Originally posted by Agerg Not that I agree with the argument to begin with but perhaps JS357 was trying to suggest the notion that out of an infinite number of possible permutations of the supposed[hidden]actually I lean towards the idea of a multiverse but have to treat it as a speculation[/hidden] multiverse, then for any finite collection of potential permutations containing our particular permutation - ours is best?
Well, thank you for affording me the benefit of the doubt, but I am trying to avoid the idea that there exists any universe that is suboptimal. You see, I am trying to examine Leibniz' theistic argument for the omnibenevolence of God, in light of modern thought, without being seen as a theist. (I like examining arguments without having to take a side.) The multiverse idea, especially the idea that every permutation occurs, presents some challenges.
Originally posted by JS357 Well, thank you for affording me the benefit of the doubt, but I am trying to avoid the idea that there exists any universe that is suboptimal. You see, I am trying to examine Leibniz' theistic argument for the omnibenevolence of God, in light of modern thought, without being seen as a theist. (I like examining arguments without having to take a side.) The multiverse idea, especially the idea that every permutation occurs, presents some challenges.
I don't see why a multiverse, even if we suppose it admits an infinite number of universes, has to be such that every permutation that could occur - will occur. Indeed I remember having an argument with my uni housemates a couple of years ago on a related discussion, and my problem with this is that some infinities are just 'bigger' than other infinities. For example, we know that the set of integers is infintely large - but hypothetically speaking, if one were to draw infinitely many random numbers from the entire set of real numbers the probability you get an integer (even with infinitely many of them) is (as far as I'm aware) zero.
The same could be true with a supposed multiverse in that some potential permutations just wouldn't occur.
Originally posted by Agerg I don't see why a multiverse, even if we suppose it admits an infinite number of universes, has to be such that every permutation that could occur - will occur. Indeed I remember having an argument with my uni housemates a couple of years ago on a related discussion, and my problem with this is that some infinities are just 'bigger' than other infinities. For be true with a supposed multiverse in that some potential permutations just wouldn't occur.
Of course it doesn't have to be that the cardinality of the multiverse is as big as the possible permutations. It doesn't even have to be infinite.
But most of the ideas for a multiverse that I heard is that anywhere where a permutation is possible then there are branches splitting into new universes for every possible outcome. So in that sense, the cardinality would be the same. Of course, if you have a different multiverse in mind then it need not be so but then it seems more arbitrary to determine which ones branch and which ones don't.
Originally posted by JS357 OK, good point, this thread didn't launch.
Well, we can discuss it by postulating that there is no multiverse and so the question is still valid... Keep the aliens, ditch the other universes. 🙂
Originally posted by Palynka Of course it doesn't have to be that the cardinality of the multiverse is as big as the possible permutations. It doesn't even have to be infinite.
But most of the ideas for a multiverse that I heard is that anywhere where a permutation is possible then there are branches splitting into new universes for every possible outcome. So in that s ...[text shortened]... t be so but then it seems more arbitrary to determine which ones branch and which ones don't.
This is a technicality but the cardinality of the a branching multiverse could depend on whether time is quantized.
Originally posted by Palynka Of course it doesn't have to be that the cardinality of the multiverse is as big as the possible permutations. It doesn't even have to be infinite.
But most of the ideas for a multiverse that I heard is that anywhere where a permutation is possible then there are branches splitting into new universes for every possible outcome. So in that s ...[text shortened]... t be so but then it seems more arbitrary to determine which ones branch and which ones don't.
True, from a purely speculative point of view, a supposed multiverse could be anything - it might have the cardinality people tend to suppose, but then again it might not.
As for arbitrariness, it may well be the case that there is some sort of mechanics which govern such a multiverse in the same way as for our universe, then again perhaps not. It is perhaps a break away from the norm on my part that I cannot automatically assume that a multiverse has to admit every potential permutation of universes (or that gods have to be omni-everything, and so on...)
If such a multiverse exists, then given we can have little insight into its nature I don't make any assumptions about it.
Originally posted by Agerg True, from a purely speculative point of view, a supposed multiverse could be anything - it might have the cardinality people tend to suppose, but then again it might not.
As for arbitrariness, it may well be the case that there is some sort of mechanics which govern such a multiverse in the same way as for our universe, then again perhaps not. It is perhap ...[text shortened]... s, then given we can have little insight into its nature I don't make any assumptions about it.
I agree, just that simple rules that apply everywhere seem more appealing than ones with a lot of special cases.
Is this the best of all possible worlds?
15 Apr '11 02:21
Back to Top