[Guest]

The Subject

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why does our universe exist?

Do other universes exist as well? Parallel universes, other big bangs, etc? What about universes completely unrelated to our own with completely different physical laws?

Why would it be that our universe containing the planet Earth exists, but another unrelated universe with wizards or the Force (from Star Wars) does not exist? Surely we could fathom such a universe with magic built into its physical laws that still works out logically. So why would our universe exist, but not that one with magic?

Is our universe the only one? If so, doesn't it seem pretty (extremely) specific, random, unique, etc? Why would THIS specific universe be the only one to exist out of all of the possible logical universes that even us puny humans can imagine?

Why does our universe exist? What can the existence of our universe tell us about the existence of other things/universes other than our 13.7 billion year old universe?

Purpose Of This Thread

You can probably tell from my questions what some of my current philosophical views on this subject are. I realize that many of my views on this aren't necessarily "rational," but nevertheless I think there is good reason to think that our 13.7BYO universe is not the only thing in "existence."

So what are your views on this subject? Anyone is welcome to participate in this discussion that I hope will help to answer these existential questions (at least outline the possible answers to the questions and what reasons we have for thinking that each answer may be true).

I think this subject will likely be interesting enough to get me thinking a lot (that's always fun) and hopefully can do the same for you.

A Plan For How This Thread May Look

Feel free to begin by expressing your current views on this subject (if any) and then hopefully we can reply to each other, critique each other's views, and hopefully all learn something as we try to determine what the best answers to these questions are.

(Note that I will be heading off to college in a couple days and likely will only be adding to this thread a couple times a week at most. Because of this, I think we should take the time to read posts in their entirety, take some time to think about them thoroughly, and then reply in concise and thoughtful fashions so as to make this a higher quality and more efficient thread that will allow people who won't be able to frequent it daily or every other day (like myself) keep up with it.)

Edited August 19, 2010 by Use the Force

[gvg]

1. Woah. Each time I've seen this it has caught me off guard. To answer I'll go with something I can't remember the name of: There's something so that something can study the something ask why it is there. It may seem like avoiding the question, but I think it's sufficient.

2. Same answer; I can think of nothing better, unless there is a God (I believe so, but we can leave that alone =) Unless, of course, it is important to the discussion).

3. I think yes, and there is a theory that the big bang is actually our universe colliding with another every trillion years, causing the effects we call the big bang. Just as I doubt that we are the only life in the universe, I doubt that we are the only universe in existence.

4. This is a toughy, and I'd first like to see what you think; I don't have much of an opinion on this.

5. Repetition of three, with the same answer.

6. 1st parts a repeat; the second part:

It may well tell us nothing. For all we know, our laws of physics could be different from other universes (which would blow many of my beliefs in to the most likely wrong category =)), or it could be the same laws, but maybe with anti-matter, or more matter than dark energy, etc. If there are other universes, we would have to reach them first, cross through the membranes somehow (wormhole?) and look and see. Heck, we could have a universe full of nothing but black holes (scary thought).

I would like to ask though: what do you think is on the other side of a black hole, if there is one? Does it really rip you to shreds, or is it a passageway of sorts, a one-way tunnel?

[gvg]

I realized that 4 was a restated version of 3. Thus, it is possible that in other universes, these things exist. This is the type of thing that needs to be observed for a definitive answer.

Edited August 19, 2010 by gvg

[unreality]

I think that every logical possibility for the fundamental constants, proportions, "laws", whatever, "exists" (although existence is a relative concept). In very few of these possible existences (I don't know if infinite or finite) is there even enough coherence to form basic chemistry, in even fewer do the laws of physics allow the formation of planets or other stable matter units etc. In very much fewer could the existence support the emergence of an entropy-reversing cluster of matter basing its behavior on the low-level laws of the universe and working up, becoming a self-replicating device...... life..... in even fewer could exist life developing to the point of its physical control center acquiring a knowledge of its control center... enough to raise in its hypothetical manipulation of symbols the question of its own existence...

That being said, it's not a weird probability that we've found ourself in such a fine-tuned universe, because if all possible starting conditions do exist in this universal mathematical set, then aware lifeforms would only develop in the very very few universes that happen to be fine-tuned for such life.

Not to mention it's possible that very very different "lifeforms" could evolve in other universes, following the different rules. It's possible that some form of life could permeate everything. It's like a puddle finding itself a hole and saying "this hole was fine-tuned for me" instead of vice versa

[Izzy]

(With only reading the title, bus comes in like ten minutes).

Because there's no reason for it not to? If you have an infinite amount of time (well, it wasn't really time at all, but for lack of a better work) when nothing exists and nothing in happening, something only had to happen once. That doesn't mean it can't have happened multiple times, but it only had to happen once for us to get here. The universe isn't specific at all; people only think that because it's the only one they know about. "Why are the trees specifically green?" "Oh, they have chlorophyll." Well, yes, but not exactly. They're green because they have an energy level that we interpret as green.

...And bus. Bah. I'll finish this up after school. Don't reply to it yet, please, because I'm nowhere near done.

[Quag]

1. Because

2. Because

3. maybe it does

4. maybe

5. Because, we dont really know yet

i know very pat answers but they are just as good as any other ones

[Guest]

I think that every logical possibility for the fundamental constants, proportions, "laws", whatever, "exists" (although existence is a relative concept).

What about all of the logically possible universes that are completely unrelated to our own? By "other universes" I don't just mean a universe similar to ours, but with a different gravitational constant or something. I mean completely different universes as well. Do you think that all of those universes "exist" (perhaps not "exist" in a way that affects what occurs in our universe or vice versa, but "exist" from their perspective in the same way that our universe "exists" from our perspective)?

[Guest]

Not that I have a definite answer for your questions, but... What do we understand as nothing or absence of "stuff"? Is there no stuff on the moon? Becuase there are particles and elements that are found on earth so that could be interpreted as "stuff".

Would we define stuff like, we open our eyes and suddenly... BLACK... Nothinng is there, no color, no energy, no light, nothing... Would this be called absence of "stuff"? Would this be called life???

I think it's "possible" that there's other forms of life somewhere out there. It's been proven that there are other galaxies, so we're maybe just part of a bigger universe that has other planets (or stars) that have different kinds of beings (even at microscopic level), so if there's "any" form of life out there (not just aliens like the ones shown in movies), we're definitely not alone. Who knows, maybe 2 billion years from now some living creature (from another star/planet) might evolve into something human-like (or not), that has the capability of looking for other forms of life in other planets. But right now, it's just a possibility...

Is our universe unique? Maybe, so far it is (I guess) because it's the only one we know that has life in some form... :shrug:

[unreality]

What about all of the logically possible universes that are completely unrelated to our own? By "other universes" I don't just mean a universe similar to ours, but with a different gravitational constant or something. I mean completely different universes as well. Do you think that all of those universes "exist" (perhaps not "exist" in a way that affects what occurs in our universe or vice versa, but "exist" from their perspective in the same way that our universe "exists" from our perspective)?

Yes.

In general I think it is impossible to look "outside the system" from "within the system", so, as long as we 'exist' in terms relative to this universe, we cannot perceive what that means outside of said 'existence'.

[Guest]

Yes.

In general I think it is impossible to look "outside the system" from "within the system", so, as long as we 'exist' in terms relative to this universe, we cannot perceive what that means outside of said 'existence'.

Okay, good. I agree with you then.

Most people I encounter disagree and say that we can't possibly know that any other "system" other than our own exists (because we cannot perceive it from our system in any way). Therefore, they remain agnostic on the issue.

I, on the other hand, think that it would be extremely naive to think that our universe (this "system") is the only "system" in existence. I described it as being "specific," etc, in the sense that IF it was the only universe/system in "existence" then it would be pretty weird considering the many other possible systems that we can imagine that could "exist" instead.

Because of this, I think it makes a lot more sense to say that all of those possible systems DO exist also. I would possibly go as far as saying that absolutely everything exists (every possible system you can imagine and even all of those systems/universes that are too great for our human minds to dream up). If our universe/system "exists", then shouldn't all of those other logically possible universes also "exist"? They wouldn't exist in a way that would affect us here in our existence, but I think from their perspective they would perceive themselves to exist in the same way that we perceive ourselves to exist here on Earth. They, in their separate existence/system/universe would imagine our universe as something that probably does "exist" in the sense that we are here perceiving it as something that exists, just not in a way that has any affect on their separate universe/system.

So in summary, I don't know exactly why it is that there are things that exist, rather than absolute nothingness (no particles, no physical properties of anything, no nothing... not just no human civilization). But, I do think that the existence of our universe is a testament to the existence of all other universes that we can imagine (and even those that we can't imagine). I do not think that these universes "exist" in a way that affects our universe in any way, but I do think that they exist as their own systems that are completely unrelated and unconnected to our own. If our universe exists, rather than nothing, I think it makes sense that all other universes that we can imagine also "exist" as another system somewhere, rather than nothing.

Would you agree with this too (the extreme that everything "exists" in the form of other "systems")? You seemed to say that you thought that there are definitely other systems in "existence" other than our own, but I'm curious if you think that ALL other logically possible systems also exist. This is the view that I hold. Do you think it makes sense?

(Note that when I say that I think that every system we can imagine exists (as well as those that are too great for us to fathom), I'm not saying that I think logically impossible universe exist. So, for example, if you were to use your imagination and describe to me a universe that violates itself logically then I would say that it does not exist. On the other hand, if it works our logically then I would bet that yes, it does "exist" as its own system (as we exist in our own universe/system). For clarification of what "existence" means: I would not think that this universe that you imagine "exists" in a way that affects our system at all, but yes, it "exists" to itself in the same way that we in our universe "exist" to ourselves.)

[Guest]

Oh, young Leafhopper, you have tickled the belly of the beast.

"Why" is such a limiting question. It presumes cause and effect, where no such presumption is required. Where is the immutable universal law that declares that "stuff" must offer coherent clues to its presence?

"does" or "does not" imposes a 'black vs. white' dichotomy to a reality that we all recognize is much more subtle. "Truth" is parsed and fuzzy at its very root. (Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the physical realm, Godel's incompleteness theorem in the abstract)

"Stuff" is a well chosen and appropriate symbol representing "something" in the most general sense conceivable. It is the yin-yang foil to "nothing" in the first question you pose.

"Exist" !?!? The purest "stuff" perfectly straddles the boundary between existing and not existing. It is the Tao that cannot be named. It is "the One" from Neoplatonism. Existence is an ideal - an absolute - something, rather than nothing? No. "Something" is locked in eternal battle with "Nothing", and neither can achieve predominance.

Now ... Travel with me to 1204 Hilltop Drive, Rock Springs, Wyoming, USA. (Google Earth will guide you) Sneak east-south-eastward through someone's backyard, or come up from below at about Sidney Street. Engraved deeply into the white sandstone cliff face, high above the town, is the phrase "STUFF EXISTS" with subtitle below "as of 7-11-1971". That is all the proof you need, my friend.

[Guest]

OK. I'll bite.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why does our universe exist?

There could have been nothing, but then nobody would be able to contemplate it.

Do other universes exist as well? Parallel universes, other big bangs, etc? What about universes completely unrelated to our own with completely different physical laws?

Possibly. There are several "multiverse" theories, and they're sort of interesting, but they can never be more than speculation. We can never know what is outside of our universe, because, well, that's kind of the definition of our universe.

Why would it be that our universe containing the planet Earth exists, but another unrelated universe with wizards or the Force (from Star Wars) does not exist? Surely we could fathom such a universe with magic built into its physical laws that still works out logically. So why would our universe exist, but not that one with magic?

Just because you can imagine something, does not mean it must exist.

Is our universe the only one? If so, doesn't it seem pretty (extremely) specific, random, unique, etc? Why would THIS specific universe be the only one to exist out of all of the possible logical universes that even us puny humans can imagine?

Again, we cannot ever know whether there are other 'universes'. If you mean "why do the physical constants of the universe have these precise values" the answer is simple: they had to have some value, and these are as good as any other. Would the universe be different if they had different values? Of course. If they did, would there be no life? Probably not us, but possibly something else.

Why does our universe exist? What can the existence of our universe tell us about the existence of other things/universes other than our 13.7 billion year old universe?

Absolutely nothing.

Edited August 19, 2010 by d3k3

[Guest]

Most people I encounter disagree and say that we can't possibly know that any other "system" other than our own exists (because we cannot perceive it from our system in any way). Therefore, they remain agnostic on the issue.

I, on the other hand, think that it would be extremely naive to think that our universe (this "system") is the only "system" in existence. I described it as being "specific," etc, in the sense that IF it was the only universe/system in "existence" then it would be pretty weird considering the many other possible systems that we can imagine that could "exist" instead.

Because of this, I think it makes a lot more sense to say that all of those possible systems DO exist also. I would possibly go as far as saying that absolutely everything exists (every possible system you can imagine and even all of those systems/universes that are too great for our human minds to dream up). If our universe/system "exists", then shouldn't all of those other logically possible universes also "exist"?

Interesting, but IMO, this is simply the anthropic principle taken to an illogical extreme. If we conclude that probabilistically, our universe is part of a larger, possibly infinite multiverse, then we must make the same conclusion about the multiverse being part of a larger multimultiverse, and it's "turtles all the way down", I'm afraid. Furthermore, if all possible realities simultaneously exist, there is a universe in every way identical to this one, except that I didn't just click "Add Reply", and you aren't reading this. That's a choice, not another universe.

[Guest]

Oh, young Leafhopper, you have tickled the belly of the beast.

"Why" is such a limiting question. It presumes cause and effect, where no such presumption is required. Where is the immutable universal law that declares that "stuff" must offer coherent clues to its presence?

I never said that I thought such a universal law exists. The point is that you realize that there really is no "why," thus leading me to believe that because our universe happens to be here, then all of the other "stuff" that I can imagine also "exists". I think that all of this other stuff that I can imagine (other universes, etc) most definitely does "exist" for the same non-cause-and-effect-non-reason that our universe exists.

I once participated in a discussion with you and a fellow named ADParker before, and I believe that the discussion halted when I mentioned some of the views that I just described to unreality in this thread. ADParker declared this as being irrational because there is no "evidence" for such other universes, etc. I never bothered going further with the discussion because I figured there was little practicality with it. (Here's the thread: ) I still maintain that there is a lot of reason to think that my views are correct, but because of the lack of physical "evidence" of these other "systems," ADParker thought such views were crazy. He mentioned things like Occam's razor as reason to not hold the views that I hold. I even gave hypothetical situations in which it was true that there were larger "systems" (God systems of our universe), and he still maintained that people ought to hold the view that such other "systems" do no exist, even if they do, simply because of the lack of evidence/reason to the other system that they do exist.

Here's a quotation from ADParker in the last post on the thread.

View PostUse the Force, on 21 May 2010 - 02:32 PM, said:

Do I really sound as irrational as you make it seem I sound?

Yes! - Ha, just kidding,

No, what I meant by "for rational people" is that it doesn't work that way, when one uses reasoning. It does work that way for apologists (whi start with a given conclusion) and others who fail to use proper reasoning.

Specifically this was directed at your last line: "because in reality they have no reason to think that they don't exist."

In fact having no reason whatsoever to think they do, IS reason to think that they don't. It is NOT evidence for that, but it is enough to dismiss it at one level, the level I call "not worth seriously considering."

View PostUse the Force, on 21 May 2010 - 02:32 PM, said:

Not for the purpose of saying confidently what is true (especially seeing as one would be wrong... about the bookshelves in my bedroom).

Actually YES in that situation, as they possess no hope of anything to support such a notion, and they don't manifest in their reality in any way. So for all intents and purposes they don't exist for them.

That SOUNDS a bot relativistic ("true for me") but this is a less precise layman's use of "knowledge." In that sense such things that have no impact whether real or not, might as well be accepted as not real. While still being the case that they might be, and that this dismissal is not an abolute one.

So essentially ADParker was saying that because these other "systems" have no affect on our system, then 1) We do not have any evidence or reason to think that they exist and thus 2) we might as well accept that such other systems are not real.

I disagree with him in that from a philosophical perspective, there IS reason to think that these other systems exist. Sure, they don't "exist" in a way that effects anything in our universe/system, but they still "exist" to themselves in the same way that we exist to ourselves. Therefore, I think that in a philosophical discussion it is definitely worth noting this and noting that it is quite likely that such other universes do "exist" in that sense. That's why this subject is called philosophy, not let's-learn-something-that-will-help-us-practically. These other "systems" have no affect on our universe-system, but they still "exist" to themselves in the same way that our universe exists to ourselves. So I can see why a practical person would say there is no reason or point in saying that they do exist and that we ought to act as though they don't exist. But, I think that a philosopher should definitely take note of these other universe's existence. And yes, I think that the existence of our universe testifies for the existence of these other "systems." I think that the existence of our universe is enough reason to say that all other logically possible universes exist in their own system. There are an infinite number of each type and there is an infinite variety. But, I think they all exist to themselves just as much as our universe exists to itself.

For example:

Here are things in existence:

(Our universe) (Another universe) (Yet Another Universe)

Assume all three universe's exist. Each universe cannot perceive nor affect any of the other universe-systems. ADParker (a practical person, if I may say) says that we ought to hold the view that the other two universes don't exist (note: possibly partially because of Occam's razor). He says we don't have reason to think they exist and because they would have no affect on us anyways, then we ought to act as though they don't exist. He also suggests that I am starting with the assumed conclusion that these other two universes do exist. ("It does work that way for apologists (whi start with a given conclusion) and others who fail to use proper reasoning." -ADParker) I argue that the existence of our universe is reason to think that the other logically possible universes that we can fathom also "exist". I think that my view is thus more of a rational one than an irrational one that I am defending religiously as an apologist, as ADParker suggested I was doing.

"does" or "does not" imposes a 'black vs. white' dichotomy to a reality that we all recognize is much more subtle. "Truth" is parsed and fuzzy at its very root. (Heisenberg uncertainty principle in the physical realm, Godel's incompleteness theorem in the abstract)

Actually, I don't recognize this. I think it's quite possible that our disagreement is just an issue with the English language and the definition of "exist," but to me it definitely is a black and white dichotomy. Either a specific something exists or it doesn't. Define that specific something as absolutely as it can be described and then it becomes clear to someone who is omnipotent whether that specific something exists or not. I'm not familiar with the details of Godel's incompleteness theorem, but I think I know enough about the Uncertainty principal to say that I don't see why not knowing the position or velocity of an electron (for example) means that something may/may-not exist. I don't see why you would say that something partially exists. Does the velocity partially exist at the moment you measure the position? Is that what you're suggesting? If so, I don't think so. Either it does exist or it doesn't. Perhaps our concept of "velocity" doesn't perfectly apply to how our universe is operating on the quantum level. But, I can assure you that the electron either exists or it doesn't. Perhaps it is part of the nature of our universe that the electron actually ceases from existence (one could say) for a moment before reappearing again. I don't know. But, I would never say that it partially exists. Just because it's unknown to us doesn't mean that it partially exists. What does it mean for something to partially exist? Perhaps we would describe something as partially-existing for the sake of saying that it exists in some sense, but we can't identify that sense... or something. But, I still think that it definitely either exists or not. I agree with the black vs. white dichotomy. Either something exists or it doesn't. Sure, you can define existence in different ways, but for any single specific definition of "exist," it can be declared that a specific something either does "exist" in that sense or does not "exist" in that sense.

So, in summary, I disagree with you: ""does" or "does not" imposes a 'black vs. white' dichotomy to a reality that we all recognize is much more subtle." I do not recognize it as more subtle. Perhaps it is difficult for us to define what sense of "exist" we mean and/or perhaps it is difficult for us to define what it is that we are questioning the existence of, and perhaps even with those two things well defined we still may be unable to tell whether the something exists or not, but that doesn't mean that the black vs. white dichotomy of existence disappears. I still think it is definitely a dichotomy: Either "it" "exists" or it does not "exist."

"Stuff" is a well chosen and appropriate symbol representing "something" in the most general sense conceivable. It is the yin-yang foil to "nothing" in the first question you pose.

The English language prevails.

"Exist" !?!? The purest "stuff" perfectly straddles the boundary between existing and not existing. It is the Tao that cannot be named. It is "the One" from Neoplatonism. Existence is an ideal - an absolute - something, rather than nothing? No. "Something" is locked in eternal battle with "Nothing", and neither can achieve predominance.

Again, I disagree. I think the issue is in defining the "stuff," defining what it means to "exist," and in actually then determining whether the "stuff" "exists." So to me, existence vs non-existence is definitely a dichotomy: I don't think that anything partially exists.

Now ... Travel with me to 1204 Hilltop Drive, Rock Springs, Wyoming, USA. (Google Earth will guide you) Sneak east-south-eastward through someone's backyard, or come up from below at about Sidney Street. Engraved deeply into the white sandstone cliff face, high above the town, is the phrase "STUFF EXISTS" with subtitle below "as of 7-11-1971". That is all the proof you need, my friend.

I'm not going to bother looking for the phrase on Google Earth. I reply to this quote though to ask you, what do you mean by "that is all the proof you need"? Proof of what? I think you're referring back to the title of this thread ("Why Does Stuff Exist?"), but I don't see why your phrase, "STUFF EXISTS" at all answers the questions I have regarding the subject of the existence of stuff. I'm obviously assuming that our universe exists. My question in this thread though, is what else exists? Do other universes exist? Do all other logically possible universe exists? Your "STUFF EXISTS" doesn't answer those questions. It only states what I'm already presuming based on my conscious experience in life thus far.

[gvg]

Seeksit:

1. I don't think that many things have to answer answer to the question with anything other than 'because'; 'why not?'; or, in the case of the universe, ' because otherwise nothing would be able to observe it and ask why.'

2. Like UtF, I think it is black and white. True or false, does or does not.

3. Again, look to UtF's answer =)

4. Again, it exists or it does not. It is there or it isn't.

However, I am interested in the what ideals of Taoism are, and I've never heard of Neoplatonism. Please fill me in =)

[Guest]

Interesting, but IMO, this is simply the anthropic principle taken to an illogical extreme. If we conclude that probabilistically, our universe is part of a larger, possibly infinite multiverse, then we must make the same conclusion about the multiverse being part of a larger multimultiverse, and it's "turtles all the way down", I'm afraid. Furthermore, if all possible realities simultaneously exist, there is a universe in every way identical to this one, except that I didn't just click "Add Reply", and you aren't reading this. That's a choice, not another universe.

I definitely disagree with this. If we were to assume that I am right and that there are two different universes: this one that we are in and another that is identical except that you didn't click "Add Reply" (note: this would be logically impossible if determinism is true, so we're also assuming that the world is indeterministic), then that does not necessarily mean that the difference is a choice. It could just as easily be that the two universes were occurring completely separately and happened to be the same until they differed in that way. The existence of these two universes wouldn't at all mean that the difference had to be a choice that separated the two universes in time.

I don't understand what you're saying here:

"If we conclude that probabilistically, our universe is part of a larger, possibly infinite multiverse, then we must make the same conclusion about the multiverse being part of a larger multimultiverse, and it's "turtles all the way down", I'm afraid."

What "turtles all the way down"?

Again, we cannot ever know whether there are other 'universes'. If you mean "why do the physical constants of the universe have these precise values" the answer is simple: they had to have some value, and these are as good as any other. Would the universe be different if they had different values? Of course. If they did, would there be no life? Probably not us, but possibly something else.

I was not talking about physical constants.

Why can't we know that there are other universes? Because we can't perceive them in any way? Okay... but, does that mean that they do not exist? Of course not. So you're saying it's unknown and all of what I'm saying is pure speculation (isn't that what philosophy is? Speculation with reason behind it?).

Use the Force, on 18 August 2010 - 11:31 PM, said:

Why does our universe exist? What can the existence of our universe tell us about the existence of other things/universes other than our 13.7 billion year old universe?

Absolutely nothing.

Perhaps it's true that in the most extreme rational sense there is, this information can never allow us to know anything else about the existence of other systems with complete certainty, but I think that it is still reason for a philosopher to guess that it is much more likely that there are other systems in "existence" other than our own. The opposite guess (that our universe-system is the only one) seems absurd. Our universe is extremely specific, unique, not-all-encompassing-of-what-is-possible, etc. If you want to stick to possible universes that are similar to ours in that they only differ in the physical constants, by my guest. There are an infinite number of variations of possible universes one can obtain simply changing these physical constants. Now, I see two options: Either our universe with its own specific physical constants exist, or else other universes with different physical constants than our own also exist in their own systems. You're saying that it's impossible to know which is true because of the nature of our system being separate from the other system-universe. I agree with this, but I still think that this uniqueness is plenty of reason to induce that because our universe exists, the other universes exist also. It makes a lot more sense then saying that our universe is the only one. A strict rationalist might not be able to get his head around this reason, but to me it seems very blatant. Existence is one of the most existential things there are, and my instincts to make irrational presumptions about such things that seem so blatant tell me that the sum of absolutely everything does not equal this strangely unique universe with its unique physical constants (although the constants aren't at all the only thing that makes it unique), etc. The lack of beauty in the conclusion that the sum of everything is equal to something less than what a measly human like myself can imagine the sum of everything to be is enough reason for me to dismiss the conclusion. The much more beautiful conclusion is that everything exists. This is not a philosophical question regarding what things can be known and what things are unknowable; this is a question of what things are ("are" as in "exist"). I agree that I cannot actually know with certainty that this is the way things are (so if I wish to be entirely rational I must remain agnostic on this issue), but nevertheless, I am quite confident that this IS the way things are. Of course, I still have some doubt and completely accept that I could be wrong. But, unfortunately I will never know with certainty so I guess you (and perhaps ADParker who I mentioned in my post to seeksit above) are right: This is an irrational view to hold. At the same time though, because the only affect that holding such a view would hold is that the sum of all stuff is beautiful, then I think that my view could also be looked at in such a way as being completely rational. Yes, it's speculation, but it's the best speculation I've heard yet. I would definitely consider it better than the speculation that our universe is the only universe in existence. So I suppose I am agnostic (because I think that it is "unknowable," but at the same time I realize that either option wouldn't affect us here in our universe, so the only thing that would affect us would be how one's actions would differ based on which view they hold. Because of that, I'll go ahead and make the assumption that I see as blatantly true (while agreeing that it is unknowable whether it is true): the sum of all stuff is beautiful meaning that there are other universes/systems in existence other than our own.

[Guest]

Oh, and I should clarify that when I made/make statements such as, "I think that all of this other stuff that I can imagine (other universes, etc) most definitely does "exist" for the same non-cause-and-effect-non-reason that our universe exists" I don't mean to say that I think I actually know that I am right. I am in fact agnostic meaning that I think it is unknowable from my perspective to know whether these other universes/systems exist.

Rather, I'm just saying that the lack of beauty in the option that this universe is the sum of all stuff and the presence of complete beauty in the option that all universes that I can imagine also existing to themselves in the same sense that our own universe exists to us, blatantly tells my instincts that our universe is not the only system in existence.

I'll also note once again that I don't think this is irrational due to the fact that the practical effects of me holding this view (rather than remaining guess-less on the subject and purely agnostic only) would only be positive. So essentially I'm taking a stance on an issue that I am agnostic on.

I'll compare this to theism. I consider myself an agnostic atheist because I think it is unknowable whether there is a god or not, but I default on the side that there isn't a god. Funnily enough, my other view defaults on the existence of the other universes rather than the lack of existence of those other universes. Again, I explain this with the fact that I see the existence of them a much more beautiful sum of all stuff. Anyways, guessing that these other universes probably do exist won't really affect my actions. On the other hand, guessing that there is or is not a god would drastically affect one's options. So I suppose I don't really care at all what you all's views are on whether or not these other universes exist. I was just thinking of the possibilities and decided that the most beautiful option (that I've heard of) by far is that everything exists. We can't know either way and my view won't really affect my actions, so I'll guess this for the sake of being optimistic. I find it fun to think about. I suppose even if we could know if I was right, it still wouldn't affect anything in our universe. Actually, it could possibly hurt our societies here on Earth if people found out that these other universes exist because this could cause many people to drop their religious beliefs and think that the world was pointless (not me, but other people might react in this way).

Anyways, I'm not seeing a bright future for this discussion. I'm sure there are issues that are more worth discussing. This is fun, but persuading those of you who disagree with me that you should make the guess (as I do) on this unknowable issue that other universes do exist simply because that would result in a much more beautiful sum of everything, seems like a pretty pointless goal.

[gvg]

The turtles comment was one made to a famous physicist by an older woman. She said that Earth was supported by an infinite stack of turtles. I think he used this to point out the infinite amount of multi-verses part.

[Guest]

The turtles comment was one made to a famous physicist by an older woman. She said that Earth was supported by an infinite stack of turtles. I think he used this to point out the infinite amount of multi-verses part.

In that case I would say that it would be an error to assume that all universes were created by another universe simply because "probabilistically" a given universe is more likely have been created by a universe (this is assuming that assumption a universe is most likely the creation of another universe is true... which I would definitely disagree with... I don't think there's enough information to say that. Also, I think it would be fair to say that the more complex a universe the less reason there would be to think that it is created by another universe due to the fact that a universe obviously can't create something greater than itself.).

[Guest]

Anyways, I'm not seeing a bright future for this discussion. I'm sure there are issues that are more worth discussing. This is fun, but persuading those of you who disagree with me that you should make the guess (as I do) on this unknowable issue that other universes do exist simply because that would result in a much more beautiful sum of everything, seems like a pretty pointless goal.

Hmmmmm... so it appears that you title the thread with an open question, but really just want to persuade people to your position. (Now I'm looking at the title as a question of the form: "When did you stop beating your wife?" )

I think the philosophical discussion could be very useful, if it helps people practice their critical thinking skills rather than doggedly defending a preconceived position.

[Guest]

If we were to assume that I am right

OK. Let's do that. You must agree then, that there are two identical universes, this one and another one, that differ only in that one has an invisible, incorporeal dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage. In fact, there are infinitely many universes, otherwise identical to this one, in which there are different kinds, colors, shapes, sizes, etc. of invisible incorporeal dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage, and only one universe where there is no dragon at all. You must therefore conclude that the probability that there an invisible, incorporeal dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage in this universe is 1. It's not quite proof, but it's enough to convince me.

(note: this would be logically impossible if determinism is true, so we're also assuming that the world is indeterministic), then that does not necessarily mean that the difference is a choice. It could just as easily be that the two universes were occurring completely separately and happened to be the same until they differed in that way. The existence of these two universes wouldn't at all mean that the difference had to be a choice that separated the two universes in time.

Whoa, whoa. Wait... what? How can you simultaneously hold the view that every possibility exists, and that the outcome, in this universe (or any other) is not predetermined? Is our universe not merely one of the infinite possibilities playing itself out? If so, then where's the choice? If this is the universe where I chose A and not B, then it is also the universe where, at some point in the past, I was always going to choose A and not B.

What "turtles all the way down"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

I'm saying that your argument for the existence of a multiverse is only the first step of an infinite regression. If the mere existence of this universe constitutes proof that other universes must exist as part of a so-called multiverse, then existence of this multiverse must also prove the existence of multiple multiverses, together forming a panmultiverse, thus proving the existence of multiple panmultiverses, omnipanmultiverses, superomnipanmultiverses, hypersuperomnipanmultiverses, ultrahypersuperomnipanmultiverses etc.... Note that these also prove the existence of subuniverses, infrasubuniverses, etc... as well as all manner of inter- dis- contra- and trans- verses.

Okay... but, does that mean that they do not exist? Of course not.

Inability to disprove the existence of something is not proof of its existence. Nor does the existence of something unlikely prove it to be a sample from a large number of trials.

sn't that what philosophy is? Speculation with reason behind it?

Uh, no. And even if it were, there is no reason behind your speculation. It essentially defines itself to be every unfounded hypothesis that can never be tested.

A strict rationalist might not be able to get his head around this reason

No, I understand you perfectly, I just think it's a completely absurd notion. I'm not saying there is only our universe. I'm just saying it's kind of pointless to think about it, other than as an amusing diversion. Personally, I think the idea that every possibility exists in a universe somewhere is absurd. But hey, maybe you're right. You can spend your whole life pondering it, but in the end, you'll never know more about it than you do right now, so don't sweat it so much.

I'll compare this to theism. I consider myself an agnostic atheist because I think it is unknowable whether there is a god or not, but I default on the side that there isn't a god. Funnily enough, my other view defaults on the existence of the other universes rather than the lack of existence of those other universes.

Yes, that is funny. And completely contradictory. Because you believe in all possibilities, you must simultaneously believe there is a universe in which God exists and one in which there is no God.

Edited August 20, 2010 by d3k3

[gvg]

I have to say that if there are multiple universes, many major religions will have to revise their thinking, because we would obviously not be very special. Thus, religions would have to move to one of three possibilities:

1. God did a lot of experimenting, and we are just one of his experiments.

2. There is no God

3. There are multiple Gods

[gvg]

And wait: I thought that by separate universes, each would have different laws of physics. Why are we talking about physical things? If it has the same laws of physics, isn't it the same universe?

[Guest]

And wait: I thought that by separate universes, each would have different laws of physics. Why are we talking about physical things? If it has the same laws of physics, isn't it the same universe?

Maybe. Maybe not. The same laws of physics wouldn't necessarily mean the same universe. If other universes do exist, it stands to reason that there should be an infinite number of them. Logically, some of our laws of physics would apply to at least one other universe.

Also, since we're talking about multiple universes, shouldn't it be a polyverse rather than a universe?

[Guest]

Hmmmmm... so it appears that you title the thread with an open question, but really just want to persuade people to your position. (Now I'm looking at the title as a question of the form: "When did you stop beating your wife?" )

I think the philosophical discussion could be very useful, if it helps people practice their critical thinking skills rather than doggedly defending a preconceived position.

I think it could be useful to. It's just that I no longer really care to try to persuade others to think that it would make more sense for there to be many (infinite) other universes in existence other than our own. It's not exactly a typical rational argument, it's just a sense that the sum of all things in existence wouldn't just be our lone universe. And we shouldn't think that that's all there is simply because we can't perceive the other universe-systems. That's expected by definition of what they are. So all I was saying is that I don't have much to persuade anybody of. If others wish to debate/discuss it I will, but seeing as I was the one who started the thread and have now backed off from wanting to persuade anybody of seeing my views on this subject, we will need others who want to persuade me/others to see a different view in order to continue this discussion.

[Guest]

OK. Let's do that. You must agree then, that there are two identical universes, this one and another one, that differ only in that one has an invisible, incorporeal dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage. In fact, there are infinitely many universes, otherwise identical to this one, in which there are different kinds, colors, shapes, sizes, etc. of invisible incorporeal dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage, and only one universe where there is no dragon at all. You must therefore conclude that the probability that there an invisible, incorporeal dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage in this universe is 1. It's not quite proof, but it's enough to convince me.

Whoa, whoa. Wait... what? How can you simultaneously hold the view that every possibility exists, and that the outcome, in this universe (or any other) is not predetermined? Is our universe not merely one of the infinite possibilities playing itself out? If so, then where's the choice? If this is the universe where I chose A and not B, then it is also the universe where, at some point in the past, I was always going to choose A and not B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

I'm saying that your argument for the existence of a multiverse is only the first step of an infinite regression. If the mere existence of this universe constitutes proof that other universes must exist as part of a so-called multiverse, then existence of this multiverse must also prove the existence of multiple multiverses, together forming a panmultiverse, thus proving the existence of multiple panmultiverses, omnipanmultiverses, superomnipanmultiverses, hypersuperomnipanmultiverses, ultrahypersuperomnipanmultiverses etc.... Note that these also prove the existence of subuniverses, infrasubuniverses, etc... as well as all manner of inter- dis- contra- and trans- verses.

I wasn't talking about parallel universes.

I don't get what you're saying about that probability of 1 thing for Carl Sagan. I also don't get you're saying about determinism and your choice of A not B. This all seems unrelated to what I was talking about before with other universes (systems) existing other than our own.

Inability to disprove the existence of something is not proof of its existence. Nor does the existence of something unlikely prove it to be a sample from a large number of trials.

I am very aware of this.

Uh, no. And even if it were, there is no reason behind your speculation. It essentially defines itself to be every unfounded hypothesis that can never be tested.

Of course it's not science. The subject is by definition untestable. We can never test and thus we can never "know" whether or not there are other systems in existence other than our own. I'm perfectly aware of this. I was just saying that I think it would make a lot more sense if there actually are other universe-systems in existence other than our own.

No, I understand you perfectly, I just think it's a completely absurd notion. I'm not saying there is only our universe. I'm just saying it's kind of pointless to think about it, other than as an amusing diversion. Personally, I think the idea that every possibility exists in a universe somewhere is absurd. But hey, maybe you're right. You can spend your whole life pondering it, but in the end, you'll never know more about it than you do right now, so don't sweat it so much.

I disagree that it is absurd at all. I think it makes a lot more sense than saying that some logically possible universes don't exist. Why wouldn't they? Why would some logically possible universes exist while others don't? We're not talking about a finite space or finite anything else. We're talking about existence of stuff in general. I would say that induction applies. If our universe exists, then surely others do too.

Of course I'm not going to spend my whole life pondering it. I already have pondered it and decided on the possibilities that I think make most sense. I found it fun. And I'm very aware that nobody can ever "know" for sure, in a rational sense, whether or not these other universes exist. That's why I said, "Anyways, I'm not seeing a bright future for this discussion. I'm sure there are issues that are more worth discussing. This is fun, but persuading those of you who disagree with me that you should make the guess (as I do) on this unknowable issue that other universes do exist simply because that would result in a much more beautiful sum of everything, seems like a pretty pointless goal." If you agree, then we could just stop the discussion.

Yes, that is funny. And completely contradictory. Because you believe in all possibilities, you must simultaneously believe there is a universe in which God exists and one in which there is no God.

It's not contradictory. First of all, the reason why I call myself an atheist is because I reject the gods of religions as being fictional. I don't think we have any reason to think there is a god (especially a personal one) of our universe, but I admit that its unknown.

Also, a correction: My view was that all logically possible possible universes exist. If there is a logical contradiction (such as two deterministic universes that are identical at one point in time, but different in the future), then obviously at least one of those two universes does not exist because of the inherent inconsistencies. If you imagine a universe that is not logically consistent, then I would say that it does not exist.