Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Most of what he achieved he had completed early in his life, and most of the rest of it was empty-headed nonsense.

An interesting point because this was an experience he shared with Einstein, who made almost no contribution to science for 40 years after the publication of GR other than some pithy quotes. The reasons for this were markedly different, however. Einstein came on the scene at the dawn of the information age and fell victim to the same cult of celebrity which propelled many other perfectly ordinary people to an undeserved prominence. This was unfortunate for the development of physics as a science because the spacetime paradigm which became associated with his name was never subjected to the sort of scrutiny it should have been before becoming accepted as holy writ. This was emphatically NOT Einstein's fault because he knew all along that his models were not physical models but merely mathematical representations of physical models. He knew that the three pillars of 20th century physics for which he was responsible were masking a deeper and far simpler theory of the universe which would ultimately unify them.

"It should be possible to explain the universe to a barmaid"....Albert Einstein

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Most of what he achieved he had completed early in his life, and most of the rest of it was empty-headed nonsense.

An interesting point because this was an experience he shared with Einstein, who made almost no contribution to science for 40 years after the publication of GR other than some pithy quotes. The reasons for this were markedly different, however. Einstein came on the scene at the dawn of the information age and fell victim to the same cult of celebrity which propelled many other perfectly ordinary people to an undeserved prominence. This was unfortunate for the development of physics as a science because the spacetime paradigm which became associated with his name was never subjected to the sort of scrutiny it should have been before becoming accepted as holy writ. This was emphatically NOT Einstein's fault because he knew all along that his models were not physical models but merely mathematical representations of physical models. He knew that the three pillars of 20th century physics for which he was responsible were masking a deeper and far simpler theory of the universe which would ultimately unify them.

"It should be possible to explain the universe to a barmaid"....Albert Einstein

... and of course Einstein was a rational and level headed person, with a mature attitude to the meaning of "god". And re the thread, if we are allowed to get back to it; Einstein was a determinist of the first order.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ... and of course Einstein was a rational and level headed person, with a mature attitude to the meaning of "god".

He very much was. He was much attracted to the Yahweh of his traditional culture but he did not see Yahweh as a Being. Yahweh declared "I am what am" and Albert correctly interpreted this to mean Yahweh was everything that exists. As a physicist he already had the universe before him as a good working definition of "everything that exists" so he had no difficulty in equating the two concepts. God was not (a) Being but simply Being itself. This placed Einstein squarely in the philosophical camp of Leibniz and Spinoza, which was rather paradoxical because the science of physics was firmly in the camp of Aquinas, Descartes, Bacon and Newton. If he hadn't been so quickly placed up onto a pedestal of genius he may ultimately have come to realise the fundamental inconsistency of his philosophical position because he was no slouch when it came to matters metaphysical. Such is the price of genius, I guess, because the genius of Einstein lay always in his instincts and never in his physics. As a physicist he was slightly better than adequate and as a mathematician he was considerably worse than mediocre but as a thinker he was peerless.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Einstein was a determinist of the first order.

Absolutely and unshakably until his dying day. He wasn't buying into the randomness bullshit at any stage of his life and knew fucking well that his own SR model was responsible for this nonsensical understanding of the sub-atomic world. His horror at seeing his beloved science being crushed under the jackboot of logical positivism was both genuine and profound.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ... and of course Einstein was a rational and level headed person, with a mature attitude to the meaning of "god".

He very much was. He was much attracted to the Yahweh of his traditional culture but he did not see Yahweh as a Being. Yahweh declared "I am what am" and Albert correctly interpreted this to mean Yahweh was everything that exists. As a physicist he already had the universe before him as a good working definition of "everything that exists" so he had no difficulty in equating the two concepts. God was not (a) Being but simply Being itself. This placed Einstein squarely in the philosophical camp of Leibniz and Spinoza, which was rather paradoxical because the science of physics was firmly in the camp of Aquinas, Descartes, Bacon and Newton. If he hadn't been so quickly placed up onto a pedestal of genius he may ultimately have come to realise the fundamental inconsistency of his philosophical position because he was no slouch when it came to matters metaphysical. Such is the price of genius, I guess, because the genius of Einstein lay always in his instincts and never in his physics. As a physicist he was slightly better than adequate and as a mathematician he was considerably worse than mediocre but as a thinker he was peerless.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Einstein was a determinist of the first order.

Absolutely and unshakably until his dying day. He wasn't buying into the randomness bullshit at any stage of his life and knew fucking well that his own SR model was responsible for this nonsensical understanding of the sub-atomic world. His horror at seeing his beloved science being crushed under the jackboot of logical positivism was both genuine and profound.

There's a good, if pedestrian article in this months PN. DO you subscribe?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/109/Einsteins_Morality

Hobbes' Choice wrote: There's a good, if pedestrian article in this months PN. DO you subscribe?

No I don't subscribe. Do you reckon it's worth it? I subscribe to that many publications that I'm not sure if I can fit another one on the list.

I emphatically disagree with Einstein on the question of the will because it is incompatible with my own position as a process philosopher and an adherent to the Santiago school of embodied cognition. However I can understand how he arrived at his position because it is fundamentally mandated by the spacetime paradigm he was instrumental in formulating. If he'd bothered listening to the true father of relativity theory, Henri Poincare, he would never have arrived at this position. Poincare rejected Minkowski's spatialisation of time as a metaphysical absurdity precisely because it obliterated the metaphysical distinction between past, present and future. Minkowski's mathematical sleight-of-hand effectively freezes all of reality into a frozen Parmenidean block, which is exactly the same as Newton's representation of the universe as an artefact of the mind of god, i.e. a virtual reality. Incidentally Einstein never denied that his own models were even more Newtonian than Newton's and thus implied a pre-determinism as rigid as that defined by Laplace. Poincare never bought it but sadly he didn't live long enough to see the publication of GR, a model from which he would have recoiled in horror. He was working on a far more intuitive approach to the problems of gravitational motion by tackling the famous "three-body problem". He never got far with it but he laid the foundations for an entirely new mathematical approach to physics which throughout the 20th century was further developed to model many naturally occurring systems except for those in physics. Not only was Poincare the father of relativity he was also the father of non-linear dynamic systems theory because he saw these as two sides of the same coin. Paradoxically it was Newton who put him on to this approach because it was from Newton that we know that the motion of every single entity in the universe is causally linked to the motion of every other, a fundamental truth of nature which SR completely ignores and which QM therefore also completely ignores. Poincare's topological spaces and iterative functions are now the cornerstone tools of fractal geometry but it wasn't until Benoit Mandelbrot came on the scene in the 1980s that the notion of a fractal dimension started to gain some serious traction. Although Poincare never had the language to express these modern concepts in his work this is exactly what he understood the time dimension to be. Alan Turing independently arrived at a similar conclusion in the 1940s but he also lacked the language to express such a new idea in words. Turing also had more pressing issues on his mind, such as saving his nation from obliteration by the Nazis and avoiding persecution at the hands of of a society which presumed the right to tell us who we might be free to love.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: There is a difference between a real thing and an idea. If this were not the case then anything I dream would have material existence.
Maths is a system of ideas that have been developed to help us describe the universe. But most of its postulates are not real in any sense.

No two apples are the same, so the equation 1+1=2 is only an approximation. The two apples occupy different places in space, cannot have the same mass, vary in temperature... and so on.
There are no straight lines in nature, no perfect spheres, there are no integers. irrational numbers are - well irresolvable - and yet there are thought to pertain to things which are. Even Euclid's Fifth postulate is not true in reality.

So give logic and maths its correct place. They offer analytically true statements, that work within their own assumptions and postulates systems, but only approximate reality when applied to the real world.
Throughout you have offered an idea of maths as truth. You might just as well have said that there exists a world that only has 2 dimensions. Such an idea has been expressed in Flatland, but it all examples, reality demands thickness.

You haven't answered how using any essential thing like reasoning within any scientific argument can have any validity if the very validity of this reasoning is neither provable nor disprovable. This only adds confusion when you get to the premise in the method that states that all theories must be disprovable. Up front it suggests an odd mindset that appears to approve of uncertainty and an irrational means to proceed fairly. No wonder religions still persist elsewhere. But maybe this was done on purpose?
.

I don't need to. Science verifies itself by replicability, and demonstration.

You seem to pretend that I'm against the scientific method all together. I extend the need to include logic as a function of it as the most significant missing factor. Replicability and demonstration is important but NOT without also providing a justified counter reason for how any such theory could be disproven. And also, any such replicability or demonstration can fit with multiple reasons. As such, you are being hypocritical to accept some things but not others within the method. You still have not explained how you can assert measuring observations using logic when you don't accept it as real? Even if something appears as merely a catalyst for reaction, you don't dismiss its reality because it remains unaffected. You may think logic only acts as such a catalyst but only think of the premises that get affected in change in the final conclusion as all that is significant. This is a big mistake.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

This proves that at least one 'form' or 'idea' exists independent of other normal everyday objects

Yes your example demonstrates ONLY that ideas exist as ideas, and can only be used approximately to describe the universe. In reality A is not equal to A, except as an idea. And as Idea is exactly what you multiverse is, nothing more. It is not demonstrable and therefore remains an idea until it is demonstrated.
You seem to be making my own argument by stating that; "This proves that at least one 'form' or 'idea' exists independent of other normal everyday objects."
I'm not sure where you are wanting to take this.
As I said earlier you are failing to make a valid distinction between the synthetic and the analytic; between the realm of ideas and the world. You are a naive idealist in this sense.

You miss that our brains do not immediately interpret input from our senses as distinct from memory as data to be used to interpret reality just as a computer does not make a distinction between memory or ports. Only when we test, using our internal reasoning ideas do we even recognize a difference. As such even our sensory input relies on reason prior to even sensing. Note that the major distinctions of reality from outside is its VARIABILITY and its INDETERMINACY and this has to be tested for internally. Thus, as far as the mind is concerned, these phenomena are merely 'ideas' still as they do not actually represent the objects out there directly. You also have to add the fact unless you restrict observation to the present tense, any use of memorized data that you use to interpret what is valid as objective reality is still reduced to the remnants of memory of this and is thus as fallible as any idea where you trade any idea in your head to measure with reasoning.

I'm intellectually inclusive to accept both memories and present inputs as equally valid where you are not. I agree that what we refer to as 'soundness' of an argument is dependent upon using inputs (premises) anywhere which map appropriately to the proper ranges and domains in mind. If your domain is reality from the senses, and you draw a conclusion from them, soundness requires that the range is also only about the domains in all the premises where they came from. But this is also true about using internal memory as input ideas. As long as the conclusions from them relate to the given internal data, there is soundness to argument.

1.
If:

"Scott is a man" and "All men are or have been Earth dwellers" [data interpreted from sensory domain]

It is sound to say that this argument is 'true' to reality by its capacity of both premises from the senses to conclude:

"Scott is or has been an Earth dweller." [data interpreted about the source of the sensory domain as a range]

2
If:

"Any turkey is a man" [internal idea] and "All men are or have been Earth dwellers" [external idea]

The conclusion, "All turkeys are or have been Earth dwellers." [internal and external conclusion]

This 'sound' conclusion follows from an unsound premise (that any turkey is a man) and a sound one (All men are or have been Earth dwellers). The conclusion is 'sound' only with respect to the inclusion of the domains as being both a product of internal and external ideas. Normally we only assume the 'soundness' where all premises AND conclusions are 'sound' in kind. But this is only in error of not recognizing the appropriate domains and ranges.

This last example shows what I believe is happening with scientific observations. A scientific observation is from an external domain, but all interpretations of what one believes is its cause is of an internal domain. Both are ideas and can draw a conclusion that is 'sound' with respect to both domains collectively.

You interpret only external ideas as significant AND even deny they are 'ideas' all together; You doubt internal ideas as all of what you think "ideas" are and believe in only using the sensory data to compare things to determine what is 'real'.

Scott

You seem to pretend that I'm against the scientific method all together. I extend the need to include logic as a function of it as the most significant missing factor. Replicability and demonstration is important but NOT without also providing a justified counter reason for how any such theory could be disproven. And also, any such replicability or demonstration can fit with multiple reasons. As such, you are being hypocritical to accept some things but not others within the method. You still have not explained how you can assert measuring observations using logic when you don't accept it as real? Even if something appears as merely a catalyst for reaction, you don't dismiss its reality because it remains unaffected. You may think logic only acts as such a catalyst but only think of the premises that get affected in change in the final conclusion as all that is significant. This is a big mistake.

It was just the fact that you asked, and I told you. The point about demonstrability, is that the multiverse is simply not demonstrable. It remains a clumsy and non Ockhamist way to solve a problem that does not exist. Bit like a solution looking for a problem. Don't need to disprove any theory in any case. Having a means to falsify; is not the same as a edict to have to disprove every crack-pot scheme you might dream up. But the difficulty here is, what good is any theory without cause and effect? If the world brings things into being without cause, then basically the whole scientific project is meaningless.Obviously, just because I don't like it, does not mean it is not true, but the results of deterministic "laws", such as they are, do provide predictive results, and whilst this is the case, I'd seek to preserve the method we have and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You miss that our brains do not immediately interpret input from our senses as distinct from memory as data to be used to interpret reality just as a computer does not make a distinction between memory or ports. Only when we test, using our internal reasoning ideas do we even recognize a difference. As such even our sensory input relies on reason prior to even sensing. Note that the major distinctions of reality from outside is its VARIABILITY and its INDETERMINACY and this has to be tested for internally. Thus, as far as the mind is concerned, these phenomena are merely 'ideas' still as they do not actually represent the objects out there directly. You also have to add the fact unless you restrict observation to the present tense, any use of memorized data that you use to interpret what is valid as objective reality is still reduced to the remnants of memory of this and is thus as fallible as any idea where you trade any idea in your head to measure with reasoning.

I've missed nothing at all. And do not see what your case is driving at here. You seem to be driving down a solipsistic route - to what end?
You can dwell in the subject as much as you like, but the dreams of the imagination do not amount to accounts of reality. The scientific method is designed to explicate an objective world, a description of that world in terms of actions lead to another. We seek in vain the "thing-itself" hoping to explain the universe. But when I hear the thunder of hooves I postulate a herd of horses, not a multidimensional crowd of unicorns with goblin riders on their backs.
Obviously the cognitive equipment provided us by evolution is not selected for scientific study, per se, but we have to deal with it the best we can. And that means getting our head out of the subjective sand and into the shared study of the phenomena.

I'm intellectually inclusive to accept both memories and present inputs as equally valid where you are not. I agree that what we refer to as 'soundness' of an argument is dependent upon using inputs (premises) anywhere which map appropriately to the proper ranges and domains in mind. If your domain is reality from the senses, and you draw a conclusion from them, soundness requires that the range is also only about the domains in all the premises where they came from. But this is also true about using internal memory as input ideas. As long as the conclusions from them relate to the given internal data, there is soundness to argument.

This does not advance your case I think, but simply brings into question the whole problem of cognition.
And strangulated syllogisms about men and Turkeys do not help.
I have to say that you only have a problem here with definition. And you can read the problem as if "turkey" is just another word for "man".
But I understand what you are saying. One might reflect upon scientific mistakes of the past. Let us say Phogistan is to turkey what oxygen is to man. Having the framework of understanding enables the assertions to receiver scrutiny. The failings of the Phlogistan theory led to the 'discovery' of oxygen.

Leo can you explain this?
"I emphatically disagree with Einstein on the question of the will because it is incompatible with my own position as a process philosopher and an adherent to the Santiago school of embodied cognition."

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Leo can you explain this?
"I emphatically disagree with Einstein on the question of the will because it is incompatible with my own position as a process philosopher and an adherent to the Santiago school of embodied cognition."

Not briefly. The Santiago model is a very sophisticated model of human consciousness and I'm not sure if I could do justice to a proper reprise of it in a forum such as this. Furthermore there are people far better qualified than I to do it. I'd recommend the works of Humberto Maturana and Franscisco Varela, the blokes who originally developed the model, as well as everything written by Antonio Damasio, in my opinion the most insightful theorist in cognitive neuroscience of our era.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Scott

You seem to pretend that I'm against the scientific method all together. I extend the need to include logic as a function of it as the most significant missing factor. Replicability and demonstration is important but NOT without also providing a justified counter reason for how any such theory could be disproven. And also, any such replicability or demonstration can fit with multiple reasons. As such, you are being hypocritical to accept some things but not others within the method. You still have not explained how you can assert measuring observations using logic when you don't accept it as real? Even if something appears as merely a catalyst for reaction, you don't dismiss its reality because it remains unaffected. You may think logic only acts as such a catalyst but only think of the premises that get affected in change in the final conclusion as all that is significant. This is a big mistake.

It was just the fact that you asked, and I told you. The point about demonstrability, is that the multiverse is simply not demonstrable. It remains a clumsy and non Ockhamist way to solve a problem that does not exist. Bit like a solution looking for a problem. Don't need to disprove any theory in any case. Having a means to falsify; is not the same as a edict to have to disprove every crack-pot scheme you might dream up. But the difficulty here is, what good is any theory without cause and effect? If the world brings things into being without cause, then basically the whole scientific project is meaningless.Obviously, just because I don't like it, does not mean it is not true, but the results of deterministic "laws", such as they are, do provide predictive results, and whilst this is the case, I'd seek to preserve the method we have and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The multiverse IS determined indirectly just as many other inferences done scientifically too. The difference is that you only need the first observer (reader of the argument) as the 'empirical' witness and their internal reasoning however realized (whether interpreted as learned or genetic) PLUS a valid argument. It is also in line with Occam since I don't even assume anything to reality beyond the observer to be unable to deny it.

Like I'm trying to caution you, I am not against science here. The Falsification I referred to wasn't a challenge for you to try to 'falsify' any unreasonable claim or fantasy you think I have without warrant. I mentioned it with respect to the hypocrisy of those who hold to a strict stance of the empirical method but opt to pick and choose which things they are or are not required to have challenged. The fear of concerns for science, especially of the past, was a problem with demarcating truth as a scientist is able to do as opposed to religious ones. I get this but know that this is NOT a real issue as most believe. My own logical method also is able to definitively demarcate the absurd as well. I just think that logic has in the past gained a bad rap for appearing to support non-sense. This is because the propositions (premises) that go into any argument do NOT have to map onto our reality in order to be valid or sound. And I also thought that this dismissal is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater too. I certainly am not for throwing out the empirical method in any way. I am concerned about specific philosophical details about some problems within it but am more concerned about the disrespect of the incompleteness of determining any of its truths without assuring a soundness and real veracity of the logic it uses as well.

Here is an example of how the concern within contemporary science that I see is clearly in error: While I agree to conservation principles, I find the BB theory proposing certain concepts that is highly magical and absurdly mystical when they propose that conservation doesn't apply at the beginning when or where it is assumed that a fixed quantitative amount of matter and energy just appears without warrant. I would understand nothing OR, an infinite quantity, but to assume an inserted and fixed quantity at some point simply for no reason (not even causatively justified according to your favor), is hypocritical. This is no different than one proposing a non-deistic God who created the universe because it commands a unique non-zero/non-infinite quantity that is arbitrary. Now, for those who at least propose a multiverse theory, this is not so hypocritical since is then interprets our particular universe as just being one of every possible arbitrary quantity to begin with. I take the further step by presuming a vacant reality. This is certainly an appropriate way to assume, just as being atheistic implies an absence of belief. I propose NOTHING necessary to initiate reality as the appropriate and rational way to begin.

You miss that our brains do not immediately interpret input from our senses as distinct from memory as data to be used to interpret reality just as a computer does not make a distinction between memory or ports. Only when we test, using our internal reasoning ideas do we even recognize a difference. As such even our sensory input relies on reason prior to even sensing. Note that the major distinctions of reality from outside is its VARIABILITY and its INDETERMINACY and this has to be tested for internally. Thus, as far as the mind is concerned, these phenomena are merely 'ideas' still as they do not actually represent the objects out there directly. You also have to add the fact unless you restrict observation to the present tense, any use of memorized data that you use to interpret what is valid as objective reality is still reduced to the remnants of memory of this and is thus as fallible as any idea where you trade any idea in your head to measure with reasoning.

I've missed nothing at all. And do not see what your case is driving at here. You seem to be driving down a solipsistic route - to what end?
You can dwell in the subject as much as you like, but the dreams of the imagination do not amount to accounts of reality. The scientific method is designed to explicate an objective world, a description of that world in terms of actions lead to another. We seek in vain the "thing-itself" hoping to explain the universe. But when I hear the thunder of hooves I postulate a herd of horses, not a multidimensional crowd of unicorns with goblin riders on their backs.
Obviously the cognitive equipment provided us by evolution is not selected for scientific study, per se, but we have to deal with it the best we can. And that means getting our head out of the subjective sand and into the shared study of the phenomena.

We all start from a solipsistic standpoint until we interpret a set of inputs/outputs that suggest the objective world. But your "objective" world is only about democratic convention to agree to some subset of people's independent subjective views only. There is NO such thing as a sincere "objective" human perspective other than our practical means to politically convene to what we agree is true. But reality doesn't have to abide by people's whims or capacities as a democracy with regards to a real "objective" truth to nature. The only sincere and fair way to find the most unanimously agreed to "objectivity" is if we begin by assuming only what each and every human has the direct capacity to observe from their subjective minds. This is done by the defaulting to propositions that are unanimously logical to each and every person attending the argument.

I know I won't get any possible unanimous agreement in practice as long as even one individual out there is a biological entity since we all evolve necessarily to have an emotional component to favor their existence as a special creature of nature. Even while you may claim no religion, if you believe our universe is specifically determined to be perfectly unique, you believe that your life is inevitable and unique, and thus default to a fatalistic interpretation to determinism about nature.

I'm intellectually inclusive to accept both memories and present inputs as equally valid where you are not. I agree that what we refer to as 'soundness' of an argument is dependent upon using inputs (premises) anywhere which map appropriately to the proper ranges and domains in mind. If your domain is reality from the senses, and you draw a conclusion from them, soundness requires that the range is also only about the domains in all the premises where they came from. But this is also true about using internal memory as input ideas. As long as the conclusions from them relate to the given internal data, there is soundness to argument.

This does not advance your case I think, but simply brings into question the whole problem of cognition.
And strangulated syllogisms about men and Turkeys do not help.
I have to say that you only have a problem here with definition. And you can read the problem as if "turkey" is just another word for "man".
But I understand what you are saying. One might reflect upon scientific mistakes of the past. Let us say Phogistan is to turkey what oxygen is to man. Having the framework of understanding enables the assertions to receiver scrutiny. The failings of the Phlogistan theory led to the 'discovery' of oxygen.

The syllogisms I used were to show how we can err even by proposing theories that appear to 'fit' within the empirical method. I was trying to show how we can have appropriate real observations that map with a good model that acts predictably for practical and equally sound conclusions but still be actually wrong. And the problem with not recognizing this is that the as we evolve within educational institutes to demand obedience not to challenge certain theories just because they presently work, begins a trend towards a new authoritative religion in cycles. The very fact we have any discrepancy between ANY scientific theories that contradict on the fringes (by 'fringe' I refer to Cosmology vs. Atomic sciences, for instance) means there is some problem with the underlying assumptions of one or both extremes in these areas. You prefer to conserve the past theories and only attend to the long line of theoretical conclusions without challenging any earlier ones. By placing an unrealistic burden upon others to have to invalidate past theories is in error because it ignores the points I made about how soundness within domains or ranges can trick us into seeing multiple conclusions. What we are doing within science is simply to accept the first sound arguments that some arbitrary scientist has suggested with credibility when there still exists other sound arguments that actually provide better closure or completeness to science as a whole.

I used, I'm not sure in this thread or another I'm contemporaneously arguing in too, the analogy of attempting to find a route to some town as a goal to which there are many possible routes. Note that the 'shortest' apparent route in reality (akin to Occam's Razor) is NOT the necessary 'truth' here to find a means to that goal realistically. But what can be recognized is that even while a shortest route can be found for practical purposes, it doesn't dismiss the reality of multiple routes existing. This should be as empirically understood as sufficient justification to infer multiple possible universes alone.

Just to confirm you understand, are you aware of the differences between "soundness" and "validity" within logic? Do you understand "domain" and "range"?

The multiverse IS determined indirectly just as many other inferences done scientifically too. The difference is that you only need the first observer (reader of the argument) as the 'empirical' witness and their internal reasoning however realized (whether interpreted as learned or genetic) PLUS a valid argument. It is also in line with Occam since I don't even assume anything to reality beyond the observer to be unable to deny it.

Sorry this is simply gibberish. It's not even very grammatical. I can't make head nor tail of it.

I find the BB theory proposing certain concepts that is highly magical and absurdly mystical when they propose that conservation doesn't apply at the beginning when or where it is assumed that a fixed quantitative amount of matter and energy just appears without warrant.

This is straying well of the point. I can dismiss the BBT with as much gusto as you and still reject without contradiction indeterminacy, and multiverse theory.

We all start from a solipsistic standpoint until we interpret a set of inputs/outputs that suggest the objective world. But your "objective" world is only about democratic convention to agree to some subset of people's independent subjective views only. There is NO such thing as a sincere "objective" human perspective other than our practical means to politically convene to what we agree is true.

I think the scientific world is a little more reliable than a political party. But there is no doubt that it is formed through the agreement of the scientific community and is therefore an inter-subjective construction. But given this limitation only counsels caution about the length we can reasonably go in interpreting the objects of our perception.
This woeful limitation is far more dangerous for a multiverse theory than anything I have claimed. So, I am really puzzled why you are bringing this up.

And your concluding statements about the logic do not help your case either.

It's a fact that 99% of all cosmologies ever dreamed up have since the dawn of science have proved false, except one. Multiverses is doomed with the geocentric hypothesis, and the steady state theory.
The only cosmology that works is the one that "saves the appearances" within the limits of the data, and offers predictive results inferred from the system. In other words, keep it simple, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Drawing out the limits of the scientific and logical methods are fair, but lead to this conclusion, not the ad hoc addition of goblins on horses, divine movers or multiverses.

I've found this an interesting thread so far and I hesitate to ask a question for fear of derailing it off its current course. I must ask of Leo, you have in this thread argued for an eternal universe yet at least once referred to a finite universe.

Obvious Leo wrote: On the grounds that any philosophy has to start somewhere with some axiomatic principles I adopt the first law of thermodynamics as one of mine. The universe cannot be created or destroyed and is therefore eternal.

Obvious Leo wrote: Self -organising systems EVOLVE from the simple to the complex for the simple reason that they cannot do otherwise and the fact that our universe is doing exactly this is supported by 13.8 billion years worth of evidence and it is also supported by the fact that here we are discussing it.

While I think my own view is that universe is likely eternal, that seems not to be matched by observation. Apart from modern science's evidence for a time constrained universe, there is the simple case that if the universe is eternal and systems within it tend to evolve from the simple to the complex, then it follows that life should be the norm throughout the universe - in fact it should be teeming with life and evidence for that life. Yet so far at least that seems not to be the case.

I think I am misunderstanding something about your argument for an eternal universe?

Scott Mayers wrote: I find the BB theory proposing certain concepts that is highly magical and absurdly mystical when they propose that conservation doesn't apply at the beginning when or where it is assumed that a fixed quantitative amount of matter and energy just appears without warrant.

You completely misrepresent Big Bang Theory in this statement and I defy you to name a single theorist who supports this position. BBT does NOT claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. It merely points out, quite correctly, that physics can only make meaningful statements about events which occurred in the universe subsequent to the big bang. In other words physics has no choice but to proceed AS IF the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe but neither Einstein's field equations nor the Friedman equations mandate such a beginning. The distinction is not a trivial one and I recommend that you pay closer attention to the implications of it because it means that your multiverse hypothesis is founded on a false premise.

Graeme M wrote:I've found this an interesting thread so far and I hesitate to ask a question for fear of derailing it off its current course. I must ask of Leo, you have in this thread argued for an eternal universe yet at least once referred to a finite universe.

Infinity is not for the faint-hearted, Graeme, but it is not logically inconsistent to assume that the universe is finite in terms of its matter and energy content and yet infinite in terms of its temporality, i.e. eternal. In fact Olbers' paradox mandates the former and the first law of thermodynamics mandates the latter. There is also the well-founded metaphysical principle which has underpinned philosophy for millennia that the notion of "first cause" is both a non -sequitur and a logical absurdity.

In my own philosophy I posit the notion of a cyclical universe which is rapidly becoming accepted in mainstream physics as the bang/crunch model. This idea also resonates perfectly with all the major eastern philosophies, none of which have ever assumed otherwise. Incidentally the pre-Socratics also hinted at the cyclical universe but not enough remains extant from their writings to gain much insight about exactly how they envisaged this. However Anaximander had the theory of evolution in mind when he spoke of it and that our universe is evolving is a proposition of the sublimely obvious, since here we are discussing it.

Graeme M wrote:While I think my own view is that universe is likely eternal, that seems not to be matched by observation.

For the reasons I gave to Scott above. Just because we can make no meaningful statements about events which occurred prior to the big bang does not give us license to conclude that no such events existed. Ask yourself which proposition makes more sense to you and there you'll have your answer. Physicists may resolve the problem of models which make no sense by hubristically redefining what making sense means but we philosophers are not permitted to grant ourselves such a latitude. Making sense to a philosopher means exactly what it appears to mean.

Graeme M wrote:it follows that life should be the norm throughout the universe - in fact it should be teeming with life and evidence for that life. Yet so far at least that seems not to be the case.

The universe is a pup with tens of billions of good years left in her, Graeme. Most astrobiologists are of the view that life began on earth around about as early as it possibly could have, give or take a billion years or two. There are at least 4 trillion trillion stars in the universe and each of these stars lies in our past as we observe them. We've only been looking for extra-terrestrial life for a decade or two so I reckon we might need to be a bit more patient. There's also the inconvenient fact that any civilisation which develops the capacity to destroy itself will almost inevitably do so. Despite all these odds Carl Sagan reckoned there would probably be a million civilisations in our own galaxy at least as technologically advanced as us, but that the chances of us encountering them might very well be negligible. There are 200 billion galaxies, Graeme.

"The universe is big, very big".....Douglas Adams.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The multiverse IS determined indirectly just as many other inferences done scientifically too. The difference is that you only need the first observer (reader of the argument) as the 'empirical' witness and their internal reasoning however realized (whether interpreted as learned or genetic) PLUS a valid argument. It is also in line with Occam since I don't even assume anything to reality beyond the observer to be unable to deny it.

Sorry this is simply gibberish. It's not even very grammatical. I can't make head nor tail of it.

I take my time to write and agree that it sometimes appears less readable, especially when I might begin a sentence, grab a cup of coffee, take a dump, then realized that I didn't check the mail, need smokes badly so head to the store, get back home and then, ....Oh damn, where was I? Sorry for your misinterpretation, but I'll try differently:

I only assume the participation of the reader as in the method of Descartes to begin. Then I show how anyone can reason that at least some nothing exists AND has meaning. This shows that such a thing as nothing is possible as a variable input to reality from the beginning rather than assuming anything specific that is biased to our experience, such as that at least something exists. It is both most strongly empirical and requires even less than anything (literally nothing) to begin from. In contrast the BB theory begins with a singularity and then, poof, exactly some perfectly unique large quantity of matter and energy exist! Space at least fortunately gets to accelerate into existence !

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

I find the BB theory proposing certain concepts that is highly magical and absurdly mystical when they propose that conservation doesn't apply at the beginning when or where it is assumed that a fixed quantitative amount of matter and energy just appears without warrant.

This is straying well of the point. I can dismiss the BBT with as much gusto as you and still reject without contradiction indeterminacy, and multiverse theory.

Sorry, I have multiple universes called 'threads' I'm simultaneously participating in with similar-related overlapping topics. Perhaps you weren't aware. My bad. See viewtopic.php?f=23&t=15615&p=217024#p217024 where I am also discussing this with Leo who is also participating in similar crossing threads. There I just argued against Leo's take on Chaos theory since it implies that at least for an initial state, reality is indeterminate but determinate from then on. I argue that this 'chaos' theory lacks justification because it either defaults to multiple universes or acts contradictory when it is assumed it speaks of only one unique possible reality. The Big Bang theory contrasts with my own type of Steady State model in that it [ie. BB] similarly takes a form of belief that the beginning of the universe had the power to choose (like a butterfly to either flap or not flap its wings) and just arbitrarily picked some random fixed quantity of matter and energy. This might be fine if all infinite worlds were permitted since this would take away a need for a 'willing agent'. If our universe is absolutely unique and determinate, this is no different than fate.

We all start from a solipsistic standpoint until we interpret a set of inputs/outputs that suggest the objective world. But your "objective" world is only about democratic convention to agree to some subset of people's independent subjective views only. There is NO such thing as a sincere "objective" human perspective other than our practical means to politically convene to what we agree is true.

I think the scientific world is a little more reliable than a political party. But there is no doubt that it is formed through the agreement of the scientific community and is therefore an inter-subjective construction. But given this limitation only counsels caution about the length we can reasonably go in interpreting the objects of our perception.
This woeful limitation is far more dangerous for a multiverse theory than anything I have claimed. So, I am really puzzled why you are bringing this up.

And your concluding statements about the logic do not help your case either.

It's a fact that 99% of all cosmologies ever dreamed up have since the dawn of science have proved false, except one. Multiverses is doomed with the geocentric hypothesis, and the steady state theory.
The only cosmology that works is the one that "saves the appearances" within the limits of the data, and offers predictive results inferred from the system. In other words, keep it simple, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Drawing out the limits of the scientific and logical methods are fair, but lead to this conclusion, not the ad hoc addition of goblins on horses, divine movers or multiverses.

You perceive that reality can only require simplistic explanations. I can't speak for Occam as I hadn't actually read his works to determine, but I find it odd that people keep uncarefully defending segments (shortest distance between two points) as meaning that curves cannot exist! [similar to that linear vs non-linear determination as Leo raised from Chaos theory]

The multiverse is a completely logical construct based even on our individual experiences and is more certain than to pose a place that lacks optional possibilities. This doesn't mean that you can specify that we can speak about some other exact contingent world with as much confidence as we do our own, it just means that we recognize things such as space as having variability....that a memory space in a computer could contain either a one or a zero and that we can re-run the computer given real different input data that creates REAL and variable programs. We may not be able to directly observe multiple realities but this rationale asserts that either we accept this as true or we abandon it for fatalism.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: I find the BB theory proposing certain concepts that is highly magical and absurdly mystical when they propose that conservation doesn't apply at the beginning when or where it is assumed that a fixed quantitative amount of matter and energy just appears without warrant.

You completely misrepresent Big Bang Theory in this statement and I defy you to name a single theorist who supports this position. BBT does NOT claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. It merely points out, quite correctly, that physics can only make meaningful statements about events which occurred in the universe subsequent to the big bang. In other words physics has no choice but to proceed AS IF the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe but neither Einstein's field equations nor the Friedman equations mandate such a beginning. The distinction is not a trivial one and I recommend that you pay closer attention to the implications of it because it means that your multiverse hypothesis is founded on a false premise.

My premise of a multiverse may be motivated by my distaste for the Big Bang theory whether I interpret it right or wrongly. But my own theory is not dependent upon simply the error of the Big Bang theories as I believe because I argue it independently from my the Big Bang position. That is, I don't have a premise like: "Since the Big Bang is wrong, therefore whatever I propose to fill in that void arbitrarily MUST be correct by default"??? Your practical interpretation above is at least certain to be the case with many. However, if or where anyone interprets it with closure of what else is possible, those supporters of the theory are also feigning they have wisdom enough to also deny indeterminacy with determination. As such, I disagree and posit my own argument. Truth is not simply what is 'practical' but what is actually certain underneath everything.

I provided a computer analogy using tests to memory locations where you can determine that some of these locations do not abide by any assignment and act without initial predictability. These are what proves them as 'ports' (extensions to peripheral devises or the outside world). We also determine that we can alter our internal assignments to memory locations where possible and these can then be changed too. This is like our short term memory which alters. The variable nature of the values from outside as well as to even internal things suggests that our contingent experience is only one of other possibilities. Just because we cannot experience anything that directly proves other contingent realities exist (for now?), we indirectly have to interpret that reality doesn't have a mind to FAVOR, and thus cannot bias against those other worlds existing with different actual inputs.

If this may help, think of a universe as a mere time period even within our own contingent universe. We know that we can repeat anything we like or re-begin using different inputs. So assume any two experiments in time where you repeat things but alter the data in a way that no other difference except that data changes, such as writing two different programs using different constants. Because you CAN do this, this proves that variability is not only contingent AND different in two different times, but that this represents how totality would also place other options that you cannot directly interpret. If you did the first experiment, while you are doing the second, the memory of the first is not directly being observed and so you cannot be certain your memory is correct (unless you DO believe that ideas are real? ) But you infer that as you witness in your later experiment a contrast in real time using different inputs and remember the last one, this proves that both possibilities are indirectly proven real to you. Thus multiverses exist necessarily to contain those real options.