Even in an infinite multiverse, would observing a Dyson sphere in outer space be strong evidence of design? [closed]

Question

From Wikipedia:

A Dyson sphere is a hypothetical megastructure that encompasses a star and captures a large percentage of its power output. The concept is a thought experiment that attempts to imagine how a spacefaring civilization would meet its energy requirements once those requirements exceed what can be generated from the home planet's resources alone. Because only a tiny fraction of a star's energy emissions reaches the surface of any orbiting planet, building structures encircling a star would enable a civilization to harvest far more energy.

With this definition in mind, consider the following thought experiment. Suppose we send probes to outer space and eventually discover a colossal spherical megastructure around a star, reminiscent of a Dyson sphere. For the sake of argument, assume we can be certain of the following facts:

• The megastructure appears perfectly spherical.
• The megastructure is clearly not debris, space dust, or small meteorites that we are misinterpreting as a megastructure. Assume we can confidently rule out these alternative explanations.
• The megastructure is composed of materials not found on Earth, nor known to be carried by meteorites or asteroids.
• At this point, we don't know if aliens exist; claims that aliens built it could be countered by skeptics with the "aliens of the gaps" objection.
• No human on Earth has any clue about how such a megastructure could be assembled by design. The materials and their properties are completely unknown to us, and the way the building blocks of this structure were assembled doesn’t resemble any known method or technology on Earth. We have no concept of how to transport and assemble such a structure around a star.
• Therefore, any attempts to draw analogies between this Dyson sphere and human technology to infer design can be considered fallacious (see this answer, critiquing arguments from analogy in response to Are there any fallacies in arguments for design from DNA?).
• For all we know, we cannot 100% rule out chance as a possible explanation (see this answer to Is it ever reasonable to infer impossibility from high improbability?).

Given these considerations, how can we explain the existence of a Dyson sphere?

I can see at least the following hypotheses:

• H1: The Dyson sphere formed by chance through unguided natural processes. This answer entertains the possibility that many counterintuitive, improbable events might happen by chance due to quantum tunneling, so in principle, we should remain open-minded about this.
• H2: The Dyson sphere was designed by an unknown intelligence (certainly not us, but if not us, this raises many questions, such as who? how? when? where did the designer come from? was the designer itself designed by another designer? etc.).
• H3: The Dyson sphere is simply a brute necessity.
• H4: The Dyson sphere is a brute contingency, appearing out of nothing for no reason, and that’s all there is to it.

If there are other hypotheses worth considering, readers are welcome to add them.

At first glance, H1 may seem extremely implausible. We have never observed natural processes assembling Dyson spheres by chance, so we have no empirical observations to support this hypothesis. Moreover, this answer introduced the concept of the universal probability bound coined by William A. Dembski, according to which our observable universe has an estimated upper limit of 10¹⁵⁰ distinct events. If the probability of a Dyson sphere forming by chance around a star is significantly lower than 1 in 10¹⁵⁰, then the following quote from Dembski would apply:

A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in.

However, if our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes in a multiverse, then H1 may not seem as implausible as before. We might apply some version of the Anthropic Principle to Dyson spheres, suggesting that we just happen to be in a universe where a Dyson sphere formed by chance. But we shouldn’t be too quick here; a more careful analysis is needed. Even in an infinite multiverse, proportions may matter: from the infinite universes that host human life, how many also contain Dyson spheres? Perhaps only a tiny fraction of these infinite universes contains both humans and Dyson spheres, making it exceedingly unlikely to observe a Dyson sphere even if we assume the existence of human life, and thus we may see H2 as more plausible. However, when dealing with infinite sets, counterintuitive paradoxes, like Hilbert's hotel, can arise, and probabilities might not behave consistently, so it’s unclear how much weight a probability argument should hold in the context of infinite sets.

Notice that through these thoughts, I’m just trying to emphasize the fact that the discussion can be quite nuanced and involve multiple considerations.

So, if we come across a Dyson sphere, even in an infinite multiverse, can we reasonably conclude that this is strong evidence for H2 (design)?

---

Related questions for reference:

• What are the criteria that we could use to conclude that an entity is designed?
• If we encounter what appears to be an advanced extraterrestrial technological device, would the claim that it was designed be falsifiable?
• Is there a general theory of intelligence and design that would allow us to detect the presence of design in an object based solely on its properties?

Answer 1

You link to my answer to a different question, but you're misinterpreting me:

This answer entertains the possibility that many counterintuitive, improbable events might happen by chance due to quantum tunneling, so in principle, we should remain open-minded about this

My answer that you linked to explicitly says we should call such events "impossible" despite their nonzero probability. There is a chance, but this does not mean we need to be open-minded about it if the chance is sufficiently low.

Yes, a Dyson sphere would be very strong evidence that someone designed it. Random chance accumulation of molecules into just the right shape can be rejected out of hand - it's far too unlikely, considering how big a Dyson sphere is. We would be justified in saying it's impossible to form by chance. (Although the probability is still, of course, nonzero.)

It's conceivable, though, that there is some natural process scientists were unaware of that predictably forms things that looks like Dyson spheres, the same way there are natural processes that form stars and black holes. Nature does like to make spheres. It makes moons, planets, stars, black holes. On a smaller scale it makes bubbles and geodes, which are even hollow. Maybe there's some way for nature to form a giant bubble of something in space. I don't know, maybe a very strange undiscovered type of star can emit some kind of pressure that under some circumstances will tend to gather a certain kind of space dust at a certain radius from itself, where it could fuse into a shell. Very unlikely, and there's no plausible way I can imagine that it could happen, but there is a chance there's a way it could happen that nobody has thought of. Maybe there's an undiscovered law of physics or exotic form of matter that makes it possible. So I'd say a Dyson sphere is quite strong evidence someone built it, well above 99.9%, but there's a small chance a giant hollow sphere could form naturally somehow.

This chance practically goes away if the Dyson sphere isn't featureless, but is covered in stuff like ducts, radiators, hatches, or bolts. Then, with almost absolute certainty, someone built it. You don't need a Dyson sphere for that; a single bolt, with a hexagonal head and threads, floating in space, would be enough. A giant featureless sphere would be weaker evidence than the bolt.

Answer 2

I agree with Causative. It would be idiotic to assume the sphere had occurred by chance. What if it had 'Made in Trafalmadore' embossed on its side- would you still entertain the idea it was a chance creation in preference to the obvious alternative?

Separately, I don't buy the idea that everything happens in an infinite Universe. If you have an infinite set of yellow lego bricks it won't contain a red brick.

Even if I conceded the idea that a Dyson sphere stamped 'Made in Trafalmadore' was inevitable in an infinite Universe, your finding it wouldn't be.