Branden Holmes

  • **
  • 443 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Recently Extinct Plants and Animals Database
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2014, 08:30:11 am »
The "parallel" universes in my vocabulary are totally disconnected "entities" so you can not know about them, not even based on some physical theory (like inflationary multiverse in principle can), and are therefore entirely fiactional.

It would not matter if they exist or not in any real sense, since they are totally disconnected with ours.

One could always imagine that no matter how large the universe is, or what structure it has, there is a distinct exact copy of it outside of our universe.

What else is there to base that on other then fiction?
if that is the case, barring our becoming something akin to omniscient, we couldn't know that there were other universes out there. But our epistemic uncertainty about the existence of other universes has no impact whatsoever upon whether there actually are any other universes out there, and so I don't think that calling such worlds "fictional" is accurate. If they exist they do so independent of human opinion or belief.
I'm an atheist.

1

Rob Heusdens

  • **
  • 179 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2014, 08:47:13 am »
The "parallel" universes in my vocabulary are totally disconnected "entities" so you can not know about them, not even based on some physical theory (like inflationary multiverse in principle can), and are therefore entirely fiactional.

It would not matter if they exist or not in any real sense, since they are totally disconnected with ours.

One could always imagine that no matter how large the universe is, or what structure it has, there is a distinct exact copy of it outside of our universe.

What else is there to base that on other then fiction?
if that is the case, barring our becoming something akin to omniscient, we couldn't know that there were other universes out there. But our epistemic uncertainty about the existence of other universes has no impact whatsoever upon whether there actually are any other universes out there, and so I don't think that calling such worlds "fictional" is accurate. If they exist they do so independent of human opinion or belief.

We don't even have certainty that there are galaxies outside of the cosmological horizon in "our" universe bubble, but at least that makes sense to think of as existing. Same for other universes if inflation is true.

But I think it does not make sense to postuiate the existence of anything outside of that, without a proper basis in either empirical evidence or a viable theory.

2

Branden Holmes

  • **
  • 443 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Recently Extinct Plants and Animals Database
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2014, 08:49:41 am »
The "parallel" universes in my vocabulary are totally disconnected "entities" so you can not know about them, not even based on some physical theory (like inflationary multiverse in principle can), and are therefore entirely fiactional.

It would not matter if they exist or not in any real sense, since they are totally disconnected with ours.

One could always imagine that no matter how large the universe is, or what structure it has, there is a distinct exact copy of it outside of our universe.

What else is there to base that on other then fiction?
if that is the case, barring our becoming something akin to omniscient, we couldn't know that there were other universes out there. But our epistemic uncertainty about the existence of other universes has no impact whatsoever upon whether there actually are any other universes out there, and so I don't think that calling such worlds "fictional" is accurate. If they exist they do so independent of human opinion or belief.

We don't even have certainty that there are galaxies outside of the cosmological horizon in "our" universe bubble, but at least that makes sense to think of as existing. Same for other universes if inflation is true.

But I think it does not make sense to postuiate the existence of anything outside of that, without a proper basis in either empirical evidence or a viable theory.
I agree that it doesn't make sense to postulate them, unless under the conditions that you specify. I was merely disagreeing with your putative claim that, as it seemed to me, if any universes are unconnected to ours then they don't exist. Or that is at least how I interpreted what you were saying.
I'm an atheist.

3

Rob Heusdens

  • **
  • 179 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2014, 09:47:05 am »
The "parallel" universes in my vocabulary are totally disconnected "entities" so you can not know about them, not even based on some physical theory (like inflationary multiverse in principle can), and are therefore entirely fiactional.

It would not matter if they exist or not in any real sense, since they are totally disconnected with ours.

One could always imagine that no matter how large the universe is, or what structure it has, there is a distinct exact copy of it outside of our universe.

What else is there to base that on other then fiction?
if that is the case, barring our becoming something akin to omniscient, we couldn't know that there were other universes out there. But our epistemic uncertainty about the existence of other universes has no impact whatsoever upon whether there actually are any other universes out there, and so I don't think that calling such worlds "fictional" is accurate. If they exist they do so independent of human opinion or belief.

We don't even have certainty that there are galaxies outside of the cosmological horizon in "our" universe bubble, but at least that makes sense to think of as existing. Same for other universes if inflation is true.

But I think it does not make sense to postuiate the existence of anything outside of that, without a proper basis in either empirical evidence or a viable theory.
I agree that it doesn't make sense to postulate them, unless under the conditions that you specify. I was merely disagreeing with your putative claim that, as it seemed to me, if any universes are unconnected to ours then they don't exist. Or that is at least how I interpreted what you were saying.

How do you define "exist"?

4

Branden Holmes

  • **
  • 443 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Recently Extinct Plants and Animals Database
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2014, 10:05:29 am »
How do you define "exist"?
Actual. Real. Ontological. The actualization of a description.
I'm an atheist.

5

Rob Heusdens

  • **
  • 179 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2014, 03:57:25 pm »
How do you define "exist"?
Actual. Real. Ontological. The actualization of a description.

But how do you test that for "things" that you can never have access to?

6

Branden Holmes

  • **
  • 443 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Recently Extinct Plants and Animals Database
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2014, 03:35:08 am »
How do you define "exist"?
Actual. Real. Ontological. The actualization of a description.

But how do you test that for "things" that you can never have access to?
You can't unless there is some reason to invoke their existence, such as their effect on things which are within our purview.
I'm an atheist.

7

Rob Heusdens

  • **
  • 179 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2014, 03:54:33 am »
How do you define "exist"?
Actual. Real. Ontological. The actualization of a description.

But how do you test that for "things" that you can never have access to?
You can't unless there is some reason to invoke their existence, such as their effect on things which are within our purview.

Exactly. The "parallel universe" has no connection to our universe, and we can never know about it. There is also no reason to assume that it exists.

8

Vimbiso

  • **
  • 357 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2014, 09:19:46 am »
Rob the question (why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none?) is an illogical question because a state of affairs is simply reality and reality is simply the way things truly are i.e. a state of affairs. In essence what the question is asking is, "why is there reality rather than none?" But that's illogical. Reality is simply the way things truly are so if there was absolute nothing i.e. not anything at all, that would be a state of affairs. In other words, we will always have a state of affairs regardless of whether there is something or nothing. The question then is why is there something rather than nothing. In other words, why do we have a state of affairs in which there is something rather than a state of affairs in which there is nothing?
Pro Nostrum Invisitatus Redemptor

9

H.H.

  • ***
  • 2173 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Why is there 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none.
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2014, 12:42:15 am »
Of course, whether it is metaphysically possible for something to come into existence from nothing is highly contentious.

I don't see why any of these propositions should be so highly contentious or even contentious at all really. After all, whatever the actual case may in fact be for why there is 'some state-of-affairs' rather then none is certainly just as preposterously impossibly absurd as all the other non sequitur candidates. Either something has just always existed for no reason at all or something popped into existence for no reason at all and then everything else emerged from it and/or followed after it. Whether it be an eternally existing vacuum state which randomly fluctuates virtual particles into and out of existence or an Absolute Being that just is or a preexisting abstract principle of metaphysics which demands Being over Non-Being and exists arbitrarily for no particular reason. What other options are there?   
some dive into the sea, some toil upon the stone