Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:By the way, Phil. Hawking has gone off the event horizon idea, and not before time, in my opinion. He now prefers to call it a "virtual" horizon. You've gotta love it, don't you?

He gets a good press.

PhilX

He's got a good agent. He's nowhere near as highly thought of in the scientific community as he is in the popular media. My own view is that he's a very gifted mathematician but not a very clear thinker.

Obvious Leo wrote:You're about the only one making any sense in this thread, skip. Talking about anything which is assumed to exist external to the universe is just god-bollocks by another name. No meaningful statements can be made about it.

It's true that no meaningful statements can be made at this time and likely for a long time but that in itself does not negate the possibility of a multiverse existing. There's no one alive who can say for sure it's not possible. With all the posts made on philosophy forums which exist external to common sense, the discussion of a multiverse - which has not been discounted by physicists, cosmologists and likely even some philosophers - the question becomes a lot more valid then whether god exists or not.

Dubious wrote:- the question becomes a lot more valid then whether god exists or not.

In what way? Since both fall into the same class of unverifiable hypotheses they must be regarded as equivalent statements.

Dubious wrote:does not negate the possibility of a multiverse existing.

We needn't give up on the leprechauns either, since their non-existence will never be established.

Dubious wrote:- the question becomes a lot more valid then whether god exists or not.

Obvious Leo wrote:In what way? Since both fall into the same class of unverifiable hypotheses they must be regarded as equivalent statements.

You conveniently ignore the difference between an unverifiable hypotheses and one which is absurd since for the entire history of humans there has never been a actual manifestation of god except as denoted in scripture. By comparison, for how long has the concept of a multiverse been examined and for what reason(s) did this scrutiny come about in the first place? The idea of a multiverse is taken seriously by the science community though some give it less probability and others give it more. In any event no one really knows even though there are some who know everything for sure.

Dubious wrote:does not negate the possibility of a multiverse existing.

Obvious Leo wrote:We needn't give up on the leprechauns either, since their non-existence will never be established.

This statement makes you sound a lot like IC on God meaning I have no comment on your comment.

Dubious wrote:It's true that no meaningful statements can be made at this time and likely for a long time but that in itself does not negate the possibility of a multiverse existing. There's no one alive who can say for sure it's not possible.

Of course it's possible. All kinds of unknowable things might exist. I certainly do not begrudge you the right to speculate, argue and fantasize about any of them.

With all the posts made on philosophy forums which exist external to common sense, the discussion of a multiverse - which has not been discounted by physicists, cosmologists and likely even some philosophers - the question becomes a lot more valid then whether god exists or not.

By definition. (Though, if you count up the posts on philosophy forums, I'm pretty sure God is still has a pretty good lead.)

What you cannot do is prove any particular speculation, opinion or fantasy more or less credible than any other.

No, Loretta, I'm not oppressing you. You can't have babies 'cose you haven't got womb.

Dubious wrote:It's true that no meaningful statements can be made at this time and likely for a long time but that in itself does not negate the possibility of a multiverse existing. There's no one alive who can say for sure it's not possible.

Skip wrote:Of course it's possible. All kinds of unknowable things might exist. I certainly do not begrudge you the right to speculate, argue and fantasize about any of them.

It has nothing to do with right or preference or how to waste time fantasizing 'about any of them'. Though 'speculation' is still the operative word some are far more valid than others. I could speculate about a cascade of turtles upholding the universe or I could speculate what caused the Big Bang both of which remain speculations.

Dubious wrote:With all the posts made on philosophy forums which exist external to common sense, the discussion of a multiverse - which has not been discounted by physicists, cosmologists and likely even some philosophers - the question becomes a lot more valid then whether god exists or not.

Skip wrote:By definition. (Though, if you count up the posts on philosophy forums, I'm pretty sure God is still has a pretty good lead.)

...a pretty good lead in what? God wins the votes for credibility vis-a-vis that of a multiverse? Of all the fallacies philosophy is aware of, it has devolved into the greatest fallacy of all...an acute lack of logic and thinking.

Skip wrote:What you cannot do is prove any particular speculation, opinion or fantasy more or less credible than any other.

This makes absolutely no sense. What you're announcing is that ALL speculations are created equal which is completely contrary to common sense not so much in terms of PROOF but in terms of CREDIBILITY which is a matter of degree. Speculations are not synonymous with fantasy. Even theories exist as speculations until proven. Until then they remain speculative but with a far greater degree of probability than any fantasy.

Skip wrote:No, Loretta, I'm not oppressing you. You can't have babies 'cose you haven't got womb.

Don't know how this applies and I'm not speculating!

Dubious wrote: "All kinds of unknowable things might exist. I certainly do not begrudge you the right to speculate",

It has nothing to do with right or preference or how you how to waste time fantasizing 'about any of them'.

It's all about preference. Some choose the afterlife to speculate about; some talk about the beginning of time; some discuss what the world would be like if dinosaurs were still dominant.

Though 'speculation' is still the operative word some are far more valid than others.

Which speculations about the multiverse are more valid than which? On what basis do you compare?

I could speculate about a cascade of turtles holding up the universe or I could speculate what caused the Big Bang both of which remain speculations.

Yes; that's a preference. One subject would sound sillier than the other, due to current fashion, but, on either subject, your guess is no better nor worse than Phil's or Lacewing's, as all are equally unverifiable. On the subjects that have been discussed by Very Serious People, you can use the published opinions of VSP as a standard of comparison. On the frivolous ones, you'd have to agree on a fiction writer for authority - just as those who argue over God go to their reference book. Or you could set up parameters for the discussion and see who came closer to a plausible description according to the rules.
In neither case would you be able to conduct experiments, make observations, take measurements, or test any statement for verity.

Skip "What you cannot do is prove any particular speculation, opinion or fantasy more or less credible than any other."

This makes absolutely no sense. What you're announcing is that ALL speculations are created equal

All speculations regarding any given unknowable subject, yes. Unless you set up an arbitrary standard of validity, as I mentioned above.

which is completely contrary to common sense not so much in terms of PROOF but in terms of CREDIBILITY which is a matter of degree.

To what degree does common sense indicate that multiverses are CREDIBLE?

Speculations are not synonymous with fantasy.

On subject matter you can never know, yes, they are.

Even theories exist as speculations until proven

Well, then there is your standard to meet. I'm vegetarian, but I'll start fattening up a crow for the day you devise an experiment to prove the existence of a multiverse. I'm not asking for PROOF, or even a convincing observation that would lead to eventual proof.
Just an explanation of how you would go about looking for a proof.

Skip wrote: your guess is no better nor worse than Phil's or Lacewing's, as all are equally unverifiable.

I think this is the point which Dubious is missing. All of science relies on speculation so of course some speculations are more credible than others. However any speculation which cannot be verified, even in principle, cannot be regarded as a legitimate scientific hypothesis. All such speculations have an equal credibility, which is none, but this doesn't mean they might not be true. It just means that no truth statements can be made about them and this goes for the multiverse and god equally.

If you can't recognize the difference between a fantasy and a speculation there's no point in continuing debate.

But in regard to this question:

Skip wrote:To what degree does common sense indicate that multiverses are CREDIBLE?

Whether common sense indicates it or not, it cannot negate the possibity...because WE live in A universe! What does this mean? It means there is a universe we are cognizant of since we exist within it. This further implies that a universe is an entity capable of existence. Any objections so far? Since there is one already confirmed to exist proving that a universe can IN FACT exist, what would be so retrograde or perverse - as some make it out to be - in thinking and applying credibility to the idea that there could be another one which may also exist...aside from there not being anything in physics which negates the possibility. It also begs the question whether in this universe or hypothetical beyond...there can be just ONE OF ANYTHING?

Well, then there is your standard to meet. I'm vegetarian, but I'll start fattening up a crow for the day you devise an experiment to prove the existence of a multiverse. I'm not asking for PROOF, or even a convincing observation that would lead to eventual proof. Just an explanation of how you would go about looking for a proof.

This is a question you should put to God in spite of one never having shown up compared to a universe which, as far as we can tell, is actually here. We humans are fated to work at the lower levels of trial and error and incapable of preplanning revelations. If we ever get close it wouldn't be one anymore. First you examine clues, however tenuous, in THIS universe (as if there were a choice). But as already mentioned, why is the concept of a multiverse now being examined by science and for what reason(s) did this scrutiny come about in the first place? Hot air! Maybe create a little science fiction to keep the masses entertained?

Dubious wrote:If you can't recognize the difference between a fantasy and a speculation there's no point in continuing debate.

Surely you can see that in philosophy no such distinction exists because both are purely subjective phenomena. If neither can be verified, even in principle, then what you or I may regard as credible or not credible is only germane to our own interpretation of reality and can bear no a priori relationship to the truth value of the statement itself. This is central to the Kantian metaphysic and something which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand.

Dubious wrote:why is the concept of a multiverse now being examined by science and for what reason(s) did this scrutiny come about in the first place?

This is a better question because it has an answer. The multiverse is being considered because the science of physics is unable to explain why the universe we live in is the way it is rather than some other way. It's rather like you wondering how come you were born to be the bloke you are rather than some other bloke. As you can see logic is not a highly valued commodity in physics.

Dubious wrote:If you can't recognize the difference between a fantasy and a speculation there's no point in continuing debate.

If you can't recognize the difference between subject matter that can be studied by scientific method and subject matter that is wholly outside our realm of study, there was never a debate in the first place.

Whether common sense indicates it or not, it cannot negate the possibity...because WE live in A universe! What does this mean? It means there is a universe we are cognizant of since we exist within it. This further implies that a universe is an entity capable of existence.

The existence of a thing implies that that thing is capable of existence?
Why take two steps back? The existence of the universe was a given before your own existence was even remote possibility. Move on!

Since there is one already confirmed to exist proving that a universe can IN FACT exist, what would be so retrograde or perverse - as some make it out to be - in thinking and applying credibility to the idea that there could be another one which may also exist

May, might and possible were conceded up front. So?

...aside from there not being anything in physics which negates the possibility. It also begs the question whether in this universe or hypothetical beyond...there can be just ONE OF ANYTHING?

Why do you need to beg this question? One, two, seven, 58,000 - all equally possible and unverifiable.

"..devise an experiment to prove the existence of a multiverse."

This is a question you should put to God in spite of one never having shown up compared to a universe

He's not the one claiming that this proposition of multiverses is as valid, and has as right and wrong answers, as a theory regarding phenomena within the reality we inhabit.

Dubious wrote:If you can't recognize the difference between a fantasy and a speculation there's no point in continuing debate.

Obvious Leo wrote:Surely you can see that in philosophy no such distinction exists because both are purely subjective phenomena. If neither can be verified, even in principle, then what you or I may regard as credible or not credible is only germane to our own interpretation of reality and can bear no a priori relationship to the truth value of the statement itself. This is central to the Kantian metaphysic and something which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand.

Philosophy accomplished nothing vis-a-vis science during the last 200 years so I'm hardly going to take such a distinction seriously. If it were true as stated, we wouldn't even be able to power up a light bulb...which likely wouldn't exist either. But there is also an inherent fallacy in the implication that no such distinction exists because both are purely subjective phenomena. Since when are 'subjective phenomena' only monochrome? What we perceive as subjective is usually rampant with competing distinctions just as the eye sees color within a compass of wavelengths. The distinction I made in the most simple minded manner possible has nothing to do with subjective phenomena but simple logic which I'm not going to repeat since the core of the argument made for the possibility of more than one universe hasn't even been mentioned.

Dubious wrote:why is the concept of a multiverse now being examined by science and for what reason(s) did this scrutiny come about in the first place?

Obvious Leo wrote:This is a better question because it has an answer. The multiverse is being considered because the science of physics is unable to explain why the universe we live in is the way it is rather than some other way. It's rather like you wondering how come you were born to be the bloke you are rather than some other bloke. As you can see logic is not a highly valued commodity in physics.

This doesn't make sense! My question in that case would be why go into a multiverse theme if we're so incapable of explaining the one universe we inhabit? Why such a leap into a no-mans-land if we can't understand the one we're in? You seem to be implying it's all just camouflage and cover-up! One might as well say "A god is being considered...instead of a multiverse to resolve the matter!

This doesn't make sense!

I have only a few years left to live. I'll use them to do something else.

Dubious wrote:
This doesn't make sense! My question in that case would be why go into a multiverse theme if we're so incapable of explaining the one universe we inhabit? Why such a leap into a no-mans-land if we can't understand the one we're in? You seem to be implying it's all just camouflage and cover-up! One might as well say "A god is being considered...instead of a multiverse to resolve the matter!

You're dead right. It doesn't make a scrap of sense. However the so-called "logic" which underpins the multiverse hypothesis IS exactly this. Because physics is unable to explain why the universe is the way it is a small but influential group of physicists have now leapt to the conclusion that the only explanation for it is that all the possible universes which this universe is not must also exist. As I said, logic is a not a valued commodity in applied mathematics.

Possibilities in order of likelihood IMO are serial universes, parallel universes, or reality is essentially a void and this universe was a fluke. If there is a multiverse of parallel universes, there may be some sense in which some occur at different times to others, but maybe not in any way we could comprehend other than mathematically due to the extra dimensions.

Nobody really knows one way or another, of course.