Philosophy Now Forum

I'm not asking if it exists in this thread and I'm not placing this thread under metaphysics.

For me each universe has its own set of laws which would characterize it. Here's a test case to focus clearly what I'm getting at. Say string theory is established for some region of space where it's shown to have 10 to 13 space dimensions (it theoretically varies depending on the scientist). Is this enough for you to say this is a different universe?

How about a universe where anti-matter is the rule and regular matter easily disintegrates. Is that a different universe? (keep in mind that scientists are saying that matter and anti-matter are very much alike, but it's still a mystery why anti-matter disintegrates or disappears so readily).

I'm just looking for clarity.

PhilX

If different universes have different laws, then in what way could they be called laws?

Are you saying that each universe is completely random, and that we (sentient observers) impose an illusory order?

Or are there underlying meta-laws that constrain the space of possible sets of laws?

wtf wrote:If different universes have different laws, then in what way could they be called laws?

Are you saying that each universe is completely random, and that we (sentient observers) impose an illusory order?

Or are there underlying meta-laws that constrain the space of possible sets of laws?

I don't know if the hypothetical universes are illusory or not (currently there's no way of telling for sure even if the idea can explain a number of things such as the force of gravity being weak). Each universe would have to be random, otherwise how would they be distinct?

There's no evidence for underlying meta-laws that would place a constraint on the space of possible sets of laws. Even in our own universe, scientists say that the situation
was very different at the time of the BB (e.g. one force and a much smaller space). Maybe there is no one set of laws for our universe, just a very good model. So again I ask, what is a multiverse?

PhilX

I did not say the multiverses were illusory. I said their apparent order was. Terribly important distinction.

If the apparent order of a given universe is illusory, and is only the product of our minds imposing false order on randomness; in what sense are you using the word "law?"

wtf wrote:I did not say the multiverses were illusory. I said their apparent order was. Terribly important distinction.

If the apparent order of a given universe is illusory, and is only the product of our minds imposing false order on randomness; in what sense are you using the word "law?"

I'm using law(s) in the sense of the best (most predictable, comprehensive) model for the observable universe which are consistent within time and space.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

wtf wrote:I did not say the multiverses were illusory. I said their apparent order was. Terribly important distinction.

If the apparent order of a given universe is illusory, and is only the product of our minds imposing false order on randomness; in what sense are you using the word "law?"

I'm using law(s) in the sense of the best (most predictable, comprehensive) model for the observable universe which are consistent within time and space.

PhilX

If the universe is actually random and the the predictability and order merely artifacts of the mind, where are the laws? It's like seeing motion in a movie projected at 24 still frames per second. The laws are an illusion by your own thesis. In actuality there are no laws. Isn't that what you are saying by agreeing that each universe is random?

wtf wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

wtf wrote:I did not say the multiverses were illusory. I said their apparent order was. Terribly important distinction.

If the apparent order of a given universe is illusory, and is only the product of our minds imposing false order on randomness; in what sense are you using the word "law?"

I'm using law(s) in the sense of the best (most predictable, comprehensive) model for the observable universe which are consistent within time and space.

PhilX

If the universe is actually random and the the predictability and order merely artifacts of the mind, where are the laws? It's like seeing motion in a movie projected at 24 still frames per second. The laws are an illusion by your own thesis. In actuality there are no laws. Isn't that what you are saying by agreeing that each universe is random?

I never said the laws are an illusion. I did say each universe (if they exist) has its own set of laws. E.g. we have Newton's laws: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... 3laws.html (which hasn't changed, but has been replaced by Einstein's more general laws, often referred to as a theory).

Can you prove that the laws are merely artifacts of the mind? Or is that merely an assumption?

PhilX

wtf wrote:
If different universes have different laws then in what way could they be called laws

Specific laws would only apply to one universe since no two would have identical ones

Philosophy Explorer wrote:What is a multiverse?

The way i comprehend it is this:-
In our reality we can comprehend rather simply 3 dimensions. The fourth dimension we can comprehend because we can perceive events occurring within those three dimensions. When scientists implicate dimensions beyond those four dimensions...to the point of a multiverse then perhaps we need to comprehend that certain aspects of dimensions that make up our reality, the reality we can perceive...are perhaps different constructs within dimensions of a parallel universe. In that, the parallel universe is only parallel, or another universe because its 'coordinates' of dimensions are not perceivable to us here in this reality.
Such that the higgs field in our dimension extends as the x dimension in an adjacent universe.

I'm not so sure of the multiverse anymore. But consider this. Two identical universes exist, however they are not truly identical since on a beach somewhere at Aldinga in South Australia there is a grain of sand that is an attometre (very slightly) to the left of the grain of sand in the other universe.

Ergo...they are different universes!

The multiverse is suggesting infinite universes.

The opposite of a random universe is NOT a law-determined universe. It is a self-determined universe and it is this process of self-determination which the observer codifies into a suite of laws. In other words reality is not determined by the laws of physics but rather the "laws of physics" are determined by reality purely within the consciousness of the physicist. His remarkable mathematical tools are not modelling reality but rather they are modelling a particular narrative of reality which he must first specify.

Obvious Leo wrote:The opposite of a random universe is NOT a law-determined universe. It is a self-determined universe and it is this process of self-determination which the observer codifies into a suite of laws. In other words reality is not determined by the laws of physics but rather the "laws of physics" are determined by reality purely within the consciousness of the physicist. His remarkable mathematical tools are not modelling reality but rather they are modelling a particular narrative of reality which he must first specify.

They are modelling reality, but necessarily incompletely because of the innate bias of our senses and size. There is much commonality between our perceptions and those of other animals of around our size so there would seem to be something objectively real in our perceptions, eg. my dog will bump into the same solid objects, hear many of the same noises and see many of the same things as me.

I've long felt that the universe was prematurely named, anyway. We could also think of it as a supercluster of galactic superclusters (SCOGSC). Are there significant voids outside of this SCOGSC and beyond which are more of them? Or do they only occur serially rather than in parallel? Is this the only SCOGSC, or the first, the last - or somewhere in between? Stay tuned ...

Here's an article that may clarify or confuse you further:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

What I find interesting is there aren't an infinite number of universes if there is more than one universe, but the estimates do vary.

PhilX

surreptitious57 wrote:

wtf wrote:
If different universes have different laws then in what way could they be called laws

Specific laws would only apply to one universe since no two would have identical ones

Then we're back to my original question. Are there meta-laws that constrain the laws of each universe? If not, then there are no laws, only randomness.

attofishpi wrote: ...certain aspects of dimensions that make up our reality, the reality we can perceive...are perhaps different constructs within dimensions of a parallel universe. In that, the parallel universe is only parallel, or another universe because its 'coordinates' of dimensions are not perceivable to us here in this reality.

Interesting description! I'm guessing that a "universe" can be a wide range of systems, realms, frequencies -- which may not be comprised of planets and stars (as we identify our universe to be)... but rather is a system or dynamic(?) in itself... while possibly overlapping here or there with many other "universes".

The implications of such vastness overlapping, and being unrealized by us, is incredible to wonder about.

wtf wrote:
Then we are back to my original question. Are there meta laws that constrain the laws of each universe

Now without knowing what the laws of other universes are that cannot be determined. It might be they
are tweaked slightly compared to the laws of this one. Or instead that they are significantly altered. As
there is no way of knowing so at this point in time. And assuming other universes exist in the first place