"All possibilities are necessarily actualized"

[EduChris]

Consider the following hypothesis:

"Any and all possibilities are necessarily actualized in some or another universe(s) within an infinite omniverse"

Does this represent a parsimonious hypothesis, or a profligate one?

[EduChris]

...gaining knowledge about the world...

Given purely naturalistic evolutionary processes, sheer numeric probablity ensures that only a vanishingly small fraction of species will ever attain any degree of "true" beliefs. This is because of the infinitely higher preponderance of "true-enough-but-nevertheless-false" beliefs per any given objectively true belief.

But beyond that, we have to be clear about the types of knowledge we're talking about. In situations where a higher degree of knowledge might pertain to some rare species, such knowledge will likely tend toward a practical, technical sort of knowledge (such knowledge will have a greater and more immediate impact on practical survival advantage for the species).

A high degree of technical mastery would hardly guarantee any correlation with more metaphysical kinds of "knowledge." In fact, precocious technical mastery might even cause the tech-savvy-but-metaphysically-impoverished species to go extinct sooner rather than later--thereby causing the instant loss of what little "true knowledge" had been attained over the eons of (ultimately wasted) evolutionary development in that particular universe within the (materialist's) omniverse.

[Artie]

A high degree of technical mastery would hardly guarantee any correlation with more metaphysical kinds of "knowledge." In fact, precocious technical mastery might even cause the tech-savvy-but-metaphysically-impoverished species to go extinct sooner rather than later--thereby causing the instant loss of what little "true knowledge" had been attained over the eons of (ultimately wasted) evolutionary development in that particular universe within the (materialist's) omniverse.

Is that why evolution seems to select for religious people? "Scientists say they have located the parts of the brain that control religious faith. And the research proves, they contend, that belief in a higher power is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 41022.html Religious believers will survive while intelligent non-theists use their intelligence to just invent ways of killing each other? Which could mean that the universe might be filled with intelligent races with all kinds of belief systems but with no way of getting off the planet, while other races have simply destroyed themselves before they got off the planet.

[EduChris]

...Is that why evolution seems to select for religious people? "Scientists say they have located the parts of the brain that control religious faith. And the research proves, they contend, that belief in a higher power is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 41022.html Religious believers will survive while intelligent non-theists use their intelligence to just invent ways of killing each other? Which could mean that the universe might be filled with intelligent races with all kinds of belief systems but with no way of getting off the planet, while other races have simply destroyed themselves before they got off the planet.

I think there is a definite biological influence toward "the God hypothesis." How it got there is still an open question, since naturalistic evolution isn't supposed to be goal-oriented. One of the problems with evolutionary "explanations" is that there will be about as many different "explanations" as there are "explainers."

[100%atheist]

Consider the following hypothesis:

"Any and all possibilities are necessarily actualized in some or another universe(s) within an infinite omniverse"

Does this represent a parsimonious hypothesis, or a profligate one?

1) I am inclined to think that this statement is logically true and nonsense simultaneously in the same way as the following statement is: "all green cows have five legs".

2) However, if one considers the only universe presently discoved then mathematically there is no way to actualize ALL possibilities because the process of actualization impies time, but one cannot go and actualize all the remaining possibiliteis back in time, so the satement is wrong.

Which one would you go, the first or the second one?

[Artie]

I think there is a definite biological influence toward "the God hypothesis." How it got there is still an open question, since naturalistic evolution isn't supposed to be goal-oriented. One of the problems with evolutionary "explanations" is that there will be about as many different "explanations" as there are "explainers."

Well, it's logical that people who didn't kill or steal were more likely to survive than those who did. If you killed someone you might be likely to be killed in revenge, people might be reluctant to help you if you got in trouble because they were afraid of you, etc etc. At some point people would notice this logical connection and try to systematize it, hence laws and religion. People who kept the laws had a higher survival rate, people who kept the commandments had a higher survival rate. This is very simplified of course, but you get the picture.

[EduChris]

...logically true and nonsense simultaneously...

...there is no way to actualize ALL possibilities because the process of actualization impies time, but one cannot go and actualize all the remaining possibiliteis back in time...

Which one would you go, the first or the second one?

I'm not sure whether your question is directed toward your two points, or to the matter of "parsimonious or profligate."

My children love Thomas the Tank Engine. In our universe, Thomas happens to be light/medium blue. If I am asked why Thomas is that particular shade of blue, I think it is better to say that someone just decided to make him that color; it would be profligate to suggest that there are an infinite number of universes, all alike in every other respect, except that Thomas's color was slightly different in each universe. Why construct an infinite number of universes when there is a much simpler explanation available?

Moreover, your comment about "time" raises another issue: how is time relevant from one universe to another? When universes wear out (as ours is in the process of doing) do they all end up the same?

I'd also like ThatGirlAgain to explain whether her omniverse posits a single instance of an infinite number of different but unique universes, or if each and every distinct universe is instantiated an infinite number of times? If there is only one instance, or X instances, of each universe, then isn't her omniverse exhibiting a certain amount of selectivity?

And finally, what about my own personal uniqueness. In another universe, perhaps I was a bit taller, a bit better looking, a bit smarter. In another universe I might have sunk the winning shot and become a hero. But would that "slightly improved" version of "me" still be "me"? And then what if that "slightly improved" version of "me" were instantiated in another universe, again slightly more improved? Keep going with successive improvements so that I become the tallest, smartest, most athletic person in my universe. Is that person still me?

But if I am unique, truly unique, then has the omniverse really settled the matter of specificity? I don't think so.

[AquinasD]

Monkeys can gain "good-enough" knowledge about the world around them; but this hardly implies that such "knowledge" is actually "true." Naturalistic, materialistic evolution selects for behaviors, not for beliefs. If there are an infinite number of false beliefs which can produce "fit enough" behaviors for any given question, why should we assume it likely that any mind will somehow find the needle of "truth" in the infinite haystack of "true-enough = actually false" beliefs? It seems much more likely that a given species will--if they develop "beliefs" at all--gravitate into some truth-deficient cul-de-sac, and perhaps occasionally move up into a higher level of truth-deficient cul-de-sac. There is no reason to assume that any more than a vanishingly small fraction of species will ever make their way into the one and only cul-de-sac of actual truth--and especially with regard to questions that have no immediate survival value.

This seems to be leaving aside the argument about multiverse and engaging in an Argument from Reason.

I would agree with the general thrust of an AfR, but I'd like to make my own qualifications. As stated previously, I doubt the possibility for there to be a mind that shall be without the capability of understanding its world. By "mind" here I am speaking of minds having the essential power of knowing truth, understanding truth, and forming meaningful propositions that can reflect truth. In other words, only rational animals have minds. A monkey has no mind and no knowledge per se, and we might speak of monkey thoughts in a limited analogous fashion; but they have no true minds, no true knowledge, etc, not in the sense that humans and angels exemplify rationality.

A process like evolution is not merely unlikely to produce minds, but it cannot possibly produce minds. The end of evolution* is selecting for adaptive behaviors. The potential for a mind to have real thought requires that it's end be focused on attaining truth; that it is created in order to know. Evolution does not "create" in order for creatures to know. The end of attaining truth cannot come from the end of adaptive behaviors. Therefore, evolution cannot explain our rationality. The only thing that could possibly explain our rationality is some intrinsically purpose-crafting being, i.e. God, as it requires an intrinsically rational being to produce rationality in other creatures, as this being can act with the end of producing a mind with the end of attaining truth.

Any rational creature can have its rationality explained only by the Thought Thinking Itself, God.

*Some would contend that evolution has no end. Fine, but this serves to make the fact that evolution can provide no end towards making minds even more obvious.

[Goat]

A process like evolution is not merely unlikely to produce minds, but it cannot possibly produce minds. The end of evolution* is selecting for adaptive behaviors. The potential for a mind to have real thought requires that it's end be focused on attaining truth; that it is created in order to know. Evolution does not "create" in order for creatures to know. The end of attaining truth cannot come from the end of adaptive behaviors. Therefore, evolution cannot explain our rationality. The only thing that could possibly explain our rationality is some intrinsically purpose-crafting being, i.e. God, as it requires an intrinsically rational being to produce rationality in other creatures, as this being can act with the end of producing a mind with the end of attaining truth.

Any rational creature can have its rationality explained only by the Thought Thinking Itself, God.

*Some would contend that evolution has no end. Fine, but this serves to make the fact that evolution can provide no end towards making minds even more obvious.

Please show evidence of your claim that A process like evolution is not merely unlikely to produce minds, but it cannot possibly produce minds

I would love to see how you show that to be the case.


To me, that sounds like the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal belief'

[EduChris]

...The end of attaining truth cannot come from the end of adaptive behaviors. Therefore, evolution cannot explain our rationality...

I agree with your post, but I think your "argument from impossibility" is more difficult to defend. My probablistic argument against the omniverse succeeds as long as the potential for "truth-capable-minds" developing from naturalistic processes is vanishingly small.

One question I would as is this: If a naturalistic omniverse were capable of developing rational minds in at least one universe, would those same naturalistic processes be capable of producing free will in at least one universe? If not, why not? Is it possible to have "reason" without "free will"? If we have no free will, if all of our choices are predetermined, what possible "fitness advantage" would acrue from reason?

It seems that if there are rational minds in our universe, there would also need to be free will in our universe. But the very concept of free will seems to produce a contradiction with the omniverse hypothesis. As far as I can tell, the omniverse seems to imply absolute determinism: Thomas the Tank Engine is light/medium blue in our universe because all other possibilities have been given their own respective universes. In other words, it is not possible in our universe that Thomas the Tank Engine could have been dark blue, or purple, or whatever. And this means that nobody in this universe had a choice which could have been otherwise. If such is the case even with trivial matters such as the color/size/shape of a toy, how could we have any choice in more substantial matters? In the omniverse theory, possibilities do not pertain to individual universes, but rather only to some vague "logic" which somehow ensures that every logical "possibility" must be assigned as a necessary aspect of its own distinct universe.

We could go on to other things such as consciousness. In order to have free will, we need consciousness. In order to have reason, we need consciousness and free will. If the omniverse does allow for consciousness, free will, and reason to all acrue simultaneously in at least one universe, then it is necessary that these three elements must occur simultaneously in at least one universe. It would be impossible for such NOT to occur. And this means that the combination of consciousness, free will, and reason is logically necessary rather than logically contingent--and if this is necessary, then why do we need an omniverse in the first place? The omniverse hypothesis originated from the desire to avoid any necessity for precisly this combination of factors. The omniverse hypothesis subverts itself, leaving VUR as the only epistemically justfied explanation for our universe.

[AquinasD]

Please show evidence of your claim that A process like evolution is not merely unlikely to produce minds, but it cannot possibly produce minds

Material processes cannot account for semantical knowledge.