Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Gramlich

The Only Possible World? (Leibniz)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Leibniz claimed that this is the best of all possible worlds.

I wonder whether it is the only logically possible world or whether it is possible to have a different universe in the first place. Both Leibniz' claim and my subsequent inquiry most likely can't be proven, but it's an interesting thought experiment, even without the invocation of God. It makes one wonder what sort of leeway something like a law of a universe could have and what does it mean for something to be possible.

My reasoning for why the universe would be the only logically possible world is based primarily on the fact that the universe is logical. This should leave it to be something of an immense logical system with potentially innumerable number of interlocking and non-contradicting components and systems (Although, an infinite universe may put to question whether the universe could be described as a "system," since it would never be "closed," which may significantly effect this line of thought/argument). As such, I would presume that this logical interlocking where laws and entities must act non-contradictory, harmoniously, and simultaneously would necessarily disqualify certain "potential" laws and false ways of existence, leaving this universe and its orientation as the only ones that could ever exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gramlich said:

Leibniz claimed that this is the best of all possible worlds.

I wonder whether it is the only logically possible world or whether it is possible to have a different universe in the first place. Both Leibniz' claim and my subsequent inquiry most likely can't be proven, but it's an interesting thought experiment, even without the invocation of God. It makes one wonder what sort of leeway something like a law of a universe could have and what does it mean for something to be possible.

My reasoning for why the universe would be the only logically possible world is based primarily on the fact that the universe is logical. This should leave it to be something of an immense logical system with potentially innumerable number of interlocking and non-contradicting components and systems (Although, an infinite universe may put to question whether the universe could be described as a "system," since it would never be "closed," which may significantly effect this line of thought/argument). As such, I would presume that this logical interlocking where laws and entities must act non-contradictory, harmoniously, and simultaneously would necessarily disqualify certain "potential" laws and false ways of existence, leaving this universe and its orientation as the only ones that could ever exist.

What do you mean by logically possible? 

Normally for something to be possible means there is some evidence for that something to exist in reality.

Sounds like you are trying to characterize a something which you have already accepted as not existing in reality... but nonetheless "could" have existed... like say a universe with only 2 spatial dimensions or only 2 fundamental forces... as some kind of "possibility", as long as you can imagine it and it is not self-contradictory (notwithstanding the fact that it contradicts actual reality as we know it).

If so, what is the standard among those which you can image which are self-consistent, to distinguish between those "could have" been... versus something which "could not have" been?

One certainly can imagine arbitrary universes with different characteristics, and judge our ability to do so such that they are self consistent, but I do not think our analysis of these imagined universes says anything about reality, certainly not as much as it says something about our imagination and ability to create self-consistent fictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The universe is not "an immense logical system." If anything, it would be a natural system. Logical systems are created by man to gain knowledge.

Do you believe in Logos or metaphysical idealism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea is factually wrong. It's been proven that our "universe" can't exist without the concept of a "multiverse". Physics and "our universe" wouldn't be consistent without that concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to argue any position at the moment, but just to note that I believe that Objectivism holds that other "orientations" were possible (and are possible going forward); and that this is the essential meaning to the difference between the "metaphysical" and the "man-made," and also the foundation of moral reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of possible worlds is supposed to be a tool to help aid the logician on modal reasoning (thinking about concepts like possibility and necessity.) In so doing, various ways of thinking about these other possibilities and their status came about. Some called concretists posit the actuality of other possible worlds is no different in kind than ours, we just happen to inhabit it rather than others. The abstractionist posits that other possible worlds exist, or can exist in various ways, but they just lack the property of actuality until they obtain.

Generally speaking, I'm against the talk of other possible worlds. For the metaphysical realist, even one that held to the idea of multiple dimensions or universes, there would still be some sense in which whatever exists is all thar exists, call it existence. Our thinking about existence can neither bring into or make actual what exists.

If concepts of possibility and necessity are supposed to do their job and aid our conceptual frameworks, they can only be made in respect of the capacities and developments of aspects of nature in the common sense world in which we interact. The old concepts of "act" and "potency" are helpful to bring back in. Potencies exist as dispositional manifestations of entities working through causation. Potency is the basis of a causal-realist modality. That I could be standing instead if sitting, or that the Germans won WW2 is a potentiality. A square circle is not a potentiality. That there are 8 planets is an actuality. That our definition of planets could have been something else is a potentiality. Possibility can be seen as referring to the potentialities of things in the one actual world. Necessity can be seen as the causal development of potency to act in the one actual world. Using this framework, possible worlds are not needed. As extra metaphysical baggage, it can be lopped off using Occam's Razor. (I take Rand's metaphysical and man-made to further distinguish between human-caused and nature-caused developmental processes.)

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another world simply goes against the law of identity. Another world means: A is A (at the same time and perspective) AND A is (not A) (at the same time and the same perspective BUT in another world).
Sometimes the mistake is that "another world", is "another perspective of this world".

Based on the definition of the universe (not in physics but in philosophy) (per the lexicon) 
"The universe is the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything".
In Physics, when other universes exist, that can only mean that their definition of "the universe", is not "everything". What is meant by the universe can only be "a subset of everything". As in perhaps the universe after the big bang and another before.

Then one can ask the OP's question as "is there another everything"?
Is there another "all"?
But by definition, how many "all" 's are there?
The "All" without filters, limitations, exceptions. "All" as in every one of them.
How many "every one of them" can there be?
Same with totality: 
2+2 is 4, or are there other "totals" too? (in another world?)

If there is more than one "all", then it contradicts the definition of all or totality.

When one states "All living things have a choice to live or die", is there another "all" somewhere else?
Are there dead things that are living things? (in another world?)
If true, the logicalness would have to be of another world too.

Clearly, we can imagine other worlds. Phenomenologically, we live in many worlds, a province of psychology/consciousness, but metaphysically, there is only one existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...