Reply to Joppe:I said to the atheist that "possible worlds are complete description of the actual world" and I was able to win the debate.
An interesting conclusion on the basis of no evidence whatsoever but reliant purely on assertion. In fact, I find it very difficult to even make sense of the clause,
"possible worlds are complete description of the actual world”. In what sense do possible worlds help to describe the actual world? Take, as an example, a description of our actual world as a place in which many people derive pleasure from dancing in response to a rhythmic pulse. I could envisage a world in which green pixies with pitchforks force people to dance and prod them with a sharp stick if they don’t smile whilst doing so. In what sense is that a
“complete description of the actual world”?
I don’t even know if it is possible that green pixies with pitchforks could exist, since I am completely unable to define a scenario whereby I might examine the issue. I certainly cannot prove that it is impossible, but neither does it follow that it is therefore possible. I have no way of knowing and it cannot be assumed.
It is not sufficient to say that possible worlds
may exist. For your purposes you must demonstrate that they
must exist. I don’t see how you are going to do that. Even working on the assumption of an infinite number of possible universes or outcomes, it does not follow that all possible outcomes must manifest themselves. Some possibilities may repeat themselves, even an infinite numer of times. Others may never ever appear.