Multiverse!

[Obvious Leo]

Scott Mayers just came up with the perfect analogy. The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However, if there are trillions of universes the odds that one of them will have constants suitable for life is great.

However if there is only one universe and that universe has life in it then the odds of that universe having life in it are 100%. On the grounds of Occam economy this explanation must be preferred over one which cannot be verified, even in principle. Attempting to derive meaning from a counterfactual event is a logical fallacy which no grown-up logician should be guilty of.

By the way if you're relying on Scott Mayers as your consultant logician I suggest you pay due heed to his understanding of the Monty Hall puzzle.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Scott Mayers just came up with the perfect analogy. The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However, if there are trillions of universes the odds that one of them will have constants suitable for life is great.

However if there is only one universe and that universe has life in it then the odds of that universe having life in it are 100%. On the grounds of Occam economy this explanation must be preferred over one which cannot be verified, even in principle. Attempting to derive meaning from a counterfactual event is a logical fallacy which no grown-up logician should be guilty of.

By the way if you're relying on Scott Mayers as your consultant logician I suggest you pay due heed to his understanding of the Monty Hall puzzle.

And what if there was a multiverse which many scientists believe. Currently we don't know, but it would explain things and scientists say the hypothesis can be tested. Due to its explanatory power, I don't see where Occam's razor would apply.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

And what if there was a multiverse which many scientists believe.

What scientists believe carries no more weight than what anybody else believes because science is not a belief system. The indigenous Australians believe that the universe was vomited into existence by the rainbow serpent so let somebody try and it prove this false. Once you assume that the universe had a beginning then one guess is as good as another because absolutely NONE of them can be either proven or disproven.

scientists say the hypothesis can be tested.

Which scientists make this claim? More importantly which philosopher would agree with it? How the fuck could you establish the existence of something external to the universe?

Due to its explanatory power, I don't see where Occam's razor would apply.

What would it explain? How could an infinite number of universes whose existence is impossible to establish explain one universe whose existence is self-evident. What sort of logic is that?

[Philosophy Explorer]

And what if there was a multiverse which many scientists believe.

What scientists believe carries no more weight than what anybody else believes because science is not a belief system. The indigenous Australians believe that the universe was vomited into existence by the rainbow serpent so let somebody try and it prove this false. Once you assume that the universe had a beginning then one guess is as good as another because absolutely NONE of them can be either proven or disproven.

scientists say the hypothesis can be tested.

Which scientists make this claim? More importantly which philosopher would agree with it? How the fuck could you establish the existence of something external to the universe?

Due to its explanatory power, I don't see where Occam's razor would apply.

What would it explain? How could an infinite number of universes whose existence is impossible to establish explain one universe whose existence is self-evident. What sort of logic is that?

You haven't caught that the multiverse is a testable hypothesis which has been all over the internet? That's my logic. And how the fuck can scientists establish the existence of something external to this universe is their business, not mine, which we went over before.

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Is that your case? Because it's been all over the internet it must be so. I subscribe to more than a dozen science journals of the highest repute and I've read of no such experiment. Describe it to me please.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Is that your case? Because it's been all over the internet it must be so. I subscribe to more than a dozen science journals of the highest repute and I've read of no such experiment. Describe it to me please.

This is the article (or one like it) that I saw on Flipboard about a week ago. If you accept indirect evidence, this would hold interest for you:

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-paralle ... -be-tested

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

Is that your case? Because it's been all over the internet it must be so. I subscribe to more than a dozen science journals of the highest repute and I've read of no such experiment. Describe it to me please.

This is the article (or one like it) that I saw on Flipboard about a week ago. If you accept indirect evidence, this would hold interest for you:

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-paralle ... -be-tested

PhilX

I presume you read the article, Phil. No mention was made of a testable prediction.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Is that your case? Because it's been all over the internet it must be so. I subscribe to more than a dozen science journals of the highest repute and I've read of no such experiment. Describe it to me please.

This is the article (or one like it) that I saw on Flipboard about a week ago. If you accept indirect evidence, this would hold interest for you:

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-paralle ... -be-tested

PhilX

I presume you read the article, Phil. No mention was made of a testable prediction.

How could you miss this part?:

"Testing the theory

The universes predicted by string theory and inflation live in the same physical space (unlike the many universes of quantum mechanics which live in a mathematical space), they can overlap or collide. Indeed, they inevitably must collide, leaving possible signatures in the cosmic sky which we can try to search for.

The exact details of the signatures depend intimately on the models - ranging from cold or hot spots in the cosmic microwave background to anomalous voids in the distribution of galaxies. Nevertheless, since collisions with other universes must occur in a particular direction, a general expectation is that any signatures will break the uniformity of our observable Universe.

These signatures are actively being pursued by scientists. Some are looking for it directly through imprints in the cosmic microwave background, the afterglow of the Big Bang. However, no such signatures are yet to be seen. Others are looking for indirect support such as gravitational waves, which are ripples in space-time as massive objects pass through. Such waves could directly prove the existence of inflation, which ultimately strengthens the support for the multiverse theory.

Whether we will ever be able to prove their existence is hard to predict. But given the massive implications of such a finding it should definitely be worth the search."

You're not ignoring this part, are you?

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

You're not ignoring this part, are you?

No. Where is the experiment? What the fuck are tell-tale signatures?

I haven't forgotten that Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology can predict solar and lunar eclipses with uncanny accuracy, therefore the sun orbits the earth.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe".....Albert Einstein

[Philosophy Explorer]

You're not ignoring this part, are you?

No. Where is the experiment? What the fuck are tell-tale signatures?

I haven't forgotten that Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology can predict solar and lunar eclipses with uncanny accuracy, therefore the sun orbits the earth.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe".....Albert Einstein

I didn't say there was a specific experiment currently running , did I? I only said that the multiverse is a testable hypothesis. I didn't say whether the multiverse does or doesn't exist. I only said it's a testable hypothesis. Are far as the tell-tale signatures goes, check with the scientists (why didn't the dozen or so top science journals mention this?)

With respect to Ptolemy, he didn't have enough information and his theory was thrown into the scrap heap, replaced by a better theory.

PhilX

[Hobbes' Choice]

You're not ignoring this part, are you?

No. Where is the experiment? What the fuck are tell-tale signatures?

I haven't forgotten that Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology can predict solar and lunar eclipses with uncanny accuracy, therefore the sun orbits the earth.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe".....Albert Einstein

I didn't say there was a specific experiment currently running , did I? I only said that the multiverse is a testable hypothesis. I didn't say whether the multiverse does or doesn't exist. I only said it's a testable hypothesis. Are far as the tell-tale signatures goes, check with the scientists (why didn't the dozen or so top science journals mention this?)

With respect to Ptolemy, he didn't have enough information and his theory was thrown into the scrap heap, replaced by a better theory.

PhilX

The simple fact is that you don't know what you are talking about.
You think that the ability to post a link is the same as having a thought. It is not.

[Philosophy Explorer]

HC,

So far you haven't shown any signs you know what you are talking about on this thread. What knowledge do you have to offer?

PhilX

[Obvious Leo]

I only said that the multiverse is a testable hypothesis.

I got that. This is indeed what you said. Now I'll remind you that this is a philosophy forum and ask you to explain such a preposterous claim. How the fuck do you propose to establish the existence of something external to the universe when one of the a priori assumptions of physics is that the universe has no outside. ( Which naturally inclines one to wonder what the fuck the universe is supposed to be expanding into but that's a different stupid story from this one).

[Philosophy Explorer]

I only said that the multiverse is a testable hypothesis.

I got that. This is indeed what you said. Now I'll remind you that this is a philosophy forum and ask you to explain such a preposterous claim. How the fuck do you propose to establish the existence of something external to the universe when one of the a priori assumptions of physics is that the universe has no outside. ( Which naturally inclines one to wonder what the fuck the universe is supposed to be expanding into but that's a different stupid story from this one).

Now you're getting into an area that is the concern of the scientists. My concern is whether they can test it and scientists are saying they can. With respect to that a priori assumption of physics, I guess it'll mean a revolution in cosmology if it's proven that there is a multiverse.

PhilX

[raw_thought]

Scott Mayers just came up with the perfect analogy. The odds of me winning the lottery is tiny. However, the odds that someone will win the lottery is great. Similarly the odds of one universe having constants suitable for life is tiny. However, if there are trillions of universes the odds that one of them will have constants suitable for life is great.

However if there is only one universe and that universe has life in it then the odds of that universe having life in it are 100%. On the grounds of Occam economy this explanation must be preferred over one which cannot be verified, even in principle. Attempting to derive meaning from a counterfactual event is a logical fallacy which no grown-up logician should be guilty of.

By the way if you're relying on Scott Mayers as your consultant logician I suggest you pay due heed to his understanding of the Monty Hall puzzle.

Are you serious?????
So if I see a human (an incredibly sophisticated machine) you would say that there is no need for an explanation for the complexity (either God or Evolution) because it is obvious that that amount of complexity exists??????
You are actually claiming that the most reasonable explanation is that the human machine's incredible complexity was the result of atoms just randomly coming together without the principle of evolution or God????????