Does our universe need the multiverse to exist?

[Philosophy Explorer]

For something to exist, it must be distinct from everything else. Our universe is said to be all of time and space and the term is derived from one turn.

If our universe is distinct which is an important part of existence (just as our consciousness is distinct from all others), then it follows that it must be distinct from all other universe(s) which implies a multiverse.

Any thoughts on this?

PhilX

[hammock]

Before the 1920s, the Milky Way was regarded as the extent of the universe (although Kant and others had speculated otherwise in the 18th and 19th centuries). After the discovery of countless more like it, instead of introducing the term "multiverse" back then to adjust the situation, galaxies came into vogue, with the Milky Way being demoted to such. I guess this time around they got tired of moving what the universe was supposed to be up another notch, and compromised its definition with a hyponym for even a universe ("everything") to be subsumed under. Hopefully the mega-multiverse won't invade cosmology till the next century, and the ultra-mega-multiverse even later.

[hammock]

For something to exist, it must be distinct from everything else. Our universe is said to be all of time and space and the term is derived from one turn. If our universe is distinct which is an important part of existence (just as our consciousness is distinct from all others), then it follows that it must be distinct from all other universe(s) which implies a multiverse. Any thoughts on this?

To satisfy its definition, a composite entity must be individuated into distinct components. With the interdependence of the latter reversely establishing the composite entity. So a universe, as a composite entity which IS NOT a part of yet another composite entity, can be said to derive its be-ing from its own components alone, without relation to / dependence upon something beyond it. The universe as a literal "everything" is thus sufficient in itself (the ultimate composite entity or set).

But a universe as such in name / facade only (not everything) is vulnerable to being a component of a higher level entity (it would need individuation from others and interdependence with others to fulfill its role IF a part of __). Merely "vulnerable" because the existence of an other or others would be insignificant if they have zero relationship to it, do not make it possible, do not have effect, etc.

If this cosmos could only have the properties it does by falling out of a process that exhausts all possibilities for universes (multiverse), then those other universes could be said to make this one possible even if there is no interaction between them (only having their antecedent origin in common). This is akin (in merely a rough and imperfect way) to claiming that a realm with only one star and a one planet is extremely likely to engender complex and intelligent life; but far less outrageous when that realm is filled with an immeasurable number of stars and planets.

[Obvious Leo]

In a sense the multiverse hypothesis is an inherent property of the Newtonian methodology which asks not what the thing "is" but rather what the thing "is like". In the case of the entire universe this obviously leaves a gaping explanatory hole which the physicists are free to plug with whatever hypotheses they like. However, hypotheses that cannot be falsified, even in principle, must never be regarded as scientific and obviously the multiverse hypothesis is a clear example.

Physics has painted itself into this corner by offering up a model of the universe predicated on a system of laws and a vast suite of mathematical constants derived from observation. The Newtonian methodology can offer no explanation for the origin of these laws and constants, even in principle, and thus Newton's world is one which assumes transcendent cause as an a priori assumption. The Newtonian world is one which is insufficient to its own existence so the question is not whether the universe needs a multiverse to exist. The simple truth is that PHYSICS needs something to exist beyond the universe and the multiverse is a more popular fantasy than god nowadays.

[ReliStuPhD]

In a sense the multiverse hypothesis is an inherent property of the Newtonian methodology which asks not what the thing "is" but rather what the thing "is like". In the case of the entire universe this obviously leaves a gaping explanatory hole which the physicists are free to plug with whatever hypotheses they like. However, hypotheses that cannot be falsified, even in principle, must never be regarded as scientific and obviously the multiverse hypothesis is a clear example.

Assuming I understand you, your point is that to refer to a "universe," we need to be able to say "this universe is like that one." That is, we have to come up with a category and the problem with the category "universe" is that it's a category of one so far as we know from observation. Would that be a fair dumbing-down?

[Obvious Leo]

Assuming I understand you, your point is that to refer to a "universe," we need to be able to say "this universe is like that one." That is, we have to come up with a category and the problem with the category "universe" is that it's a category of one so far as we know from observation. Would that be a fair dumbing-down?

Indeed it would be. Essentially physics wants to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand it wants to define the universe as "everything that exists" and on the other hand it's using models which define a universe which is insufficient to its own existence. It's little wonder that the physicists decided to sack the philosophers over a century ago and go their own way without them. Once they discovered that their models were describing a universe which made no sense they decided that it would be simpler to redefine "making sense" than it would be to consider the possibility that their models might be bullshit. As we all know, the notion of making sense has ever since become regarded as a trivial consideration in physics.

[ReliStuPhD]

Once they discovered that their models were describing a universe which made no sense they decided that it would be simpler to redefine "making sense" than it would be to consider the possibility that their models might be bullshit. As we all know, the notion of making sense has ever since become regarded as a trivial consideration in physics.

I'll be laughing over that one for days to come.

Many thanks for such an insightful take on it all. I'm in your debt.