Philosophical argument for pluralism

[Lucidarian]

I'm hoping to have a friendly debate with anyone with different ideas, here's a philosophical argument I thought of today.

Because the universe must have an infinite origin to be created, and the properties of anything created is determined by the parts which create it, the universe is a reflection of an infinite origin. Because such an origin would have infinite entropy, our universe must be an increasingly chaotic system in the sense that all energy is expanding in a complex network.

In this sense, we can infer that there is an infinite number of realities in an infinite origin and many realities in this universe.

 

[Laika]

An alternative view is that there are an infinite number of ways to interpret reality, but that reality objectively exists so there is only one single reality.

e.g. I think Betrand Russell used the idea of a person standing at a four-legged table and seeing only three legs. so a person can interpret the reality of the table as having three legs, when it actually has four.

you've got me thinking now... food for thought I hope.

 

[Lucidarian]

An alternative view is that there are an infinite number of ways to interpret reality, but that reality objectively exists so there is only one single reality.

e.g. I think Betrand Russell used the idea of a person standing at a four-legged table and seeing only three legs. so a person can interpret the reality of the table as having three legs, when it actually has four.

you've got me thinking now... food for thought I hope.

What do you think about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? Perhaps this could also be a logical answer to there being multiple realities?

 

[Laika]

You mean the idea of multiple dimensions? I'd take a guess that it relies on the assumption that people can make infinite choices, resulting in infinite outcomes. I think this confuses a property of the mind, the capacity for choice, with a material property in which the universe is governed by natural laws and is deterministic.

My knowledge of quantum mechanics is next to zero [I'm working up to reading stuff on it ] . But I tend to think of Schrodingers Cat as based on an argument derived from a position of ignorance; that because we don't know the outcome (is the cat dead or alive), we assume that all are possible (the cat is both dead and alive). It would appear to be the same problem.

 

[Lucidarian]

You mean the idea of multiple dimensions? I'd take a guess that it relies on the assumption that people can make infinite choices, resulting in infinite outcomes. I think this confuses a property of the mind, the capacity for choice, with a material property in which the universe is governed by natural laws and is deterministic.

My knowledge of quantum mechanics is next to zero [I'm working up to reading stuff on it ] . But I tend to think of Schrodingers Cat as based on an argument derived from a position of ignorance; that because we don't know the outcome (is the cat dead or alive), we assume that all are possible (the cat is both dead and alive). It would appear to be the same problem.

Well, I believe the concept of dimensions is different from parallel universes, which is what I was talking about, dimensions usually refer to theoretical extra-spacial directions besides the usual three dimensional world.
It would also be useful to differentiate between the many worlds interpretation, in which it is the wave functions that branch into different universes, and branching space-time theories, in which it the space–time topology itself that branches into different universes as a natural feature of the fabric of space-time. Both of these are essentially just interpretations of the quantum superposition demonstrated on a larger scale in the Schrodingers Cat example.
We could also bring chaos theory into the bunch and we could observe increasingly different universes as time goes on if there are divergent events.

I hope everything I said was coherent, when getting into complex philosophy and science it can be difficult making sure I understand what I'm talking about.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because the universe must have an infinite origin to be created, ...

Nonsense.

..., and the properties of anything created is determined by the parts which create it, ....

Nonsense.

..., the universe is a reflection of an infinite origin.

Garbage in - garbage out.

 

[Laika]

Well, I believe the concept of dimensions is different from parallel universes, which is what I was talking about, dimensions usually refer to theoretical extra-spacial directions besides the usual three dimensional world.
It would also be useful to differentiate between the many worlds interpretation, in which it is the wave functions that branch into different universes, and branching space-time theories, in which it the space–time topology itself that branches into different universes as a natural feature of the fabric of space-time. Both of these are essentially just interpretations of the quantum superposition demonstrated on a larger scale in the Schrodingers Cat example.
We could also bring chaos theory into the bunch and we could observe increasingly different universes as time goes on if there are divergent events.

I hope everything I said was coherent, when getting into complex philosophy and science it can be difficult making sure I understand what I'm talking about.

yes. you are making perfect sense, but your knowledge on this subject is definetely better than mine. I'll persevere.

[Note: I'm a materialist, so I tend to be sceptical of theoretical physics as it doesn't fit my preconceptions. it seems very strange and alien. its an area that clashes with many of my beliefs which is why I need to read up on it to see if this is an area where materialism falls down, but there is nothing in principle that I would reject if it can be demonstrated by proof. I'm willing to learn.]

Do you know if there is evidence to support the concept of dimensions. From what I've heard it based on mathamatical proofs rather than being a tested hypothesis? The problem is that whilst these are very abstract ideas it does not necessarily follow they reflect actual processes. If there is a fourth dimension, so far as we know, we only travel it one way to the future. (I think Einstein would make the case that time is not constant but is relative to our position. I think the speed of light is the constant.).

Is there a strong relationship between quantum mechanics and chaos theory. I realise you're referencing relativity by mentioning space-time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

yes. you are making perfect sense,...

Seriously? Would you care to offer any justification for the two claims asserted as truths?

 

[Laika]

Seriously? Would you care to offer any justification for the two claims asserted as truths?

Because the universe must have an infinite origin to be created,

The problem is that of the first cause. If God created the universe, who or what created God? You have an infinite regression. The only alternative explanation is that the universe is eternal and what exists exists regardless as to whether we attach any 'meaning' or 'purpose' to it. it just is. it would be illogical to postulate that the universe had a beginning without actually being caused by something (as scientists currently do with the Big Bang, an effect without a cause).

the properties of anything created is determined by the parts which create it, the universe is a reflection of an infinite origin.

If god has physical limitations this would indeed limited his or her ability to create the universe. If god has physical limitations it means he or she is operating within a set of natural laws which must necessarily be independent of the existence of god and our universe. they would therefore be eternal.

Because such an origin would have infinite entropy, our universe must be an increasingly chaotic system in the sense that all energy is expanding in a complex network.

I think this is a reference to the second law of thermodynamics, but also to the idea of the 'big freeze'; that the universe expands to such an extent that energy is dissapated and it becomes a cold, dark place.

we can infer that there is an infinite number of realities in an infinite origin and many realities in this universe.

Aka. infinite regression in the origin of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, what caused it? if that had a beginning, what caused that? etc.

In the everyday sense it's nonesense, but it's also scientific nonsense as the known laws of the universe breakdown. thats the problem.

 

[idav]

You mean the idea of multiple dimensions? I'd take a guess that it relies on the assumption that people can make infinite choices, resulting in infinite outcomes. I think this confuses a property of the mind, the capacity for choice, with a material property in which the universe is governed by natural laws and is deterministic.

My knowledge of quantum mechanics is next to zero [I'm working up to reading stuff on it ] . But I tend to think of Schrodingers Cat as based on an argument derived from a position of ignorance; that because we don't know the outcome (is the cat dead or alive), we assume that all are possible (the cat is both dead and alive). It would appear to be the same problem.

That would make sense but then would make quantum computing obsolete. However for intents and purposes the cat appears to be both at the same time. The evidence suggests the multiple simultaneous positions are real and further investigation suggests time dilation can occur as well and effect able to precede a cause when considering the quantum eraser and similar experiments. Which all give creedence to multi world interpretation according to physicists like Wheeler.

 

[Laika]

However for intents and purposes the cat appears to be both at the same time.

I'm going to expand on my argument, so I hope you will humour me.

Lets assume that the cat is simulatenously in two states; that it is both dead and alive. That would support the OP's position. The distinction is whether the existence of these two states is an objective property of reality, or a subjective one of perception. The former is a knowledge cliam- that there are multiple states and therefore universes. The latter is an assumption based on our lack of knowledge/ignorance.

The problem is that before we open the box we don't know whether the cat is dead or alive. So either are possible based on the fact we don't know which is the case. But in the "everyday" sense as there is only one cat in one box- there is only one outcome.

How does the assumption of probabilities based on our lack of knowledge become an objectively true statement about the nature of reality? Is this not a working hypothesis because it is built on the assmuption that it is not proven/cannot be proven because "we haven't opened the box"?

I can't see how you can know that the cat is dead or alive without opening the box. it seems more like an assumption about the nature of reality which cannot/does not require proof.

 

[idav]

I'm going to expand on my argument, so I hope you will humour me.

Lets assume that the cat is simulatenously in two states; that it is both dead and alive. That would support the OP's position. The distinction is whether the existence of these two states is an objective property of reality, or a subjective one of perception. The former is a knowledge cliam- that there are multiple states and therefore universes. The latter is an assumption based on our lack of knowledge/ignorance.

The problem is that before we open the box we don't know whether the cat is dead or alive. So either are possible based on the fact we don't know which is the case. But in the "everyday" sense as there is only one cat in one box- there is only one outcome.

How does the assumption of probabilities based on our lack of knowledge become an objectively true statement about the nature of reality? Is this not a working hypothesis because it is built on the assmuption that it is not proven/cannot be proven because "we haven't opened the box"?

I can't see how you can know that the cat is dead or alive without opening the box. it seems more like an assumption about the nature of reality which cannot/does not require proof.

Without getting to technical, qm allows for one and zero at the same time, this is fact and allows for simultaneous processing. How it is possible has somerhing to do with relativity. If an object like a photon, which they use in experiments, is going speed of light then it is dilating or wrinkling space and time.

 

[idav]

I agree with versions of multiworld interpretation but not sure if the potential for alternate realities ever actualize but it leaves the possibility for choice open.

 

[Laika]

Without getting to technical, qm allows for one and zero at the same time, this is fact and allows for simultaneous processing. How it is possible has somerhing to do with relativity. If an object like a photon, which they use in experiments, is going speed of light then it is dilating or wrinkling space and time.

I see where you're going with this, so thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because the universe must have an infinite origin to be created,

The problem is that of the first cause. If God created the universe, who or what created God? You have an infinite regression./QUOTE]
No, you don't. The reason to presume a creator is that all natural phenomena are caused. If 'God,' It is by definition a preternatural phenomenon and the presumption is baseless.

 

[Willamena]

... "Infinite entropy" would seem to be a contradiction of terms, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Tumah]

I'm hoping to have a friendly debate with anyone with different ideas, here's a philosophical argument I thought of today.

Because the universe must have an infinite origin to be created

If the origin of the universe is infinite (by which I understand you to mean temporally), then it can't be said to be created. As that would imply that at some [less than infinite] point in the past, it was nonexistent. Perhaps you meant Infinite, meaning G-d?

and the properties of anything created is determined by the parts which create it

Are you arguing that the infinite past created the universe? That doesn't seem like it would make sense.
Are you arguing that the universe is made out of the Infinite (G-d)? Is this also an argument for pantheism?

the universe is a reflection of an infinite origin.

Do you mean that the universe will exist infinitely long? Has an infinite amount of space? Contains an infinite amount of matter?

Because such an origin would have infinite entropy, our universe must be an increasingly chaotic system in the sense that all energy is expanding in a complex network.

If the universe were infinite, would that still be called an isolated system?

In this sense, we can infer that there is an infinite number of realities in an infinite origin and many realities in this universe.

I think I'm way behind to get this.

 

[Lucidarian]

If the origin of the universe is infinite (by which I understand you to mean temporally), then it can't be said to be created. As that would imply that at some [less than infinite] point in the past, it was nonexistent. Perhaps you meant Infinite, meaning G-d?

What I mean is that there must have been something infinite which created the universe, lest we have an infinite regression of what was first, and that if our universe that we inhabit is not infinite, it would be likely that this infinite origin is separate from the universe we inhabit. A g

Are you arguing that the infinite past created the universe? That doesn't seem like it would make sense.

Are you arguing that the universe is made out of the Infinite (G-d)? Is this also an argument for pantheism?

No, I was arguing that the properties of things are constrained by the properties of things it is made of. An example would be a molecule's behavior is determined by the interactions of it's atoms and the electrons within them. Just as the abilities of a machine comes from the properties of the interaction of it's parts, the universe's properties comes from what it is made from all the way down to the most smallest basic composite, probably space-time and the physical laws themselves. I'm not saying God created the universe, I'm just saying something infinite must have.

Do you mean that the universe will exist infinitely long? Has an infinite amount of space? Contains an infinite amount of matter?

I was drawing an analogy with Plato's Theory of Forms. I believe it's a possibility for our universe to either be finite or infinite, I would not know which.

If the universe were infinite, would that still be called an isolated system?

If the universe were infinite, it would have no walls to prevent it from passing energy or matter, because space would be infinite, so it would not be an isolated system. If the universe were finite but you could walk in a straight line forever theoretically like a globe, then it would likely still be an isolated system also.

I think I'm way behind to get this.

What I was getting at when I said "In this sense, we can infer that there is an infinite number of realities in an infinite origin and many realities in this universe." Is that in this infinite origin, whatever it is, by property of being infinite everything that can happen will happen an infinite amount of time, creating an infinite number of realities. If our universe was created by this infinite origin, it is likely that we would also have an infinite number of realities if we are infinite, or if our universe was actually an infinite multiverse.

I apologize for not responding yesterday, it was late.

 

[dust1n]

Because the universe must have an infinite origin to be created,

The problem is that of the first cause. If God created the universe, who or what created God? You have an infinite regression. The only alternative explanation is that the universe is eternal and what exists exists regardless as to whether we attach any 'meaning' or 'purpose' to it. it just is. it would be illogical to postulate that the universe had a beginning without actually being caused by something (as scientists currently do with the Big Bang, an effect without a cause).

Just in regards to the Big Bang:

"While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined. The Big Bang Theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates asingularity at the origin of cosmic time; this infinite energy density is regarded as impossible in physics. Still, it is known that the equations are not applicable before the time when the universe cooled down to the Planck temperature, and this conclusion depends on various assumptions, of which some could never be experimentally verified.

One proposed refinement to avoid this would-be singularity is to develop a correct treatment of quantum gravity.[110]

It is not known what could have preceded the hot dense state of the early universe or how and why it originated, though speculation abounds in the field of cosmogony."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm hoping to have a friendly debate with anyone with different ideas, here's a philosophical argument I thought of today.

Because the universe must have an infinite origin to be created, and the properties of anything created is determined by the parts which create it, the universe is a reflection of an infinite origin. Because such an origin would have infinite entropy, our universe must be an increasingly chaotic system in the sense that all energy is expanding in a complex network.

In this sense, we can infer that there is an infinite number of realities in an infinite origin and many realities in this universe.

Sorry, I'm not seeing how this is about pluralism.