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

[LifeIsAbsurd]

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.

OIC. My personal position on the multiverse is similar to my position on theism–I don’t believe in either one.

They’re both possible, but I’ve seen no compelling evidence for the existance of either, and it’s not reasonable to believe in something without compelling evidence. However, given some heavyweight scientists have written books speculating about the possibility of parallel universes, I’d be surprised if there were a simple refutation. Hence the thread’s title caught my interest.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

The multiverse is easy to disprove due to it being categorically unintelligible.

The universe is a set of all physical things; whether there are greater levels of physical things like an infinite number of cosmos erupting upon 2D-branes and so forth; all it would tell us is that our conception of the universe is off, and that there would still be a maxi-verse for all physical things. Maxiverse of course is a semantic equivalent of universe.

Some scientists when discussing multiverses understand this; some don’t, and it is the latter that trouble arises because nonsense gets published and nonsense gets communicated to popular audiences as a reinforcement of more nonsense for people to digest.

The argument against infinitely many actualized universes is really an argument of episteme and pistis. What can we know and what can we have faith, or trust, in. The separation of multi-verses into some sort of multitude of other physical sets is a blind and irrational faith that doesn’t approach any sort of knowledge or certitude. It is a separation of reality from our witnessing and that root is what needs to be addressed.

 

[cerad2]

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.

My bad. I thought you were looking for a serious discussion.

By the way, how is that proof that invisible pink unicorns don’t really exist coming along?

 

[Pieman333272]

My bad. I thought you were looking for a serious discussion.

I am. You’re just not making any.

By the way, how is that proof that invisible pink unicorns don’t really exist coming along?

It’s already done. Something can’t be both invisible and pink.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

It’s already done. Something can’t be both invisible and pink.

ROFL. Now that is a sound argument.

But perhaps the unicorn is pink to those who believe and invisible to the faithless? Thus, this supernatural being would be blessed with both attributes simultaneously!

 

[Pieman333272]

ROFL. Now that is a sound argument.

If only I had written it!

But perhaps the unicorn is pink to those who believe and invisible to the faithless? Thus, it’s possible this supernatural being is blessed with both attributes simultaneously!

Perhaps. But I’d like a more objective divine being than that.

Also, wouldn’t the IPU have to be composite in order to actually have any of its traits, thereby making it unable to be the ultimate cause of the universe (from an Aristotelian perspective, of course)?

 

[cerad2]

I am. You’re just not making any.

It’s already done. Something can’t be both invisible and pink.

Foolish mortal. Invisible pink unicorns live outside of color and thus can be 100% pink and 100% horse. I didn’t spend 12 years of my life studying theology for nothing.

And with respect to universes with the power to destroy all other universes. Science does try to work within the bounds of, well, science. So scientists speculate what universes would be like if the initial conditions were different based on our current understanding of physics.

At a minimum it’s up to you to to present some sort of idea (no matter how slim) of how a universe could destroy another.

 

[Pieman333272]

At a minimum it’s up to you to to present some sort of idea (no matter how slim) of how a universe could destroy another.

They collide. They expand into one another. Their mass becomes so great they pull universes towards them. They burst and release energy out into other universes. The collapse and do the same.

 

[cerad2]

They collide.

And how would a collusion result in the utter destruction of a universe? All mass and energy suddenly going poof?

They expand into one another.

So you would just have a bigger universe? Not really a destruction.

Their mass becomes so great they pull universes towards them.

So what sort of initial conditions would cause mass/energy to increase? And how would gravity cross between universes?

They burst and release energy out into other universes.

So the other universes receive some energy though some unknown mechanism and go poof?

The collapse and do the same.

???

And do keep in mind that all we really have to work with is initial conditions.

But we at least we should be able to agree that this is more fun than simply saying “you can’t prove me wrong so I must be right”?

 

[Pieman333272]

And how would a collusion result in the utter destruction of a universe? All mass and energy suddenly going poof?[/QUPTE]

The forces would be akin to a car accident between universes. I don’t completely understand it myself but universe collision is a major problem for multiverse theorists which is why it has been revised to attempt to account for that.

So you would just have a bigger universe? Not really a destruction.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

LIA:

Can you show us an infinite set? (Oh, and, I’m not talking about one of those little box-like bracket-things that is supposed to represent an infinite set, but actually only contains 3 or 4 numbers, then a couple of dots, then [sometimes] some symbol that’s supposed to represent infinity [but looks like a number eight that’s fallen and can’t get up], or, the dots just trail off into an unachievable reification of infinity. I’m talking about the real thing. Take you time, we’ll wait.) Oops! Sorry, I used brackets.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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.”

LIA:

Out of curiosity: if an infinity of universes could exist, which one would be missing? IOW, which one wouldn’t exist? (Probably the one in question, right?)

God bless,
jd