"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?

[AquinasD]

I agree with your post, but I think your "argument from impossibility" is more difficult to defend.

Au contraire, I think my argument is not only easier to defend, but that yours is simply indefensible. It concedes to the multiverse reply the possibility of evolution providing the sorts of minds that we do have. I see no reason to concede such.

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?

While free will is an essential aspect of the practice of reason, I don't see why a naturalistic universe isn't open to free will. You only need an Aristotelean sort of essentialism in place for being to have such a potency.

Further, I don't think that the omniverse predicates determinism, since the explanation for an individual's acts could still reside in the individual themselves. It is only from respect of potentiality that we observe the actualization of the being's acts, while the acts are the being's own.

[Goat]

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.

Material processes can explain the actions of the brain, .. and the brain can be shown to have evolved. And the development of the brain and it's inter connective neurons can explain human knowledge and human linguistics.

Other than that, 'semantical knowledge' a term that is not in the literature, unless you mean semantic knowledge, which is the study on how children develop linguistic skills. .. and yes, brain development can explain that.

[AquinasD]

Material processes can explain the actions of the brain, .. and the brain can be shown to have evolved. And the development of the brain and it's inter connective neurons can explain human knowledge and human linguistics.

Material processes can explain why the graphics on your screen are forming the pictures that you here see. They cannot explain why you understand the pictures on your screen to be words which have a particular meaning. There is no material reason why the symbol "snow" as you here read it has the meaning that it does.

And this is what I mean by semantical knowledge. The fact that our knowledge is meaningful. No material process can explain why the neurons in my brain have the meaning to me that they do. Meaning is immaterial. Yet we are capable of engaging in it.

[EduChris]

...my argument is...easier to defend...yours...concedes to the multiverse...the possibility of evolution providing the sorts of minds that we do have. I see no reason to concede such...

I concede what I do because the naturalists will not accept the argument any other way. To them, the fact that we have the minds we have is "proof" that naturalistic evolution is capable of producing such minds. Yes, the naturalist's argument commits the fallacy of assuming the consequent, but I don't mind conceding a point so long as I know it isn't going to help their case in the long run.

...I don't see why a naturalistic universe isn't open to free will...I don't think that the omniverse predicates determinism...

The beauty of my argument is that either way it turns, the omniverse ends up the loser. According to the omniverse hypothesis, if conscious volitional reason can be produced in some universe, it cannot not be produced, which entails its logical necessity, whereupon it ends up supporting VUR and eliminating the purpose for having proposed the omniverse in the first place. On the other hand, if conscious volitional reason cannot be produced in any universe, then epistemology fails, in which case the omniverse cannot provide an epistemically justified explanation for our universe. The omniverse hypothesis fails either way, and VUR succeeds either way.

[AquinasD]

I concede what I do because the naturalists will not accept the argument any other way.

If they are wrong, what is the point of brooking agreement?

The beauty of my argument is that either way it turns, the omniverse ends up the loser.

I think the beauty of my argument is that it is correct.

[EduChris]

...If they are wrong, what is the point of brooking agreement?...

The point, I suppose, is the sheer joy of hoisting them by their petards no matter which way they turn.

...I think the beauty of my argument is that it is correct.

I don't deny the correctness of your claims and arguments. My argument may be less efficient in granting more concessions, but still it ends up demonstrating the futility of their position.

[AquinasD]

The point, I suppose, is the sheer joy of hoisting them by their petards no matter which way they turn.

Hmm... I suppose there can be some schaudenfraude. But I don't think your argument establishes that. It makes a few too many crucial concessions.

[Artie]

Material processes can explain why the graphics on your screen are forming the pictures that you here see. They cannot explain why you understand the pictures on your screen to be words which have a particular meaning. There is no material reason why the symbol "snow" as you here read it has the meaning that it does.

I understand the pictures on my screen to be words which have a particular meaning because I have simply learned it. The material reason why the symbol "snow" as I read it has the meaning that it does is simply that material connections between neurons in my brain have formed so that those neurons that have been programmed with white, wet, cold, coming from the sky sky etc have been connected to the neurons programmed with the symbol "snow". Education and learning is a natural material process. If I get a material knock on the head the material connections might be damaged and I might no longer know the meaning of the symbol "snow".

[EduChris]

...your argument...makes a few too many crucial concessions.

If it does make too many concessions, my opponents will be more than happy to point this out. So far they have not done so.

[ThatGirlAgain]

...my argument is...easier to defend...yours...concedes to the multiverse...the possibility of evolution providing the sorts of minds that we do have. I see no reason to concede such...

I concede what I do because the naturalists will not accept the argument any other way. To them, the fact that we have the minds we have is "proof" that naturalistic evolution is capable of producing such minds. Yes, the naturalist's argument commits the fallacy of assuming the consequent, but I don't mind conceding a point so long as I know it isn't going to help their case in the long run.

...I don't see why a naturalistic universe isn't open to free will...I don't think that the omniverse predicates determinism...

The beauty of my argument is that either way it turns, the omniverse ends up the loser. According to the omniverse hypothesis, if conscious volitional reason can be produced in some universe, it cannot not be produced, which entails its logical necessity, whereupon it ends up supporting VUR and eliminating the purpose for having proposed the omniverse in the first place. On the other hand, if conscious volitional reason cannot be produced in any universe, then epistemology fails, in which case the omniverse cannot provide an epistemically justified explanation for our universe. The omniverse hypothesis fails either way, and VUR succeeds either way.

You are assuming that conscious volitional reasoning is a real thing in some absolute sense. Is music a real thing in some absolute sense? No it is not. There is no measurable characteristic whereby music can be distinguished from any other sounds by other than subjective means. Music is a brain function (BTW here is a delightful book about music and the brain and how it is an important part of how we came to be human. )

Is consciousness a real thing in some absolute sense? Research in neurology points to it being a subjective phenomenon, a product of complex brain function. The amygdala is fully capable of making danger-avoidance decisions for us before we are aware of any danger. In fact there is a great deal of processing going on in the old brain that after the fact we take as volitional when brain scans show that the brain did it for us before we were conscious of it. Studies of persons with severed corpus callosum (split brain) show two individuals that know different things and sometimes make decisions independently of each other. I documented all of this extensively in another thread but the answer I got back was that because we do not know absolutely everything about the brain, everything we do know that contradicts the idea of consciousness as not physically based must be wrong. Not going to bother again.

In any case, an omniverse consisting of the logical unfolding of every possible set of laws and conditions for a universe is either (a) deterministic if randomness is not fundamental or (b) non-deterministic if randomness is fundamental. Pure volition independent of the influences working on the supposedly volitional agent does not exist. If knowledge is taken as some entity that exists independently of the brain functioning that is supposedly in possession of this knowledge, then knowledge in that sense does not exist. And therefore epistemology does not exist in any absolute sense.

Your argument is based on assuming your conclusion. My argument works just as well but is more aligned with what we actually observe in the real world and is less profligate in its assumptions.