[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

[Guest]

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?

I agree.

I don't know the terminology: polyverse vs. multiverse. It seems to me that people use "multiverse" when talking about possible parallel universes, that differ from our own as we proceed through time and whatnot. This is not what I'm talking about, so perhaps polyverse is the right term.

Actually, I looked up polyverse and found it defined as "Polyverse: a reality where time is linear but space may be discontinuous, with different physical constants in different regions. These different regions "bubble" off into separate monoverses. The number of bubbles may be finite or countably infinite." This is not what I'm talking about either. I'm talking about entirely different systems.

[Guest]

Okay.Shall we call them verses then, and risk people thinking this is a conversation about poetry?

[Guest]

Okay.Shall we call them verses then, and risk people thinking this is a conversation about poetry?

We could, or we could call them "systems" as unreality did. I think it's clear that separate systems aren't universes that are parallel to each other.

[Guest]

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.

And if you'd stopped at that, I would still disagree (c.f. turtles), but you would at least have a logical argument (a sort of extension of the anthropic principle). It's when you say that every logically (?) possible universe must also exist that I get a furrowing of the brow, a slight wrinkling of the nose, the left side of my upper lip raises slightly, and my head cocks slightly back and to one side.

Because we exist, and because the universe is vast, it is very likely that there is at least one other species of intelligent life in the universe, because it is very likely that similar conditions to those on Earth exist in many places throughout the universe. We can say that, because we can observe the universe, and know that it is a very big place. You have esentially taken that up one level of abstraction and applied it to the universe itself, but substituted the high probability for certainty, and then go one step further by saying that all other possible universes must exist. To put it into perspective, your "reasoning" is the logical equivalent of saying that because we exist so too must all possible forms of intelligent life (in this universe).

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.

I wasn't talking about parallel universes either, mostly because I have no clue WTF that's even supposed to mean (you do mention it specifically in the OP, BTW, but that's beside the point too). The point is, if this universe is "logically consistent", then a universe that developed completely independently from this one, but that, by chance alone, differs only in that I did not respond to this thread, is also logically consistent. Now, if every logical possibility exists, then everything happens -- somewhere. That means whatever choices you didn't make in your life here, you are destined to have made in some other universe. On this topic, you stated: "this would be logically impossible if determinism is true", when in fact the opposite is true -- it only makes sense that every possibility could actually exist if each reality is completely determined by fate. How else can you ensure every outcome?

As for the Carl Sagan thing, you claim the existence of universes where there are wizards and Jedi, so, why not an invisible, incorporeal dragon in Carl Sagan's garage? And then why not infinitely many universes having invisible, incorporeal dragons in Carl Sagan's garage? Are you telling me that out of all the possible universes similar, or nearly identical to this one, this is the only one that doesn't have one? From this perspective, it seems extremely unlikely that there isn't an invisible incorporeal dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage in our universe, among other zany and weird things.

To put it another way, if all realities exist, then why does this one seem fairly predictable? Wouldn't we be far more likely to find ourselves somewhere fantastically mystical, weird, chaotic and unpredictable, where the possibilities are unlimited? Aren't there, by definition, infinitely more such universes?

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?

Why don't unicorns exist? Why don't I have more brothers and sisters? Surely my parents did it more than twice. Not everything that could happen does happen, unless the ____verse is completely determined by fate.

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.

I'm saying that by that exact same induction (our universe exists so must be part of a more complex system of universes) you must conclude that there are still more complex systems composed of such systems, and so on, ad infinitum. What's more, how can we know this is the level of least complexity? It would be arrogant to suppose it was, so now we have to spawn subuniverses ad infinitum. You may choose to believe other universes do exist, and that's fine, but there is no logical reason to conclude they must exist, only that they may 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.

O.o