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?
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).
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.
Luck, fortune, love, beauty, perfectly straight lines, ... are physical?
Whatever we think eventually is derived from the physical.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.