An argument against infinitely many actual universes - what do you think?

[Pieman333272]

Here’s an argument against the multiverse, specifically, the “infinity many universes” hypothesis, as it is used in response to the fine-tuning argument. Let me know what you think of it.

1. If there are infinitely many universes in existence, then every possible non-contradictory trait a universe could have is actualized. ← Most multiverse advocates would affirm this at face value. If they didn’t, one could simply point out that that renders the multiverse’s ability to explain anything based around pure speculation.
2. Per premise 1, not only is every possible trait a universe can have actualized in some universe, it is actualized in infinitely many universes.
3. It is possible that a universe is effectively a “universe-remover”, destroying itself and another universe given enough time. ← Collisions are an example of this, which “bubble roll” universes were postulated to solve. However, collisions are not the only way this is possible.
4. Not only that, but there are universes which can destroy 2, 3, 4, 5, even infinitely many universes besides itself ← The trait is non-contradictory, with the possible exception of the last one, though I think that would be possible
5. Since there would be infinitely many worlds like this, any universe that is ever actualized would have an exceedingly low chance of “surviving”.
6. Our universe exists, and has for a long period of time
7. .’. Our universe either is fine-tuned, or infinitely many universes don’t exist.

This is purely experimental, so let me know what you think. I can see some potential flaws in it, but I need to think those through a little more.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I’m no expert, but my initial opinion is it would give any multiverse advocate a heck of a lot to chew on! I don’t really see any flaws in your logic, either.

 

[empther]

Some mathematician/scientist wrote a scientific journal paper proposing the multiverse theory. He would, I suspect, tear apart the first post’s argument.

However,

scientists rejected the theory.
Why?
Because there is not, and never can be, any way to prove it. :bigyikes:

That’s enough for me. I’m out of here. :thankyou::takeoff:

 

[wanstronian]

Here’s an argument against the multiverse, specifically, the “infinity many universes” hypothesis, as it is used in response to the fine-tuning argument. Let me know what you think of it.

1. If there are infinitely many universes in existence, then every possible non-contradictory trait a universe could have is actualized. ← Most multiverse advocates would affirm this at face value. If they didn’t, one could simply point out that that renders the multiverse’s ability to explain anything based around pure speculation.

I don’t see how have an infinite number of things makes it inevitable that every conceivable variation MUST exist. Probable, yes. Inevitable, no.

Regarding “speculation” - yes, so what? That’s exactly what multiverse theory is - speculation: a possibility with a certain amount of explanatory power, but not supported by firm evidence.

1. Per premise 1, not only is every possible trait a universe can have actualized in some universe, it is actualized in infinitely many universes.

Made redundant, I think, by the fragility of Premise#1.

1. It is possible that a universe is effectively a “universe-remover”, destroying itself and another universe given enough time. ← Collisions are an example of this, which “bubble roll” universes were postulated to solve. However, collisions are not the only way this is possible.

Yes, it might be possible. What does this add to the argument? This “possibility” is certainly not robust enough to be used as a premise to an argument.

1. Not only that, but there are universes which can destroy 2, 3, 4, 5, even infinitely many universes besides itself ← The trait is non-contradictory, with the possible exception of the last one, though I think that would be possible

As per Premise#3.

1. Since there would be infinitely many worlds like this, any universe that is ever actualized would have an exceedingly low chance of “surviving”.

The chance of anything surviving is probably zero. Most scientists (virtually all in the field) believe that our universe will one day “die.”

1. Our universe exists, and has for a long period of time

By the yardstick of our 70-year lifespans, that’s true. One can’t apply the limited human notion of “a long time” to the age of a universe, particularly if one is doing so to attempt to draw conclusions about why it’s still here.

1. .’. Our universe either is fine-tuned, or infinitely many universes don’t exist.

The conclusion doesn’t arise from the premises, so the argument isn’t valid. The premises themselves are extremely suspect, so the argument is unsound.

In fact, even your conclusion is a false dichotomy. How would the notion that our universe is “fine tuned” have any bearing on the possibility of a multiverse?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Hilbert proved the impossibility of an actual infinity in a finite universe in the early 1900’s. QED: either infinite multiverse theory is wrong, or finite mathematics is wrong.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

1. If there are infinitely many universes in existence, then every possible non-contradictory trait a universe could have is actualized.

False. You seem to be misunderstand the term “infinite” as meaning “all-inclusive”. In advanced mathematics such as Calculus, we often examine sets that are infinite but not all-inclusive. For example, the set of all even numbers. The series beginning 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc. These are both infinite but not all-inclusive. A common hypothetical multiverse featured in science fiction is the set of all universes created by the decisions tree of one or two beings (Butterfly Effect) or all living beings (Sliders). These multiverses contain infinite universes, but not all possible non-contradictory ones.

As your premise is clearly false, there’s no need to proceed further.

 

[prodigalson2011]

False. You seem to be misunderstand the term “infinite” as meaning “all-inclusive”. In advanced mathematics such as Calculus, we often examine sets that are infinite but not all-inclusive. For example, the set of all even numbers. The series beginning 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc. These are both infinite but not all-inclusive. A common hypothetical multiverse featured in science fiction is the set of all universes created by the decisions tree of one or two beings (Butterfly Effect) or all living beings (Sliders). These multiverses contain infinite universes, but not all possible non-contradictory ones.

As your premise is clearly false, there’s no need to proceed further.

I don’t think this is so. I clearly remember remember reading things by multiverse proponents that posited that all possible universes do, in fact, exist. Therefore, everything that could possibly exist, does. If it’s not contradictory, it’s possible. Seems sound to me.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I don’t see how have an infinite number of things makes it inevitable that every conceivable variation MUST exist. Probable, yes. Inevitable, no.

Nevertheless, this is what most multiverse proponents suggest.

The chance of anything surviving is probably zero. Most scientists (virtually all in the field) believe that our universe will one day “die.”

I think the point was that the ability of a universe to sustain itself for any considerable amount of time is highly unlikely, given that among those infinitely-many universes are some which rather quickly decimate themselves and many surrounding universes.

The conclusion doesn’t arise from the premises, so the argument isn’t valid. The premises themselves are extremely suspect, so the argument is unsound.

In fact, even your conclusion is a false dichotomy.

How would the notion that our universe is “fine tuned” have any bearing on the possibility of a multiverse?

I think this could have been worded better, but I understand what he means. The multiverse theory is by and large an attempt to explain away the fine tuning of our universe, per Stephen Hawking. The multiverse is simply the only way scientists have found to try to explain the astronomically unlikely fixed constants of our universe without positing an external intelligence.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

I clearly remember remember reading things by multiverse proponents that posited that all possible universes do, in fact, exist. Therefore, everything that could possibly exist, does. If it’s not contradictory, it’s possible. Seems sound to me.

His argument is unsound even if some believe “all possible universes exist.”

His argument is, if “there are infinitely many universes in existence”* then *“every possible non-contradictory trait a universe could have is actualized.” The conclusion does not follow from the premise, so his argument is unsound. (And to add insult to injury, I’ve provided many counter-examples of infinite sets that are not all-inclusive, even conceptions of an infinite multiverse that are not all-inclusive.)

If he wishes to avoid this objection, he could modify his argument–“An argument against all-possible universes existing” rather than “An argument against infinitely many actual universes existing.”

 

[prodigalson2011]

His argument is unsound even if some believe “all possible universes exist.”

His argument is, if “there are infinitely many universes in existence”* then *“every possible non-contradictory trait a universe could have is actualized.” The conclusion does not follow from the premise, so his argument is unsound. (And to add insult to injury, I’ve provided many counter-examples of infinite sets that are not all-inclusive, even conceptions of an infinite multiverse that are not all-inclusive.)

If he wishes to avoid this objection, he could modify his argument–“An argument against all-possible universes existing” rather than “An argument against infinitely many actual universes existing.”

As I acknowledged later on in my post, the OP does contain some semantic errors, but I still think overall he makes a good point, when viewed as an argument against the most popular version of the multiverse theory (the one which seeks to eliminate theism.)

 

[Just_Lurking]

From the Big Bang Theory TV show:

Penny: Morning, Sheldon. Come dance with me.

Sheldon: No.

Penny: Why not?

Sheldon: Penny, while I subscribe to the many worlds theory which posits the existence of an infinite number of Sheldons in an infinite number of universes, I assure you that in none of them am I dancing.

Penny: Are you fun in any of them?

Sheldon: The math would suggest that in a few I’m a clown made of candy. But I don’t dance.

 

[prodigalson2011]

From the Big Bang Theory TV show:

Penny: Morning, Sheldon. Come dance with me.

Sheldon: No.

Penny: Why not?

Sheldon: Penny, while I subscribe to the many worlds theory which posits the existence of an infinite number of Sheldons in an infinite number of universes, I assure you that in none of them am I dancing.

Penny: Are you fun in any of them?

Sheldon: The math would suggest that in a few I’m a clown made of candy. But I don’t dance.

I <3 Sheldon Cooper

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

From the Big Bang Theory TV show:

Sheldon: Penny, while I subscribe to the many worlds theory which posits the existence of an infinite number of Sheldons in an infinite number of universes, I assure you that in none of them am I dancing.

Penny: Are you fun in any of them?

Sheldon: The math would suggest that in a few I’m a clown made of candy. But I don’t dance.

Awesome! Another conception of an infinite but not all-inclusive multiverse.

 

[Pieman333272]

I don’t think this is so. I clearly remember remember reading things by multiverse proponents that posited that all possible universes do, in fact, exist. Therefore, everything that could possibly exist, does. If it’s not contradictory, it’s possible. Seems sound to me.

Exactly. If LifeIsAbsurd wants to claim the multiverse (containing infinite universes) has any pragmatic implications, especially on the fine-tuning argument, he HAS to admit every possible non-contradictory trait is explored - and thereby agree with most atheistic multiverse advocates, including Stephen Hawking, who states that assuming no 2 universes are exactly the same the minimum amount of universes in the multiverse is 10^(1 trillion) in order to account for life. You could claim the infinite universe hypothesis is non-inclusive but you would then have to make it arbitrary.

It doesn’t matter that sci-fi writers choose to focus on alternate decisions, alternate decision multiverses are far more interesting than ones that collapse back in less than one second because of a bad gravity constant.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

If LifeIsAbsurd wants to claim the multiverse (containing infinite universes) has any pragmatic implications on the fine-tuning argument…

I’ve made no such claims. I only noted and demonstrated that your argument is unsound.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Awesome! Another conception of an infinite but not all-inclusive multiverse.

I note that you are claiming as support for a scientific argument a joke from a sitcom.
Interesting.

 

[Pieman333272]

I’ve made no such claims. I claimed only that your argument is unsound and I backed that up.

Fair enough. I was arguing against the atheistic version of the multiverse meant to explain away the fine-tuning argument, if you believe in it for another reason and don’t see it having any implications on the FT argument (or are simply playing devil’s advocate ), then this wasn’t really meant for you.

 

[cerad2]

1. It is possible that a universe is effectively a “universe-remover”,

You can speculate the a universe might be capable of destroying another but you would really need to show that it is actually possible before assuming that it is.

 

[Pieman333272]

You can speculate the a universe might be capable of destroying another but you would really need to show that it is actually possible before assuming that it is.

It is the burden of the critic to prove a trait impossible in this case. Considering that multiple scientists have used the multiverse to claim we simply “got lucky” on everything from the fine-tuning traits to the origin of life to evolution without any care for the “how” it would seem the burden is on you.

 

[prodigalson2011]

It is the burden of the critic to prove a trait impossible in this case. Considering that multiple scientists have used the multiverse to claim we simply “got lucky” on everything from the fine-tuning traits to the origin of life to evolution without any care for the “how” it would seem the burden is on you.

Indeed. The multiverse postulate is already unprovable, and it suggests that anything that is logically feasible exists in some universe. A force with the power to destroy a universe and even extend beyond it seems perfectly feasible to me. I’d like to hear one of our resident physicists weigh in on this point.