The Multiverse Conundrum

[Philosophy Now]

Tim Wilkinson on the physics & philosophy of parallel universes.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/The_Multiverse_Conundrum

[QuantumT]

Copycat

[seeds]

Tim Wilkinson on the physics & philosophy of parallel universes.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/The ... _Conundrum

From the article:

Teleological arguments can be traced back to antiquity, but the most famous example is the Reverend William Paley’s ‘watchmaker’ analogy of 1802. Paley argued that like watches, plants and animals give the appearance of having been designed, and since you wouldn’t expect to find a watch without a watchmaker, plants and animals must similarly have a designer as well. Unfortunately for Paley, the prevailing view among biologists and philosophers is that the watchmaker argument was demolished by Charles Darwin.

Yeah right. Tell that to the ACTUAL watch-like aspect of the universe...

(i.e., the unthinkably precise timing of the movement of the spheres, and especially of the Earth on its axis)

...of which watches are designed to try and keep track of.

Again from the article (slightly adjusted due to PN quote format not accommodating superscript numbers):

The physicists’ multiverse is usually presented in terms of some mind-bogglingly large but finite number of universes; for example, the number of universes consistent with a promising branch of string theory known as M-theory is 10 to the 500 (1 followed by 500 zeros) – a number so colossal that the number of atoms in our universe (10 to the 100) wouldn’t even dent it.

It never ceases to amaze me how materialists are willing to accept the existence of 10 to the 500 dud (lifeless) universes just to avoid any hint of the idea of ours being the product of intelligence.

Furthermore, I would love for someone to describe for me the ontological features of a universe that is devoid of stars, planets, and life.

And even more importantly, explain why such a phenomenon would even qualify for the title of “universe” in the first place?
_______

[QuantumT]

It never ceases to amaze me how materialists are willing to accept the existence of 10 to the 500 dud (lifeless) universes just to avoid any hint of the idea of ours being the product of intelligence.

Exactly! They seem to like the idea of an eternal divinity better than the virtual model (which was not mentioned at all!).

This despite the fact that we now have the technology that could enable such a virtual reality even on our own planet. And it could already have happened on another planet. It will most certainly happen on ours soon!

Given that, there is a higher probability that we are a product of such, rather than being an original physical species.

I'll let Nick Bostrom explain it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs

[Greta]

It never ceases to amaze me how materialists are willing to accept the existence of 10 to the 500 dud (lifeless) universes just to avoid any hint of the idea of ours being the product of intelligence.

I disagree. Speaking as perhaps one of your "materialists" you're sounding a tad tribal again, me laddio.

The multiverse roughly as you described is the result of a mathematical model. Since it's such a wild and sexy idea, it is more widely reported (and criticised) than other models.

Trouble is, every time there's been a gap in the physics, the devout will posit God, thus the term "God of the gaps", and every single time the gaps has been closed naturalistically; tall that is observed can be explained by physical forces.

One of my sci fi GUESSES about the nature of reality (amongst several) is that the quantum realm IS consciousness, hence the observation effects. Quantum fluctuations are like the qbits that build the qbytes of reality, and our thoughts appear to be composed of them, at least when I consider the various ways information travels between brains and what seemingly happens between A and B - basically patterns converted to different "languages" as the information ripples through different media before reorganising similarly, but not identically, in other brains.

This is a total guess, and one that allows for your kind of panpsychism/intelligence, but there is no way I'd present this as fact or truth or anything other than one other layperson's guesswork. I would not be grumpy at science people for scoffing; I'd expect it. It's unorthodox. Science, like religion, is a collective endeavour and demands orthodoxy and, like religion was (but probably not any more), if a challenge to the status quo is inspired and grounded enough, then the orthodoxy can be changed.

[seeds]

It never ceases to amaze me how materialists are willing to accept the existence of 10 to the 500 dud (lifeless) universes just to avoid any hint of the idea of ours being the product of intelligence.

Exactly! They seem to like the idea of an eternal divinity better than the virtual model (which was not mentioned at all!).

Huh?

Where did you get the idea that the supporters of a multiverse like the idea of eternal divinity? They seem to abhor divinity, hence their attraction to theories that are devised to exclude divinity.

Care to clarify that statement?

This despite the fact that we now have the technology that could enable such a virtual reality even on our own planet. And it could already have happened on another planet. It will most certainly happen on ours soon!

Given that, there is a higher probability that we are a product of such, rather than being an original physical species.

I'll let Nick Bostrom explain it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnl6nY8YKHs

I am happy to see that you have an open mind on these issues; however, it is obvious that you and I have a different perspective on intelligent design.

In reviewing the Bostrom video, the problem with his “simulation argument” is that it simply does not solve the mystery of the origin of the reality in which the proposed advanced civilization is creating the simulation.

He kind of brushed it off as not seeming to be very important, but it is extremely important because there is just no getting around the issue of infinite regress wherein the “technologically mature” simulators of our reality must be confronted with the possibility that their reality is also being simulated.

Furthermore, all the simulation argument does is dress-up creation in a more palatable explanation than that of the ridiculous “chance” hypothesis, but it still reeks of materialism’s nihilism in that it holds no eternal purpose for us as individuals.
_______

[seeds]

It never ceases to amaze me how materialists are willing to accept the existence of 10 to the 500 dud (lifeless) universes just to avoid any hint of the idea of ours being the product of intelligence.

I disagree...

What is it about my statement that you disagree with?

Do you disagree with my sense of incredulousness that it took the existence of 10 to the 500 dud (lifeless) universes to yield-forth one viable universe?

If so, then how about you take my challenge and describe for me the ontological features of a universe that is devoid of stars, planets, and life, and then tell me how and why it qualifies for the title of “universe.”

The multiverse roughly as you described is the result of a mathematical model. Since it's such a wild and sexy idea, it is more widely reported (and criticised) than other models.

Well then, you can count me as a critic - not of the possible existence of other universes - but of specific models such as the one mentioned above, and especially the Everettian (Many-Worlds Interpretation) model.

One of my sci fi GUESSES about the nature of reality (amongst several) is that the quantum realm IS consciousness, hence the observation effects. Quantum fluctuations are like the qbits that build the qbytes of reality, and our thoughts appear to be composed of them, at least when I consider the various ways information travels between brains and what seemingly happens between A and B - basically patterns converted to different "languages" as the information ripples through different media before reorganising similarly, but not identically, in other brains.

This is a total guess, and one that allows for your kind of panpsychism/intelligence, but there is no way I'd present this as fact or truth or anything other than one other layperson's guesswork.

My posts tend to be quite long at times and I simply cannot preface or conclude every statement I make with the obvious fact that everything I have to offer is indeed based on speculation and guesses.

So can we at least agree that we are all dealing in guesswork here and not assume that the other believes that what they are espousing is irrefutable fact and truth?

In other words, please don’t mistake the confidence with which I present my ideas and opinions as being a sign that I am under the delusion that I can’t be wrong.

I would not be grumpy at science people for scoffing; I'd expect it. It's unorthodox. Science, like religion, is a collective endeavour and demands orthodoxy and, like religion was (but probably not any more), if a challenge to the status quo is inspired and grounded enough, then the orthodoxy can be changed.

Just for the record, I’m not grumpy at science people for scoffing; I am grumpy at the idea of science people accepting theories** that are infinitely more ridiculous than the ones they reject.

**(e.g., 10 to the 500 dud universes.)
_______

[Greta]

It never ceases to amaze me how materialists are willing to accept the existence of 10 to the 500 dud (lifeless) universes just to avoid any hint of the idea of ours being the product of intelligence.

I disagree...

What is it about my statement that you disagree with?

Do you disagree with my sense of incredulousness that it took the existence of 10 to the 500 dud (lifeless) universes to yield-forth one viable universe?

If so, then how about you take my challenge and describe for me the ontological features of a universe that is devoid of stars, planets, and life, and then tell me how and why it qualifies for the title of “universe.”

The multiverse roughly as you described is the result of a mathematical model. Since it's such a wild and sexy idea, it is more widely reported (and criticised) than other models.

Well then, you can count me as a critic - not of the possible existence of other universes - but of specific models such as the one mentioned above, and especially the Everettian (Many-Worlds Interpretation) model.

I would not be grumpy at science people for scoffing; I'd expect it. It's unorthodox. Science, like religion, is a collective endeavour and demands orthodoxy and, like religion was (but probably not any more), if a challenge to the status quo is inspired and grounded enough, then the orthodoxy can be changed.

Just for the record, I’m not grumpy at science people for scoffing; I am grumpy at the idea of science people accepting theories** that are infinitely more ridiculous than the ones they reject.

**(e.g., 10 to the 500 dud universes.)
_______

I'm answering these together as it's the same response.

The Everett MW is a different kind of multiverse, separated by something other than space, where they peel off from this reality into new ones. Don't like it, never have.

The 10^500 posited other universes are spatially separated - other big bangs, other zones of reality. It is far from preposterous, as you claim. It was once thought preposterous that there would be trillions of galaxies. We were sure there was only one, plus "the stars". Once the idea of a galaxy was thought ridiculous ... the wisdom of the time was that the sky was obviously just filled with a central Earth, plus its minions, the Sun, the Moon and "the stars". Anyone could see it was true simply by looking up!

10^500 universes comes out of the math of some branches of string theory and is just one possible response to the anthropic principle. Also note that many of the other of those universes may also contain sentience. In fact, this may be one of the less suitable universes, for all we know. There is no reason to assume that humans and their constructed deities are the only example of emergent sentience in a reality of a scale that we probably cannot ever know.

You wonder how universes without "stars, planets, and life" can qualify to be called a "universe''. No true Scotsman wears a chastity belt under his kilt. No true universe exists without stars, planets and life?

However, "stars, planets and life" make up approximate 5% of the universe. There most certainly could be universes consisting only of the majority "dark stuff" that's in our universe, with molecular clouds in conditions that don't allow atoms or other emergent phenomena to form. Also note that for about 300,000 years our universe had no celestial bodies or, obviously, life, but it was still a universe.

One of my sci fi GUESSES about the nature of reality (amongst several) is that the quantum realm IS consciousness, hence the observation effects. Quantum fluctuations are like the qbits that build the qbytes of reality, and our thoughts appear to be composed of them, at least when I consider the various ways information travels between brains and what seemingly happens between A and B - basically patterns converted to different "languages" as the information ripples through different media before reorganising similarly, but not identically, in other brains.

This is a total guess, and one that allows for your kind of panpsychism/intelligence, but there is no way I'd present this as fact or truth or anything other than one other layperson's guesswork.

My posts tend to be quite long at times and I simply cannot preface or conclude every statement I make with the obvious fact that everything I have to offer is indeed based on speculation and guesses.

So can we at least agree that we are all dealing in guesswork here and not assume that the other believes that what they are espousing is irrefutable fact and truth?

In other words, please don’t mistake the confidence with which I present my ideas and opinions as being a sign that I am under the delusion that I can’t be wrong.

Not all guesses are of equal quality or as equally as educated. Those who have studied the topic all their lives deserve to be taken the most seriously on their subject. Also, there are a number here who are very much convinced that their opinions are facts. You know who they are.

When I present my "little theories" I like to make sure people are clear that I don't believe them. Trust online in today's climate is very low, so I can't expect people to trust me not to be a crazy on a crusade. So I spell it out to save the annoyance. In fact, trust is so low that even stating categorically that you don't believe in your guesses will bring criticisms of your "belief". That's today's "intellectual" climate and especially if one's views don't seem to be firmly in one camp or another. I figure that if the partisan "lobbyists" of each side distrust me then I'm on track ... but it does mean extra work dealing with people testing whether you are a closet believer or if you worship science as a pagan deity

I didn't think "GUESS" would gain much attention anyway, just being a way of keeping the wolves at bay, rather I was expecting a response about the controversial panpsychism opportunities within in the guesswork.

[Atla]

This despite the fact that we now have the technology that could enable such a virtual reality even on our own planet.

Of course we don't, and such technology will probably never exist. People who fantasize about quantum computation all day, don't understand that qubits in quantum computers don't magically give the right answers. Their behaviour is basically random, and this random behaviour is influenced in some direction, they make use of them this way (plus there's the technical problem of decoherence). The applicability of such computations is restricted. A simulated universe will always require a bigger quantum computer, than the size of that simulated universe.

So the base reality would need to be bigger, probably many orders of magnitude bigger than the simulated universe. Needed size quickly spirals out into infinity and the argument collapses. So there is a close to zero chance that our universe is simulated.

What escapists can cling to is a brain-in-a-vat type simulation, because that would only require a small simulation.

[TimeSeeker]

A simulated universe will always require a bigger quantum computer, than the size of that simulated universe.

This is false. Information can be compressed.

So the base reality would need to be bigger, probably many orders of magnitude bigger than the simulated universe. Needed size quickly spirals out into infinity and the argument collapses. So there is a close to zero chance that our universe is simulated.

Wrong.

1. The Bekenstein bound ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound ) tells us the MAXIMUM amount of entropy ( ) and information given a region of space. Any entity which exceeds this bound becomes a black hole.
2. Our universe is not a black hole, so it stands to reason that we are well BELOW that bound.
3. This means that our Universe's informational representation is compressible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogoro ... ompression

That is to say: There exists an algorithm (theory of everything) AND a computational device SMALLER than our universe that can compute our universe.

According to this video: https://youtu.be/0GLgZvTCbaA the size of the computer which can compute our universe is about the size of the Black Hole at the centre of the Milky Way.

And so the probability of this being a simulated universe is now infinity

[Atla]

A simulated universe will always require a bigger quantum computer, than the size of that simulated universe.

This is false. Information can be compressed.

So the base reality would need to be bigger, probably many orders of magnitude bigger than the simulated universe. Needed size quickly spirals out into infinity and the argument collapses. So there is a close to zero chance that our universe is simulated.

Wrong.

1. The Bekenstein bound ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound ) tells us the MAXIMUM amount of entropy ( ) and information given a region of space. Any entity which exceeds this bound becomes a black hole.
2. Our universe is not a black hole, so it stands to reason that we are well BELOW that bound.
3. This means that our Universe's informational representation is compressible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogoro ... ompression

That is to say: There exists an algorithm (theory of everything) AND a computational device SMALLER than our universe that can compute our universe.

According to this video: https://youtu.be/0GLgZvTCbaA the size of the computer which can compute our universe is about the size of the Black Hole at the centre of the Milky Way.

And so the probability of this being a simulated universe is now infinity

Strawman; the Bekenstein bound describes a quantum description of a classical universe. But our universe is also quantum, not classical.

[TimeSeeker]

A simulated universe will always require a bigger quantum computer, than the size of that simulated universe.

This is false. Information can be compressed.

So the base reality would need to be bigger, probably many orders of magnitude bigger than the simulated universe. Needed size quickly spirals out into infinity and the argument collapses. So there is a close to zero chance that our universe is simulated.

Wrong.

1. The Bekenstein bound ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound ) tells us the MAXIMUM amount of entropy ( ) and information given a region of space. Any entity which exceeds this bound becomes a black hole.
2. Our universe is not a black hole, so it stands to reason that we are well BELOW that bound.
3. This means that our Universe's informational representation is compressible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogoro ... ompression

That is to say: There exists an algorithm (theory of everything) AND a computational device SMALLER than our universe that can compute our universe.

According to this video: https://youtu.be/0GLgZvTCbaA the size of the computer which can compute our universe is about the size of the Black Hole at the centre of the Milky Way.

And so the probability of this being a simulated universe is now infinity

Strawman; the Bekenstein bound describes a quantum description of a classical universe. But our universe is also quantum, not classical.

Non-sequitur. The Bekkenstein bound is derived from the classical concept of energy.

Are you rejecting the concept of “energy” in the quantum realm ?

That would be the same as saying: are you rejecting General Relativity?

[Atla]

Non-sequitur. The Bekkenstein bound is derived from the classical concept of energy.

Are you rejecting the concept of “energy” in the quantum realm ?

That would be the same as saying: are you rejecting General Relativity?

No, but simulating the quantum realm of our universe, with energy and all, requires a bigger quantum computer than our universe. Our universe is not classical.

[TimeSeeker]

Non-sequitur. The Bekkenstein bound is derived from the classical concept of energy.

Are you rejecting the concept of “energy” in the quantum realm ?

That would be the same as saying: are you rejecting General Relativity?

No, but simulating the quantum realm of our universe, with energy and all, requires a bigger quantum computer than our universe. Our universe is not classical.

Either information is a fundamental property or energy is. Now I am happy to say I don’t really know but I am biased towards the quantum because ontology.

You have dismissed information on a number of
Times as being “just an abstraction” And so that is effectively you siding with Einstein.

That is you accepting energy as fundamental and Bekkenstein tacitly.

Unless, of course your contrarianism now puts you at odds. Because you have to decide what to reject so that you can disagree with me.

[Atla]

Either information is a fundamental property or energy is. Now I am happy to say I don’t really know but I am biased towards the quantum because ontology.

You have dismissed information on a number of
Times as being “just an abstraction” And so that is effectively you siding with Einstein.

That is you accepting energy as fundamental and Bekkenstein tacitly.

Unless, of course your contrarianism now puts you at odds. Because you have to decide what to reject so that you can disagree with me.

Doesn't really matter here, even if "information" is "encoded" at Planck-scale, you will still need a computer bigger then our universe to simulate our universe at Planck-scale.