Objectivism and Theoretical Physics

[Godless Capitalist]

The post above was mine.

I just wanted to add that you need to look at the actual concept, not just the name given to it.

Something similar happened in another thread when you critiqued Grant for saying that police had the right to initiate force to deal with fraud. It was clear from his explanation that his concepts were correct; he was just confused about where the actual initiation of force had occurred.

[msb]

This is a widely held view. For example, from http://slate.msn.com/id/2087206

"Before getting to why you should or should not believe in multiple universes, there's a semantic point we ought to deal with. If the universe is, as the dictionary has it, "all existing things ... regarded as a whole," then isn't it true by definition that there is only one such thing? (After all, uni- is built right into the word itself.) Well, yes. But when physicists and philosophers talk about different space-time domains being "two universes," what they generally mean is that those regions are 1) very, very large; 2) "causally isolated" from each other (meaning that an event in one cannot have an effect in another); and hence 3) mutually unknowable by direct observation (since observing something means causally interacting with it). The case for saying the two domains are separate universes is further strengthened if 4) they have very different characters: if, say, one of them has three spatial dimensions (like ours), whereas the other has 17 dimensions. Finally—and here is the existentially titillating possibility—two domains might be called separate universes if 5) they are "parallel," meaning that they contain somewhat different versions of the same entities, like your own alter ego."

The only way you can make the term "multiple universes" even remotely justifiable is to wildly and arbitrarily speculate about things that do not exist and that could not possibly exist. I don't think this a separate issue from the fact that "multiple universes" is an invalid concept. And I think this is RadCap's point: precisely because it is invalid, you have to end up with absurdities like these.

To make the invalid concept make sense, you have to flout everything else you know about reality and logic. This is exactly what happens when you try to hold an arbitrary theory: it invalidates all related knowledge. It's not just an issue of terminology.

[AshRyan]

This is a widely held view. For example, from http://slate.msn.com/id/2087206

Wow, that's a horrible article.

There are too many fallacies in there to count. But one of my favorite little slips of logic in there is the idea of "multiple universes" being entirely causally isolated from one another. If that were the case, then how could we have any type of evidence of their existence whatsoever? And on what basis should we therefore believe in them? And yet, the author (who claims to reject non-empirically based arguments) ends up being sympathetic to the idea.

[msb]

Don't look at me. I just work here.

[Godless Capitalist]

The only way you can make the term "multiple universes" even remotely justifiable is to wildly and arbitrarily speculate about things that do not exist and that could not possibly exist. I don't think this a separate issue from the fact that "multiple universes" is an invalid concept. And I think this is RadCap's point: precisely because it is invalid, you have to end up with absurdities like these.

To make the invalid concept make sense, you have to flout everything else you know about reality and logic. This is exactly what happens when you try to hold an arbitrary theory: it invalidates all related knowledge. It's not just an issue of terminology.

I'll agree that "multiple universes" (or "multiple partiverses" to remove the semantic problem) are a wild speculation and that there may never be any evidence for them. Of course their existence should not be accepted unless some evidence becomes available. That does not, though, prove that they cannot exist, or that the idea is invalid. Why do you think they cannot exist?

Perhaps another example will help (or perhaps not). People have speculated about the possible existence of extraterrestrial life. So far there is no evidence that such life exists, but there is no reason to say that it cannot exist. We just don't know, and may never know. Does that mean that the concept of extraterrestrial life is invalid, or that speculation about it is pointless?

[msb]

Well, "invalid" means bearing no connection to reality, which is exactly what having no available evidence proves.

It is a different process to prove that they cannot exist. I haven't thought this through, but I'm pretty sure that its nonsense to say that anything can be completely causally isolated from anything else. (If it was, we'd have no evidence for it.) I spoke too fast in my last post; I can't make an argument for its impossibility. But that aside, the notion of multiple universes is at the very least arbitrary. Which means you shouldn't speculate about it.

Speculating about ET life is or at least could be very different. For example, we might know that life arises under specific conditions and can be sustained under these range of conditions, and that x percentage of known planets meets those criteria. Further, we have found traces of organic material on various stellar objects, meteorites, etc.. (I'm just making this stuff up.) Because of this and other such evidence it is possible that ET life exists, and exists this far away and with such-and-such characteristics.

But if someone asserted to you, "There's extraterrestrial life out there--I'm sure of it." And you said, "Why?" And they said, "I don't have any reasons" or "Because its not impossible" or "Because its an implication of my otherwise nonsensical superunification theory"--then that would be arbitrary, and demands that you not speculate about it.

[Godless Capitalist]

Well, "invalid" means bearing no connection to reality, which is exactly what having no available evidence proves.

It is a different process to prove that they cannot exist. I haven't thought this through, but I'm pretty sure that its nonsense to say that anything can be completely causally isolated from anything else. (If it was, we'd have no evidence for it.)

Why would having no evidence mean that an idea bears no connection to reality? We have no evidence that ET life exists, yet the idea can be connected to reality, as you show.

You are right that if another universe were completely causally isolated from ours, there would be no way to have any evidence about it. But knowledge is not the same thing as existence. Just because you cannot have knowledge about something does not mean that it cannot exist.

Some of you seem very close to arguing that existence is dependent on perception, which of course is nonsense.

[msb]

I'm just arguing that it's ridiculous to even speculate about such an arbitrary claim. To quote OPAR:

An arbitrary claim is not merely an unwarranted effusion. By demanding one's consideration in defiance of all the requirements of reason, it becomes an affront to reason and to the science of epistemology. In the absence of evidence, there is no way to consider any idea, on any subject. There is no way to reach a cognitive verdict, favorable or otherwise, about a statement to which logic, knowledge, and reality are irrelevant. There is nothing the mind can do to or with such a phenomenon except sweep it aside.

An arbitrary idea must be given the exact treatment its nature demands. One must treat it as though nothing had been said. The reason is that, cognitively speaking, *nothing has been said*. One cannot allow into the realm of cognition something that repudiates every rule of that realm. (164-5)

Speculating about "multiple universes" is invalid. Speculating about "multiple partiverses" is arbitrary. Both lead to the same cognitive result.

[Godless Capitalist]

hmmm ... but if we have observed that something already exists--life, our galaxy, the universe--why is it meaningless to hypothesize that more of the same type of thing might also exist? You admit that with ET life, why not "partiverses"?

This exact process occurred with our galaxy. Astronomer used to think our galaxy was the only one; in effect, that it was the whole universe. Was it meaningless to speculate that other galaxies might exist? (as of course they do)

That OPAR quote only seems to show that there is no way to evaluate an arbitrary claim, not that the arbitrary claim cannot possibly be true.

[msb]

I don't necessarily think it's valid to speculate about ET life. I don't know the facts involved. I just made up a circumstance in which it could be valid as an example.

The OPAR quotes shows that an arbitrary claim has no relation to reality and cannot be processed, period. It's worse than false.

[y_feldblum]

The difference between ET and multipartiverses is that is that the former is verifiable while the latter is not. As of now, we have no knowledge of any ET civilisations, nor of any partiverses; as of now, both are distinct possibilities. Now, all we have to do is find one piece of evidence of ET to verify it; but the definition of multipartiverses states that it is physically impossible to verify the theory. Speculating about something while knowing that evidence is impossible ...

[RadCap]

We have observed that elephants already exist. We have observed that the color pink already exists (in both plants and animals - ie in living things). According to the extremely loose standards above, it should be "meaningful" to hypothesize that more of the same types of things might also exist - and might also exist in combination with one another.

In other words, according to the given standards of "possible", it is "possible" to have pink elephants. As of now, we have no knowledge of any pink elephants; all we have to do though is find one piece of evidence of a pink elephant to verify it.

I suggest everyone check their premises when it comes to the concept "possible".

--

"That OPAR quote only seems to show that there is no way to evaluate an arbitrary claim, not that the arbitrary claim cannot possibly be true."

No one (properly) said an arbitrary claim cannot be true. Arbitrary means no connection to reality - a floating abstraction - no evidentiary basis for the claim. The concept true (and false) pertain TO proof. It SPECIFICALLY requires a reference to reality. It SPECIFICALLY requires evidence. As such, an arbitrary claim does not even fall within the bounds of truth (or falsehood). An arbitrary claim can NEITHER be considered true NOR false. Before a claim can be "evaluated" as to its truth or falsehood it must FIRST be "evaluated" as to its validity (whether it has any basis IN reality). By DEFINITION, an arbitrary claim does NOT have such a basis. This makes the claim INVALID - because if it is NOT about reality - it is NOTHING. And nothingness CANNOT be considered.

Put simply (as Newton did in his Principia) an arbitrary claim MUST be dismissed out of hand WITHOUT further consideration. Why? Because there is literally NOTHING to consider.

There is a Santa Claus. There are unicorns. There is a heaven and a hell. There are trolls and fairies. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.

These are ALL arbitrary claims. They are abstractions derived from different things which DO exist and combined to form a NEW abstraction - but combined without evidence that the new concept represents ANYTHING actually IN reality. They are combined to form abstractions which float APART from reality (thus the term "floating abstraction").

The mistake is to treat such disconnected abstractions as if they actually HAD any connection to reality - ie that for NO OTHER REASON than that the mind is able to create them, it is therefore possible for them to exist. This is simply a blatant example of the Primacy of Consciousness.

This is all BASIC logic folks. I suggest a class on the subject. (And I suggest it because it CANNOT be taught in a forum. It can only be referenced. You must LEARN it elsewhere.)

--

GC -

In a similar thread you asked:

"I do not 100% agree with everything Rand said and cannot derive her entire philosophy from first principles."

You have evidenced MUCH disagreement (across ALL the branches of philosophy) with things AR stated about her philosophy. Your implicit principles do NOT proceed from objectivism at all. They have MUCH more of a libertarian/subjectivist taint to them. This is NOT, as you suggest, true of "most other people here" though. They seek not to contradict or disprove objectivism, but to grasp it. Your words and actions demonstrate the former, not the latter intent.

As such, you were "singled out" because, when asked questions pertaining to objectivism, you did not qualify your statements by admitting your disagreements with objectivism. Thus, though the context is SUPPOSED to be the OBJECTIVIST perspective on these things, in MANY cases you give your OWN, objectivist-CONTRADICTING perspective instead. IN this context (where one asks for and expects to hear the OBJECTIVIST viewpoint) and WITHOUT such qualifiers, your posts amount to intellectual dishonesty (as they would be if some other form of collectivist, altruist, or Mystic/Subjectivist presented their views as if they were objectivism).

Put simply, in this context, they are fraudulent.

And THAT is why I "singled" you out.

[DAC]

Being relatively new to these forums and not having the time to read every post or exchange that GC and RadCap have made, would it be possible RadCap, for you to list specific charges of his irrationality or post links to the specifics and I will evaluate. So often I have participated in Objectivists forums/newsgroups and eventually they deteriorate to claims of irrationality, namecalling, etc. No accusation intended, I want to know for myself if this is that type of forum, and if your charges have merit.

[Godless Capitalist]

"That OPAR quote only seems to show that there is no way to evaluate an arbitrary claim, not that the arbitrary claim cannot possibly be true."

No one (properly) said an arbitrary claim cannot be true.  Arbitrary means no connection to reality - a floating abstraction - no evidentiary basis for the claim.

RadCap, thank you for the clear explanation of "arbitrary claims." I agree completely.

As for your criticism of me, I appreciate the explanation and will consider it. Like DAC, I would like to see specifics to support your claim.

DAC, you can start by reading this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...p?showtopic=153

[y_feldblum]

RedCap, your pink elephant objection, though imaginative, is flawed. It is possible that such a thing exists, though now that we know quite a lot about our planet, the possibility that such would happen naturally is very very remote. Nevertheless, I could genetically modify an elephant to make it pink and then there it would be. The fact that we have reason to believe such a thing is such a very remote chance naturally means it would be foolish to hypothesize about it until one has reason to believe a different chance applies.

All this in relation to multipartverses. The concept of evidence is possible with relation to pink elephants, no matter statistical likelihood or degree of (non)sense, but it is impossible with relation to multipartverses. One concept is open to evidence, open to a reference to reality, and the other is closed. Once you have some evidence, if ever, you can begin to discuss the former; but there is no chance of ever seriously discussing the latter with any reference to reality.

[RadCap]

y

I agree with your assessment of any discussion related to the concept multiverse. And the reason I agree with it is based on the argument I gave about the concepts "possibility" and "floating abstraction" as well as "truth" and "validity" - all of which you never addressed in your claim that pink elephants are possible. As I suggested, I suggest you check your premises, especially as related to the concept "possible".

[AshRyan]

Please see the comments posted at the end of the "Expanding Universe" thread for a fuller explanation on why this thread has been closed.