Other universes: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Other universes » Other universes

Other universes

Other universes

magiduck
Custom Globetrotter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 28, 2007
Location: london, uk
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 19

Posted 12/01/07 - 12:22 PM: Subject: Other universes	#1
I've always wondered about the ideas of other universes in science. I don't get why scientists being rational men had suddenly concluded that other universes exist. If someone could clearly explain themand their reasons for believing so I would be much obliged. It's because I like big physics ideas of science and like putting philosophical perspectives on them in areas that aren't really sectioned into metaphysics and I have and idea about why and why not other universe may exist and want to know if these ideas are correct.
_____________________ "Life can only be understood backwards, but must be lived forwards."

CypressMoon
growth

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me
Total Topics: 71
Total Posts: 753

Posted 12/01/07 - 02:39 PM:	#2
The positing of other universes very well could be attributing an unwaranted, causal somethingness to a paradoxical nothingness...in my opinion.
_____________________ "We stand before the world, not in it." - Rilke "MAD, adj. Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence; not conforming to standards of thought, speech and action derived by the conformants from study of themselves; at odds with the majority; in short, unusual." - Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary) If you have a small child, gently pull the mask over them first, and pull at the ends to tighten the straps.

CypressMoon
growth

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 16, 2007
Location: in between you and me
Total Topics: 71
Total Posts: 753

Posted 12/01/07 - 06:28 PM:	#3
I would advise you not to use my opinion for your homework though, as I dropped out of school.
_____________________ "We stand before the world, not in it." - Rilke "MAD, adj. Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence; not conforming to standards of thought, speech and action derived by the conformants from study of themselves; at odds with the majority; in short, unusual." - Ambrose Bierce (The Devil's Dictionary) If you have a small child, gently pull the mask over them first, and pull at the ends to tighten the straps.

299792458
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 23, 2007
Location: Maui, Hawaii
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 71

Posted 12/01/07 - 09:13 PM:	#4
magiduck wrote: I've always wondered about the ideas of other universes in science. I don't get why scientists being rational men had suddenly concluded that other universes exist. If someone could clearly explain themand their reasons for believing so I would be much obliged. It's because I like big physics ideas of science and like putting philosophical perspectives on them in areas that aren't really sectioned into metaphysics and I have and idea about why and why not other universe may exist and want to know if these ideas are correct. The word "universe" means 'totality' (the whole) so, how about a multidimensional reality contained within the universe?

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 12/03/07 - 03:05 AM:	#5
Mmmm.. Look more into the definition of what it means by 'totality'. Claiming such is simply yet again, us humans claiming a limit to possibility again. A limit to what we can view. What we cannot view, we cannot quantify, and therefore, cannot be a part of 'totality'. The whole thing of multiple universes became acceptable for scientific discussion yet again, when our resident planetary 'smart guy' decided to look at the universe, by looking into the universe. In other words, there is a perceived limit to what can be observed within our universe. What 299792458 brings up however, is an unanswered question, what exactly does 'universe' mean? We cannot claim totality without order, yet we cannot claim order without first defining it different from chaos. The good part so far, is that it doesn't break Mr. E's static limits at this time; which is the second key ingredient for it to be acceptable that we can think about it. And well, to your question about multiple universes, that is about as far as I have gotten towards giving an answer to that question, as it is written.

derekc153
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Location: Arizona, United States
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 50

Posted 12/06/07 - 11:22 PM:	#6
I have heard people talk about "multiple universes" before, but the phrase honestly sounds to me like a contradiction in terms. It really seems to require that we clarify what we mean by the word "universe". I always thought that it referred to the totality of everything that exists, but then how could there possibly be more than one? To Cadarache, I don't really understand what you're saying. The word "totality" doesn't seem to imply anything about what we can measure or observe, in my opinion. Cadarache wrote: We cannot claim totality without order, yet we cannot claim order without first defining it different from chaos. What do you mean by "claim totality", and how is the concept of totality related to order or chaos? I don't see how the word "totality" makes any reference to either.
_____________________ "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -Shakespeare's Hamlet

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: NB, Canada
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 743

Posted 12/07/07 - 12:49 AM:	#7
In one way Totality would be referenced as 'all we know'. That was the older type which got tossed away 100's of years ago. Had a tough time of it, winning around the time they discovered that yes indeed the world is round. The newer meaning is 'what we can know' which is namely what are we able to discover scientifically! This got messed up into the idea that all we can know is within the universe because what science attempts to uncover is only the universe. The error, is that it is an implied limitation.(personal opinion) So far us humans keep breaking everything, limitations included. We cannot know things until we create order out of them, by defining and relating one thing to the other. Chaos itself is things we do not know. Chaos is also currently divided in two big categories, things we can or could know, and things that 'do not exist'. The two main categories are mostly different 'shades of grey', as the saying goes. Does that help any?

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 12/07/07 - 01:14 AM:	#8
Even the pre-socratics don't claim that "totality" is all we know. They claim that their theory of processes can explain the things contained in the universe, but "explain" does not mean measurable, quantifiable, or things we actually know. Anyway, I don't think to say "totality" is to say the "limit" of the universe.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

derekc153
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Location: Arizona, United States
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 50

Posted 12/18/07 - 02:58 PM:	#9
Cadarache wrote: The newer meaning is 'what we can know' which is namely what are we able to discover scientifically! I don't think the words "totality" or "universe" are normally used in the way you are suggesting. To say that the universe is the "totality of all that exists" is to simply to say that it is "everything that exists". The word "totality" includes all of whatever category one is talking about, or namely things with the property of existence, in this case. Perhaps, under your definition of "totality" and "universe", it is possible for multiple universes to exist, but I would be interested to know whether physicists who talk about "multiple universes" use your definition. In any case, your definition seems to make "multiple universes" a purely philosophical concept, because we could not investigate them scientifically (insofar as anything we can investigate is by definition part of our universe). Edited by derekc153 on 12/18/07 - 03:03 PM
_____________________ "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." -Shakespeare's Hamlet

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 12/30/07 - 07:19 AM:	#10
The multiverse concept was popularised by the many worlds hypothesis of quantum mechanics where it helps to explain why we see interference effects and other properties of wavelike behaviour at an atomic level. However, it seems to me that this is a desperate attempt to impose our classical type experiences at the atomic level rather than accept that the world is just like that. I agree that it is paradoxical why this view gained respectability in science whilst other theories that require other universes are frowned upon. I suppose these beliefs can all be explained by Kuhn's paradigms or to use a ruder term scientific fashion. I am not sure what it really means to invoke other universes. If we accept that there exists a reality beyond that than can be observed and understood by the scientific method, and I cannot see science being able to answer the big questions, then we have to accept a metaphysical reality. To simply define this metaphysical reality as existing in another universe, or master universe is then a small step away, since the argument becomes merely one of definition.
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.