Possible worlds

Post Reply New Topic

Because there are other reasons to believe things.

Isn't the purpose of being an atheist due to the absurdities of faith an epistemological view that undercuts reasoning. Or is being an atheist due to the concept of monkey see monkey do (i.e. their friends are declaring themselves atheists so they become atheists as well).

Then could you clarify your reasoning of viewing multiple universes as more realistic? (i.e. how you define what is determined to be realistic and what is unrealistic)

Not necessarily either. One could be an atheist, for example, merely because the notion of God's existence never really occurred to them or struck them as very interesting or revealing.

Please elaborate on this response.

Let's take this case as an example. Let's say that we've noted that this notion of 'possible worlds' is proving useful in philosophy. How are we to understand this notion? Three broad options:

(1) Possible worlds do not exist.
(2) Possible worlds do exist, but are abstract somehow - lesser in some way than this world.
(3) Possible worlds do exist and are th same kind of thing as this world.

There is no empirical evidence either way. But we need to provide some sort of account of possible worlds, if only because they are cropping up so much. So what to do? I suggest that you should start with the assumption that they don't exist (we don't want to be adding entities to our ontology for no reason), then analyse the arguments in favour of the other two points. If it turns out that those arguments outweigh the arguments in favour of (1), then I submit that the rational option would be to change our beliefs: to add possible worlds to our ontology. Why should we need empirical evidence to make this change?

Incidentally, part of Lewis' project was to eliminate primitive modality. There's no empirical evidence for primitive modality. So you can believe in: (1) primitive modality, which has no empirical evidence in its favour, or (2) modal realism, which has no empirical evidence in its favour. This is a good illustration of my point that empirical evidence is not the sole foundation of our beliefs. In this case, either way you are committing yourself to existence of something for which no empirical evidence can be given. Now, you could just remain completely agnostic on these questions, an option which might satisfy you, but it sure as hell doesn't satisfy me. I want answers; I want a rich understanding of reality. I think that by considering other factors, we can make reasonable judgments on these topics even in the absense of any empirical evidence.

If no empirical evidence can be given, then there is no reasonable understanding. I am not choosing to remain agnostic on the matter. I am refusing to assume that belief equals knowledge. The purpose of the scientific method is take a belief and test it to see if it is valid or not. If we find that our belief/hypothesis is false then we reject it as such. If new technology allows us to better attempt the failed experiment then we do so and accept the result. The scientific method uses empirical evidence because this method has given mankind the most effective results and allowed countless medical and technological breakthroughs that have improved our lives.

I don't care about the scientific method. I haven't claimed, and neither has anybody else, that you can reach an answer on this by applying the scientific method (whatever it may be). In fact, I've been saying all along that this problem is outside the domain of empirical study.

Science is the best system we have ever developed for discovering truth and improving humanity. It does not follow from this that other methods are completely fruitless.

I don't even see where the argument begins.


Well, I am just applying occam's razor. If minds are by nature very very complex, then by applying the razor, if we are between two options, we should apply the simpler one, the multiple universe option, rather than going for the divine mind. We can question what parsimony means here, but I am going to insist "mind" is more complex than "a bunch of universes randomly exist".

That's just disregarding the fact that issues such as the problem of evil and others seem to be solid evidence against a mind that could be called "God".

Souls are even worse given that the neuroscience has no room for anything like a soul, so positing one is still even worse.


I believe I am consistent here.

I believe the universe can be described purely in mathematics. And the other worlds or universes described the same way. I wonder if we will ever discover a bridge to these other universes? I think quantum physics is the most interesting thing these days. Even though I don't know any of the maths I think I appreciate what they are saying.

If particles have a probability wave then surely all possibilities exist. Perhaps the other universes are where the particle's wave is different from the one we see in our universe.

Possible does not mean actual. It is not clear that these other possible worlds even exist, and even if they did exist we have no empirical access to them. It is purely speculative and it remains an unfalsifiable hypothesis. That is one of the problems with mathematical theories. We can have mathematically possible non existent worlds.

ruveyn

i thought about the construction of universal reality when i was about 15 and i could never write it down because i have many more concepts than can ever be translated into writable ideas.

very briefly............
i believe there are 9 dimensions to the universe.
they are distributed through 3 phases.

there is phase 1 which is space, and phase 2 which is time and phase 3 which is consciousness which includes "energy".

each phase contains 4 dimensions of which one is shared between each phase.

phase 1 i s easy to conceive.
dimension 0 is a point with no length or width or height, but it is the smallest fragment of existence even though it can not be said to exist empirically.

dimension 1 is an infinite amount of points placed side by side in a single direction that results in a line with infinite length but no width or height. it also can not be said to exist empirically since it has no volume.

dimension 2 is an infinite amount of lines placed side by side that results in infinite width as well as infinite length and is a plane that has no height so also can not be said to exist empirically,

dimension 3 is an infinite amount of planes stacked on top of each other so that it results in volume with infinite length, width and height.
that is the space of the universe.

space is composed of an infinite amount of points, and since points are non existent in any measurable reality (0x0x0), then they are nothing. therefore nothing exists because space exists.

dimension 3 (infinite volume) is contained within dimension 4 which is a point of time.
phase 2:

dimension 4 is a point of time which is an instant. an instant has no duration (longitude) and no alternative (latitude). it contains an infinite volume of space.
an instant of time spans the entire spatial universe.

dimension 5 is a line of time. it is an infinite instants placed next to each other longitudinally. it has no width or height but it has infinite length. it is non existant empirically because it contains no lateral alternatives and contains no height(vertical alternatives given infinite variations on the laws of physics).
i beleive humans live in dimension 4 (instant(perceived as "present")) traveling along dimension 5 (past/future).

dimension 6 is an infinite lines of time (universal histories) placed side by side which results in a plane of time. it is all possible outcomes that are possible given quantum uncertainty concurrently existing. it has infinite lenght and infinite width. but it can not be said to exist empirically because it has no "height".

dimension 7 is an infinite amount of planes of time stacked on top of each other to create an infinite "volume" of time.
it is composed of planes of time (that each contain infinite lattitudinally alternative longitudinally infinite linear outcomes (given their own quantum uncertainties based upon their peculiar single set of physical laws)) . each plane of time has a different set of laws of physics, and the "volume" of time can be said to exist because it has infinite scope in each dimension.

this is where i start to scrape the limits of my mind.

dimension 7 is the 0th dimension in the phase of consciousness.

a point of consciousness contains all possible realities in every point of time given all laws of physics.

because we are "alive" and are bound to "perception" as feeble little nothings in the scale of the entire universe, then we do not have pure consciousness.

maybe when we die, we will be freed to be existent in a point of pure consciousness.

i can not imagine what dimension 8 and 9 are.
i can surmise that dimension 8 is a line of consciousness that is a simultaneous consciousness of the eternity of all universal historic possibilities, and dimension 9 may be ....only god knows and dimension 10 is god which is outside (not contained within) the universe.

There is a branch of the sciences, one with frequent applications to our daily lives, that does potentially imply the possibility of multiple universes, with which we may or may not be able to interact - quantum mechanics.

Since many quantum-mechanical operations have multiple possible outcomes, and there seems to be no reason to favor one outcome over the others, some physicists have hypothesized the "Many-Worlds" model - basically, that at each such operation, the timeline splits, creating differing universes for each possibility.

There are also some intriguing possibilities in brane theory, but we can't know whether there's anything behind brane theory until we can get some results from the LHC on the existence or lack thereof of the Higgs boson. (If there is a Higgs field, and a boson whose interactions with that field provide the effects of gravity, then brane theory becomes unnecessary, as a parsimonious explanation of certain phenomena will exist.)

On the other hand, I am as yet unaware of any scientific endeavor which provides even a hypothetical basis to believe in the existence of Deity, as Deity (according to the job description) must exist outside of and beyond nature (being "supernatural"), while the sciences work within the natural universe.