Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 8:35 PM
402 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,262 Year: 6,868/21,208 Month: 2,629/2,634 Week: 292/525 Day: 51/74 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   Are Multiverses possible?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15485
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 16 of 69 (645399)
12-26-2011 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hsweet
12-26-2011 3:45 PM


I'm not really following your reasoning.

Clearly whatever conditions are necessary for one universe to exist were present, since at least one universe does exist. Why are these conditions not sufficient for several universes to exist?

You write:

But to speculate that there are multiverses, we need to establish that there is something from which they can arise some soil for the plants to grow in.

Well, on the face of it, if there is enough soil for one plant to grow in, there may well be enough soil for more than one plant to grow in --- at the very least this is not a possibility that we could rule out a priori.

Could there have been other points from which other universes arose such as the point from which our universe arose? Behind this question is a hidden implication that is based on our everyday perception of reality. It assumes that there was a time and place from which our universe arose and all other universes could have arisen.

Well, not necessarily. Without committing ourselves to any particular picture of how our universe arose, we may say with certainty that it did so. So why shouldn't whatever-it-was-that-happened have happened more than once?

---

What you need is an argument that makes it absurd for more than one universe to exist, but without making it absurd that at least one universe exists, and I don't think that you're doing a good job here; because so far as I understand your rather nebulous arguments it seems to me that your arguments for suggesting the former (as you wish) also tend to suggest the latter (which you would wish to avoid).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 3:45 PM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 8:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15485
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 17 of 69 (645400)
12-26-2011 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by hsweet
12-26-2011 6:41 PM


Re: Tegmark
By this logic, if there is a foundation outside of our universe and any other possible universe, it would have to be something other than space, time, matter or energy.

Well, again, this doesn't really do what you want it to do. Let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that your proposition that I've quoted is right. Then from the fact that our universe definitely does exist, we can conclude:

Either our universe has a "foundation" which is "something other than space, time, matter or energy" --- in which case why shouldn't another universe be built on the same "foundation"?

Or our universe has no such "foundation" --- in which case why shouldn't another universe also exist with no "foundation"?

Either way, this stuff about "foundations" doesn't seem to point us towards a reason why there should be just one universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 6:41 PM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 8:58 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 18 of 69 (645404)
12-26-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by hsweet
12-26-2011 6:28 PM


Re: the non physical
Hi and welcome,
jar writes:

Luck, fortune, love, beauty, perfectly straight lines, ... are physical?

hsweet writes:

Whatever we think eventually is derived from the physical.

From wiki:

quote:
There are at least two senses people usually mean when they use the term, the prescriptive sense and the descriptive sense. In the prescriptive sense, luck is the supernatural and deterministic concept that there is a force which prescribes that certain events occur very much the way the laws of physics will prescribe that certain events occur. It is the prescriptive sense that people mean when they state that they "do not believe in luck."

The prescriptive version of 'luck' does not describe anything physical.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 6:28 PM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 9:03 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 19 of 69 (645406)
12-26-2011 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
12-26-2011 8:23 PM


multiple big bangs ?
Dr Adaquate, We can not intellectually understand any possible physical reality outside of our universe due to the limitations of our intellects. Human intellect evolved so that we could navigate within the relative universe of space, time, matter and energy so anything else that might possibly exist is beyond our capability.

When we try to think 'outside the universe', we only project what is inside the universe to that 'realm' -- that's all that we can do. My argument is that whatever it is that is non-universe can't be what is within the universe otherwise there would be no distinction between the two. And it is certainly illogical to think that one of the elements of creation, space, time, matter or energy is both the source of the creation and a component of it at the same time.

I agree that the point of the creation could have spurned out other universes but we can not know or observe that in any physical way.
Keep in mind that, by the logic I have offered, anything 'spurning out' could not be spurned into space. At best it would be a spurning out OF space and possibly matter, energy and time. That's all we can imagine.

I would be interested, though, in any mathematical perspectives -- if they can be summarized at the non mathematical level.

Edited by hsweet, : enhanced response.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 8:23 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 11:30 PM hsweet has responded

    
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 20 of 69 (645408)
12-26-2011 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
12-26-2011 8:30 PM


foundations
Dr Adaquate, At the risk of double responding, I will proceed here.

What I wish to convey is my doubts about projecting any of the contents of the universe to the status of something underlying the universe . I am referring to popular ideas such as an energy field or infinite space and time.

Please refer to my other response to you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2011 8:30 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 21 of 69 (645411)
12-26-2011 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Panda
12-26-2011 8:41 PM


Re: the non physical
Panda, I agree that The prescriptive version of 'luck' does not describe anything physical. But it does relate to the physical by predicting physical outcomes. It is ultimately a discussion about the physical. Of course, unless you can demonstrate mind over matter or gods in action, it's nonsense.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Panda, posted 12-26-2011 8:41 PM Panda has not yet responded

    
nwr
Member
Posts: 5508
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 22 of 69 (645413)
12-26-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hsweet
12-26-2011 4:41 PM


Re: non physical universes
hsweet writes:
How does one conceive of anything that is non physical?

That's based on the mathematics. Mathematicians conceive of much that is not physical.

Christianity claims the moral high ground it its rhetoric. It has long since abandoned the moral high ground in its practices

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 4:41 PM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 9:42 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply
 Message 24 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 10:07 PM nwr has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28468
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 23 of 69 (645415)
12-26-2011 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
12-26-2011 9:26 PM


Re: non physical universes
And not just mathematicians but philosophers, artists, poets, story tellers, theologists, ...

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 12-26-2011 9:26 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 10:10 PM jar has responded

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 24 of 69 (645419)
12-26-2011 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nwr
12-26-2011 9:26 PM


mathematics
I'm going to need some help here. Isn't mathematics ultimately relational to the physical? Two times two is four but ultimately aren't we talking about four somethings?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 12-26-2011 9:26 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 12-26-2011 11:01 PM hsweet has responded

    
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 25 of 69 (645421)
12-26-2011 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
12-26-2011 9:42 PM


Re: non physical universes
I do not in any way want to imply that these folks have no value because they are not producing stuff. What they are producing, instead, is ultimately relational to the material. You will not find any activity that is not ultimately relative to something or someone.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 9:42 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 10:15 PM hsweet has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28468
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 26 of 69 (645422)
12-26-2011 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by hsweet
12-26-2011 10:10 PM


Re: non physical universes
I'm sorry but that is either just word salad or so trivially true as to be meaningless.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 10:10 PM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 10:20 PM jar has responded

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 27 of 69 (645423)
12-26-2011 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
12-26-2011 10:15 PM


Re: non physical universes
Let's try a new vector. Try to think of nothing -- no thing. You can't do it. Your thoughts will always settle on some thing. You are a creature of the material creation and can use your intellect for nothing else.

What this means in this discussion is that should you try to imagine something outside of the universe it will always look like something inside the universe. We are locked in.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 10:15 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 10:38 PM hsweet has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28468
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 28 of 69 (645428)
12-26-2011 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by hsweet
12-26-2011 10:20 PM


Re: non physical universes
You make that claim but provide no support. Yet I imagine things that do not exist period.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 10:20 PM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 10:41 PM jar has responded

  
hsweet
Junior Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 29 of 69 (645429)
12-26-2011 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
12-26-2011 10:38 PM


Re: non physical universes
What do you imagine that does not relate to something that does exist?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 10:38 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 12-26-2011 10:48 PM hsweet has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28468
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 30 of 69 (645430)
12-26-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by hsweet
12-26-2011 10:41 PM


Re: non physical universes
I gave you a list.

An absolutely straight line, a line infinitely long sequence, love, ghosts, GOD, beauty, honor, multiverses, ...


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 10:41 PM hsweet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by hsweet, posted 12-26-2011 10:58 PM jar has responded

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017