthropic principle. the principle states that
the initial conditions of the Universe were such as to permit its sense perception.
In the third response it is suggested that the boundary conditions be made part
of the theoretical framework, thus making the Universe a self-explanatory entity.
this is exactly the strategy assumed by stephen Hawking and James Hartle in
the formulation of the famous Hartle-Hawking model of the Universe with no
boundary conditions.

tHe HArtLe-HAWKING MODeL At Its bAsICs

the complete theoretical exposition of the structure of the Hartle-Hawking model

can be found in the authors’ original paper13 as well as in many subsequent expo-
sitions by stephen Hawking himself14 as well as in papers by other authors.15 In
particular, Hawking’s most basic theoretical goal in the formulation of the model
12
Michael Heller, creative Tension: essays on Science and religion (Philadelphia PA: templeton Foun-
dation Press, 2003), pp. 3–9.
13
stephen W. Hawking and James b. Hartle, “the Wave Function of the Universe,” Physical review D
28 (1983): 2960–75.
14
stephen W. Hawking, “Quantum Cosmology” in Three hundred years of Gravitation, ed. stephen W.
Hawking and Werner Israel (Cambridge UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987), p. 631.
15
Don N. Page, “Hawking’s Wave Function of the Universe” in Quantum concepts in Space and Time,
ed. roger Penrose and Christopher J. Isham (Oxford UK: Clarendon Press, 1986), p. 274.
28 WOJCIECH P. GRYGIEL

is the elimination of singularities where the theory becomes indeterminate. this

conviction stems directly from Hawking’s crucial assumption about the deterministic
character of the laws that govern the Universe:

It is Laplace who is usually credited with first clearly postulating scientific determinism:
given the state of the Universe at one time, a complete set of laws determines both future
and the past. . . . It is, in fact, the basis of all modern science.16

As demonstrated by Hawking and Penrose, the existence of singularities is not an

exceptional property in the set of all solutions to einstein’s equations.17 One of
such singularities is the big bang singularity, which belongs to the so-called strong
curvature singularities, where the infinite curvature of spacetime results in the so
called “edge of spacetime.” Clearly then, the general theory of relativity does not
qualify for the ultimate theory of the Universe. Hawking’s hope is that when the
quantum effects come into play—as expected at very high matter densities—the
initial singularity will be “smeared away.” As evident from the preceding discussion,
Hawking’s “philosophy of cosmology” requires finding the most comprehensive
theoretical framework that unifies quantum mechanics with the general theory of
relativity and, most importantly, yields a set of deterministic laws that can account
for every observable fact in the Universe. It must be remembered, however, that
determinism is understood by Hawking as a rigid governance of the Universe by
the laws of nature. Hawking’s determinism does not require these laws to be causal
(non-probabilistic), thus allowing the quantum rules to be applied to the Universe
as a whole.
Following the presentation of Hawking’s main intentions of formulating the no
boundary model, one needs to turn into the conceptual analysis of the fundamental
elements of the model’s architecture. the first critical issue for the entire analysis
is how the state of the Universe should be described. According to the classical
general theory of relativity, such a state is represented by the so-called 3-geometry
at a single point in time with the important qualification that time in this theory is
an internal construct dependent on the gravitational field so that the decomposition
of the four-dimensional spacetime into space and time is contingent upon the choice
of time. this is the direct consequence of the general covariance of the spacetime of
the general relativity. the difficulties mount up as one attempts to take into account
the quantum effects because the application of the quantum procedures demands
that the wave functions be defined in terms of spacetime to give the probabilities
of observing the Universe in a particular state. both physical and philosophical
intricacies of quantum gravity were thoroughly presented by Craig Callender and
Nick Nuggett.18

16
Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p. 30.
17
stephen W. Hawking and roger Penrose, “the singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,”
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 314 (1970): 529–48.
18
Craig Callender and Nick Nuggett, Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary
Theories in Quantum Gravity (Cambridge UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001).
MULTIVERSE, M-THEORY, AND GOD THE CREATOR 29

the actual quantization procedure utilized in the Hartle-Hawking model is ac-

complished by the bold adaptation of the path-integral method commonly used in
the quantum field theory where the path integral incorporates all possible tubes
between two 3-geometries representing an earlier and a later state of the Universe.
such an integral yields the desired wave function of the Universe and converges
in cases where the geometry of the Universe is assumed to be closed. this per-
mits the calculation of the probabilities of transition between the two specified
states. Newer studies reveal the possibility of the method’s application for open
universes.19 According to Hartle and Hawking, creation ex nihilo will occur in this
framework when there is a non-zero probability of transition from a state that does
not exist. A critical assessment of this mode of interpretation of the wave function
of the Universe has been given by Drees.20 It turns out that there exists a technical
procedure of the removal of an initial state. For the spacetime with the Lorenztian
metric, however, the procedure leads to a singularity, thus violating the main tenet
of Hawking’s philosophical creed on the universal validity of the physical laws. this
situation can be circumvented by applying the Wick transform whereby the time
coordinate is multiplied by the imaginary factor of i resulting in the change of the
spacetime metric from Lorenztian to euclidean. this procedure bears the name of
the spacetime euclideization. robert Deltete and reed Guy present the procedure’s
exhaustive critical account.21
the spacetime euclideization does away with the distinction between space and
time whereby the singularity mentioned above is eliminated. the resulting spa-
tialization of time means that one can speak of a particular absence of time in the
initial four-dimensional space from which the Universe emerged. In these terms the
beginning of the universe can be considered to be atemporal, but the nothingness
from which the creation proceeds does not mean the absolute absence of anything
but the absence of a spatio-temporal state from which the classical evolution of
the Universe commences. In other words, there are no spatio-temporal boundary
conditions of the Universe, thereby permitting Hartle and Hawking to state that
“the boundary condition of the Universe is that it has no boundary.” Consequently,
if there exists no spatio-temporal, namely, classical description of the transition
from the initial state of a four dimensional space, the process of the creation of
the Universe can be thought of as occurring via the quantum tunneling. Isham
states explicitly:

the initial space from which the Universe “emerged” can be defined to be that part of
the boundary of the four-dimensional space which is not part of the (later) three-surface.
but this is the empty set, which gives a precise mathematical definition of the concept
of “nothing”!22

19
stephen W. Hawking and Neil G. turok, “Open Inflation without False Vacua,” Physics Letters B 425
(1998): 25–30.
20
Willem b. Drees, “Interpretation of the Wave Function of the Universe,” International Journal of
Theoretical Physics 26 (1987): 939–41.
21
robert J. Deltete and reed A. Guy, “emerging from Imaginary time,” Synthese 108 (1996): 36–50.
22
Isham, “Creation of the Universe as a Quantum Process,” p. 375.
30 WOJCIECH P. GRYGIEL

tHe eXeGesIs OF CreAtION

the exegesis of the notion of creation ex nihilo as implied by the no-boundary

Hartle-Hawking model aims at establishing its content solely in terms of what is
dictated by the theory’s formalism without importing any other ways of under-
standing of what creation is. First of all, the classical philosophical understanding
of such notions as time and causality does not match the meaning of these terms
as proper for the context of a physical theory. Moreover, the theological concept
of “creation from nothing” not only implies the formation of things ex tota sua
substantia23 with the presupposition of the absolute lack of anything that would
precede a given thing in the natural order but the creatio continua understood as
God’s creative activity in the course of the Universe’s history as well. As shown
above, the “nothing” in the model of quantum creation takes for granted the pre-
existence of a mathematical structure of a physical theory by virtue of which the
spacetime emerges as a result of quantum tunneling in a single event. Interestingly
enough, however, Drees argues for a specific sense of creation ex nihilo in the
Hartle-Hawking model:

there is one sense in which this theory can most clearly be understood as creation form
from “nothing.” As was explained above, ordinary calculations often assume a state
at one moment and laws to calculate the state at another moment. In such situations
one might say that the second state arises out of the first state. there is in the Hartle-
Hawking approach at the timeless level no reference to a state other that the “resulting”
state. As it is compact, it is the only boundary present in the calculation. the theory
gives a precise meaning to the notion of “nothing” as the absence of other boundaries in
the calculation.24

Hawking makes numerous references to God only in his popular writings. As

already mentioned, Hawking strongly believes that the Universe is governed by a
set of physical laws and the principal purpose of engaging in the formulation of the
model was to show that the problem of the boundary conditions can be made part
of these laws. this means that the creation of the Universe that occurs according
to the quantum rules described in the preceding paragraph is solely effected by the
workings of the laws of physics, the same way these laws govern the subsequent
classical evolution of the Universe. both the imaginary and the real time acquire
their meaning as quantities internal to the theoretical framework and any attempt
to interpret them as being part of an absolute flow of time makes no sense whatso-
ever. the same observations pertain to the notion of determinism for the relations
within the model—and within any scientific theory—are established by the laws
that govern the Universe. From this point of view, the Universe of the no-boundary
Hartle-Hawking model is causally closed, thus making it impossible for any outside
agent to intervene. based on these considerations it is evident that the model cannot

23
Vatican Council I (1870), Constitution De Fide, Can. 1805.
24
Drees, Beyond the Big Bang, p. 70.
MULTIVERSE, M-THEORY, AND GOD THE CREATOR 31

be used towards the substantiation of any theistic or antitheistic standpoints. In a

nutshell, it is entirely neutral in this regard, on one hand pointing to the irrelevance
of the notion of a divine creator within the discourse of a physical theory, on the
other, however, to the inability of the theory to disprove the existence of God in any
absolute terms.
the objection that is frequently made in response to the attempts of negating the
existence of God based on the self-explanatory character of the Hartle-Hawking
model is that there remains the need to justify the origin of the laws of physics.
since the model itself does not secure any tools to infer beyond what is explicable
in its content, it is incapable of offering any insight into the possible causal relation
between a divine creator and the Universe as described by the model. Poetic expres-
sions depicting God as holding the entire spacetime in his hand might be consoling,
but they are as unrealistic as the hand of God itself. Moreover, even if the inference
on the existence of God based on the laws of physics were somehow possible, one
would have to have the absolute certainty that the actual theory of the Universe is
the theory of everything, namely, it offers the complete set of the laws that govern
the Universe. In any other case, the theory’s incompleteness could easily lead to the
negative “God of the gaps” effect where God’s existence would be denied, based
on insufficient premises. Interestingly enough, Hawking is perfectly aware that the
architecture of the Hartle-Hawking model, that is founded upon the general theory
of relativity, does not reflect the complete set of the laws of the Universe, for this
theory is only an effective classical theory and is considered to be a low energy
approximation to some more general and yet unknown theory.25 It will turn out that
presently Hawking accepts the M-theory to fulfill these conditions, but before this
occurred, he clearly stated:

If the spacetime is indeed finite but without boundary or edge, this would have impor-
tant philosophical implications. It would mean that we could describe the Universe by
a mathematical model which was determined completely by the laws of science alone:
they would not have to be supplemented by boundary conditions. We do not yet know
the precise form of these laws: at the moment we have a number of partial laws which
govern the behavior of the universe under all but the most extreme conditions. However,
it seems likely that these laws are all part of some unified theory that we have yet to
discover. We are making progress and there is a reasonable chance that we will discover
it by the end of the century.26

After all, the Hartle-Hawking model is only a “toy model” indicating that its
main purpose is rather to test certain scientific strategies than to provide ultimate
explanations of the Universe. Consequently, the model cannot serve as a basis for
inferences on the existence of agencies responsible for the existence of the Universe
in its entirety.

25
Hawking, “Quantum Cosmology,” p. 631.
26
stephen W. Hawking, “the edge of spacetime,” in The New Physics, ed. Paul Davies (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 69.
32 WOJCIECH P. GRYGIEL

tHe DIFFereNCe THE GRAND DESIGN MAKes

In A Brief History of Time Hawking clearly states that “if the universe is completely
self-contained, with no singularities or boundaries, and completely described by a
unified theory, that has profound implications for the role of God as Creator.”27 the
revision of that role as implied by the theistic position is warranted by the fact that
“so long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. but
if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it
would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a
creator?”28 Although Hawking admits that given the validity of the Hartle-Hawking
no boundary model God would still have the freedom to choose the laws of the
Universe, he clearly connects the creation of the Universe with setting the boundary
conditions of the Universe by means of the divine action and its temporal beginning.
Contrary to what is commonly maintained, however, Hawking does not turn the
lack of adjustable boundary conditions in the no-boundary model into a proof of the
non-existence of God. His caution in this matter is best evident from the following
quote in the concluding chapters of A Brief History of Time:

even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations.
What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
the usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the
questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the
universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings
about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have another effect
on the universe? And who created him?29

by asking the question whether the unified theory is so compelling as to bring about
its own existence, Hawking sets the tone for his further inquiry that reaches its ma-
ture form in the Grand Design. Indeed, the closer analysis of the volume reveals a
major departure from many fundamental ideas shared by the theorists in regards to
what the ultimate theory of the Universe should be. these ideas were fully opera-
tive in the exposition contained in A Brief History of Time with the conviction on
the existence of a unique set of physical laws that govern the Universe being the
central one. since the novelties are conceptually complex, only the crucial aspects
will be signaled.
the first of them comes from the reinterpretation of the Feynman sum over
histories in the context of the ontology of the multiverse meaning that each contrib-
uting history is a separate universe with a set of distinct laws that govern it and the
Universe begun in every possible way at the moment of the big bang. this permits
the authors to actually dispense of the term “the wave function of the Universe”
that has received much critics and still calculate the probabilities of observing the
Universe in its actual state. Here comes another unconventional element named

27
stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 10.
28
Ibid., p. 127.
29
Ibid..
MulTiverSe, M-Theory, AnD GoD The creATor 33

the top-down cosmology30 where instead of calculating how the history of the
Universe unfolds in time from the beginning according to a unique set of laws (the
conventional bottom-up cosmology), one should follow the histories from their
end at a present time to the original no-boundary state. the radically non-classical
effect of such a framework is that “the Universe does not have a unique observer-
independent history.”31
this is supposed to tie with the next element of the puzzle, that is, the fact that
stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow consider the M-theory, that is the latest
version of the famous string theory, to be the ultimate theory of the Universe. First
of all, the M-theory is a theory that does not yet exist and what is known are its
approximations that remain with each other in relations of duality and apply in
different observational circumstances. It must be remembered, however, that the
M-theory faces strong opposition among physicists to be treated as a candidate
towards the unification of general relativity and quantum field theory.32 by allowing
altogether eleven space-time dimensions and 10500 possible ways of obtaining observ-
able three-dimensional spaces consistent with the positive cosmological constant
with the other dimensions curled to make them invisible in the usual spacetime,
the M-theory generates this many universes each with distinct sets of physical laws
that can contribute to the Feynman sum. the observed universe whose properties
are determined by the standard model of elementary particles is one of the great
number of 10500. Hawking and Mlodinow admit clearly that it may constitute a new
paradigm of physics:

We seem to be at a critical point in the history of science, in which we must alter our
conception of goals and of what makes a physical theory acceptable. It appears that the
fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded
by logic or physical principle. the parameters are free to take on many values and the
laws to take on any form that leads to a self-consistent mathematical theory, and they do
take on different values and different forms in different universes. that may not satisfy
our human desire to be special or to discover a neat package to contain all the laws of
physics, but it does seem to be the way of nature.33

In the nest step, the idea of the multiverse spanned by the possible realizations of the
solutions of the M-theory serves as a tool to justify the fine-tuning of the observed
Universe. In a way, this may sound trivial but such a great number of possible
universes must include the one that is capable of bringing forth and sustaining the
intelligent life.34 With the standard argument on the lack of necessity of a divine

30
stephen W. Hawking and thomas Hertog, “Populating the Landscape: A top-Down Approach,” Physi-
cal review D 73 (2006): 123527–36.
31
Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p. 140.
32
Cf. Lee smolin, The Trouble with Physics, The rise of String Theory, the Fall of Science and What
comes next (London UK: Penguin books, 2008); Peter Woit, not even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory
and the Search For unity in Physical law (New York NY: basic books, 2006).
33
Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p. 143.
34
Leonard susskind, The cosmic landscape: String Theory and the illusion of the intelligent Design
(New York NY: back bay books, 2006).
34 Wojciech P. GryGiel

creator in a universe with no-boundary conditions taken for granted, the authors
conjecture a somewhat different argument in the spirit of the anthropic principle
stating that:

Many people through the ages have attributed to God the beauty and complexity of
nature that in their time seemed to have no scientific explanation. but just as Darwin and
Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear
without intervention by a supreme being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-
tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe
for our benefit.35

Inasmuch as for reasons that are not spelled out, Hawking and Mlodinow might
have wished that this is enough to obviate the existence of a divine and benevolent
creator, the conceptual framework from which they proceed permits them no more
than to observe that this framework is sufficient to justify certain features of the
observable Universe—such as its fine-tuning—without invoking any divine agency.
In other words, the authors clearly generate the negative God of the gaps effect for
they interpret an inference obtained within a physical theory as a means to formulate
statements substantiating the non-existence of God.

CONCLUsIONs

A general survey of the content of The Grand Design reveals a considerable difficulty
in the volume’s message being properly grasped even by a reader well versed in
contemporary physics. From a purely physical point of view, this difficulty is effected
by the implications of the Hartle-Hawking model with no-boundary conditions for
the existence of a divine creator, recast within the multiverse embedded M-theory.
the difficulty is additionally enhanced by the philosophical component regarding
the ontological status of the theoretical entities. this component turns out to have
an impact on the interpretation of the theoretical framework involved especially in
the role that is played by an act of observation performed by a conscious agent in a
multiverse context. there is no doubt that Hawking and Mlodinow demonstrate an
open disregard the entire non-scientific (humanistic) philosophical tradition. this
is most evident in their opening claim that philosophy is dead because “philosophy
has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”36 this
startling sentence is based on an entirely fallacious argument that the scientific
picture of the world as given by the contemporary physical theories replaces any
conceptual systems developed both in the classical period of physics as well as in
the pre-scientific area not to mention any conceptual systems of philosophy that
originated outside of the scope of natural sciences.37

35
Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p. 165.
36
Ibid., p. 5.
37
Wojciech P. Grygiel, “should a Philosopher be Afraid of stephen Hawking?” in The Philosophical
Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w nauce) 49 (2011): 46–62.
MULTIVERSE, M-THEORY, AND GOD THE CREATOR 35

be that as it may, by declaring the model-dependent realism the authors confine

the meaning of existence only to what is warranted by the discourse of the theory
thereby rendering the objective existence of any entity external to the theoretical
framework entirely meaningless. Consequently, unless the divine creator were
somehow made part of the equations of a given theory, any mention of his causal
influence or temporal precedence is devoid of any sense including Hawking’s
famous question: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a uni-
verse for them to describe?” bestowing an existence upon the Universe through the
process of the quantum creation means that the laws of physics understood as the
theorems of derived from the hypothetical theory of everything yield the non-zero
probability of the emergence of spacetime from a state that does not exist. In other
words, creation of the Universe is a deterministic process governed by the laws of
physics thus leaving no room for a freely acting creator. It makes perfect sense to
see Hawking and Mlodinow state the following:

because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in
the manner described in Chapter 6. spontaneous creation is the reason there is something
rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke
God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.38

the exegesis of the theoretical structure of the Hartle-Hawking model and its sub-
sequent embedment within the multiverse indicates that as the model-dependent
realism is adopted as a working ontology of the theoretical entities, the question on
the existence of a divine agency external to the universe of a theory under consid-
eration is meaningless. Although the above mentioned spontaneous creation has its
limited sense as coming to existence, but its content does not correlate with what
is normally understood as creation ex nihilo in the theological sense and, as it has
been already indicated by Isham, is of little relevance for a theological discourse.
Last but not least, the elimination of God as an exemplary cause of the fine-tuning
of the observed Universe does not answer the question on who is behind the design
of the entire landscape of the possible universes. Finally, it must be clearly that
even if Hawking and Mlodinow truly intend that their line of argumentation be the
proof the non-existence of God, this does not follow through, for while they hold
onto naturalistic explanations on a methodological niveau, this does not substantiate
such claims in the metaphysical sense.39

38
Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, p. 180.
39
this publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John templeton Foundation.
the opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the John templeton Foundation.