5 ms·

> The multiverse hypothesis helps, by giving a plausible answer which avoids belief in gods. But as long as there is no proof of the existence of these multipl

> The multiverse hypothesis helps, by giving a plausible answer which avoids belief in gods. But as long as there is no proof of the existence of these multiple universes it's still magical thinking.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
Worse: Why do you consider the multiple universe hypothesis as more probable than the God hypothesis? On the basis of data? No. (If you think otherwise, show us the data.) On the basis of philosophical prejudice? Yes, I think that's the reason. But if you say that, given no evidence for God, one should be an atheist, then given no evidence for multiple universes...
- kazinator 12y ago
  Philosophical prejudice in favor of "no hidden variables". Even the hypothesis that this is the only universe requires hidden variables (to explain what snuffs out the other universes, setting up this one as the one and only).
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    But aren't other universes also "hidden variables"? Even more, why do you say "to explain what snuffs out the other universes"? That means you're already assuming that there are (or were or should be) other universes. What is your basis for assuming that?
    - kazinator 12y ago
      Other universes aren't hidden variables because they have no effect. That is to say, no process in one universe is postulated to explain a process in another universe (because any such a bridge would mean that we are really talking about the same universe, right?)
    - kazinator 12y ago
      It's the same basis like for the notion that, for instance, there is no greatest integer. It would be surprising if suddenly the integers stopped at a particular value. Such an extraordinary situation would require an extraordinary explanation. Any set of rules you can imagine gives you a universe. If you say that there is only this universe and nothing else, then you're denying the existence of things like the complex plane. Or else you're asserting that the physical world exists in a different sense. But so far, all evidence points toward the world being nothing but math. Not a single discovery in physics has ever been anything other than math: a mathematical relationship (equations) or a quantity (constant). Maybe that's just a "streak" of a particular kind of luck: maybe the next discovery will be of something non-mathematical. I'm betting on it being "math all the way down".
      - stefantalpalaru 12y ago
        > Any set of rules you can imagine gives you a universe. That's like saying that any supernatural being you can imagine gives you a god. Reality is not the consequence of math and it is absurd to believe that things exist just because you had some results from an equation.
        kazinator 12y ago
        > it is absurd to believe that things exist just because you had some results from an equation. Okay, so then: what has advancement in physics ever given us, other than yet another equation or a numeric constant?

> The multiverse hypothesis helps, by giving a plausible answer which avoids belief in gods. But as long as there is no proof of the existence of these multiple universes it's still magical thinking.

AnimalMuppet 12y ago

Worse: Why do you consider the multiple universe hypothesis as more probable than the God hypothesis? On the basis of data? No. (If you think otherwise, show us the data.) On the basis of philosophical prejudice? Yes, I think that's the reason. But if you say that, given no evidence for God, one should be an atheist, then given no evidence for multiple universes...

kazinator 12y ago
Philosophical prejudice in favor of "no hidden variables". Even the hypothesis that this is the only universe requires hidden variables (to explain what snuffs out the other universes, setting up this one as the one and only).
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  But aren't other universes also "hidden variables"? Even more, why do you say "to explain what snuffs out the other universes"? That means you're already assuming that there are (or were or should be) other universes. What is your basis for assuming that?
  - kazinator 12y ago
    Other universes aren't hidden variables because they have no effect. That is to say, no process in one universe is postulated to explain a process in another universe (because any such a bridge would mean that we are really talking about the same universe, right?)
  - kazinator 12y ago
    It's the same basis like for the notion that, for instance, there is no greatest integer. It would be surprising if suddenly the integers stopped at a particular value. Such an extraordinary situation would require an extraordinary explanation. Any set of rules you can imagine gives you a universe. If you say that there is only this universe and nothing else, then you're denying the existence of things like the complex plane. Or else you're asserting that the physical world exists in a different sense. But so far, all evidence points toward the world being nothing but math. Not a single discovery in physics has ever been anything other than math: a mathematical relationship (equations) or a quantity (constant). Maybe that's just a "streak" of a particular kind of luck: maybe the next discovery will be of something non-mathematical. I'm betting on it being "math all the way down".
    - stefantalpalaru 12y ago
      > Any set of rules you can imagine gives you a universe. That's like saying that any supernatural being you can imagine gives you a god. Reality is not the consequence of math and it is absurd to believe that things exist just because you had some results from an equation.
      - kazinator 12y ago
        > it is absurd to believe that things exist just because you had some results from an equation. Okay, so then: what has advancement in physics ever given us, other than yet another equation or a numeric constant?