In what way is or isn't the multiverse a single entity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems to me we can consider, in various contexts, the multiverse to be a singular entity or multiple entities, whatever suits your argument at whatever time.

[Stranger]

In what way is or isn't the multiverse a single entity?

There are many hypotheses and conjectures that lead to different ideas of what we might call a multiverse, to which are you referring? What exactly do you mean by "single entity"? Why does it matter?

It seems to me we can consider, in various contexts, the multiverse to be a singular entity or multiple entities, whatever suits your argument at whatever time.

No idea what you mean by that. Examples, perhaps?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are many hypotheses and conjectures that lead to different ideas of what we might call a multiverse, to which are you referring? What exactly do you mean by "single entity"? Why does it matter?

Yes and my point is in some theories the universe are separate in all ways and in others they still retain common features an example here would be Penrose's idea of the relics of previous universes.

No idea what you mean by that. Examples, perhaps?

I’m thinking here of opposites and alternatives to Plantigna’s ontological argument which broadly claims a unitary source for all possible universes.

[Stranger]

I’m thinking here of opposites and alternatives to Plantigna’s ontological argument which broadly claims a unitary source for all possible universes.

Don't, off the top of my head, recall that particular variant of ontological argument (which are generally very silly) so if you want to talk about the specifics, then I suggest a summary - either by a link or in your own words.

As for any relevance of a multiverse, since they are all logical possibilities, but none has supporting evidence, a logical argument (of any kind) would become unsound as soon as it either assumed or dismissed any of them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't, off the top of my head, recall that particular variant of ontological argument (which are generally very silly) so if you want to talk about the specifics, then I suggest a summary - either by a link or in your own words.

Don't worry a lack of information on philosophical debate is I think par for the course for online atheists. Basically Plantigna argues that if God (being something that could possibly exist) exists in one universe then, and here's where the multiverse comes in, he exists in all of them. The argument is easily accessed online

As for any relevance of a multiverse, since they are all logical possibilities, but none has supporting evidence, a logical argument (of any kind) would become unsound as soon as it either assumed or dismissed any of them.

No, i'd say that's scientism. if something is logically sound then the evidence or lack of it has no bearing on that.

[Stranger]

Don't worry a lack of information on philosophical debate is I think par for the course for online atheists.

You mean like the lack of understanding of basic logic (which is vital for philosophy) for online theists? It gets very boring reading supposed arguments for god, after you've read so many that are obviously and fatally flawed. I lost interests in said arguments some time ago, for that reason.

The argument is easily accessed online

Then it shouldn't be hard for you to post a link to a reasonably succinct summary. I don't see why I should do your work for you.

No, i'd say that's scientism. if something is logically sound then the evidence or lack of it has no bearing on that.

  You seem to have completely misunderstood (what a surprise).

If one (or more) of the premises of a logical argument are questionable, because there is a logically possible alternative, then it is unsound. Since the various multiverse ideas are possibilities and none of them can be ruled in or out with evidence, making assumptions about the truth or falsity or any of them would make such a premiss questionable and the argument unsound.

So it has bugger all to do with scientism and everything to do with basic logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  You seem to have completely misunderstood (what a surprise).

Exactly the kind of atheist troll we've come to expect

If one (or more) of the premises of a logical argument are questionable, because there is a logically possible alternative, then it is unsound. Since the various multiverse ideas are possibilities and none of them can be ruled in or out with evidence, making assumptions about the truth or falsity or any of them would make such a premiss questionable and the argument unsound.

Careful now or I might just apply this ''schooling'' to some of Bluehillside's logic. I thought soundness depended on true and false premise. I take it then that you think the case for a universe where God doesn't exist is as good or better than a case for a universe where God does exist and therefore that universes in the multiverse are discreet.

The trouble with your response was though was your use of the word evidence, which is an appeal to science in the exercise of logic.......and that could be classed as scientism.

Here though is Plantigna, his ontological theory which is under the microscope. I don't think anyone who's heard of him and it sounds as though you hadn't, considers him an online theist

https://joshualrasmussen.com/articles/an-ontological-argument-from-value.pdf#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20intriguing%20contemporary%20defences%20of,God%3A%20maximal%20knowledge%2C%20maximal%20power%2C%20and%20moral%20perfection.

[Stranger]

Exactly the kind of atheist troll we've come to expect

Accusing other people of trolling instead of addressing the point is the sort of thing we've come to expect from yourself.

I thought soundness depended on true and false premise.

It depends on premises being true. If we can't be sure, then the argument cannot be considered sound.

I take it then that you think the case for a universe where God doesn't exist is as good or better than a case for a universe where God does exist and therefore that universes in the multiverse are discreet.

Non-sequitur of the week (at least). What I think about the various multiverse ideas is irrelevant to the how good a case I think can be made for some god(s).

The trouble with your response was though was your use of the word evidence, which is an appeal to science in the exercise of logic.......and that could be classed as scientism.

Still going way over your head. If an argument is based on a premiss about the universe, or any idea of a multiverse, then the only way in which we can assess its truth is via science and evidence. Those are the relevant tools for examining physical reality.

Here though is Plantigna, his ontological theory which is under the microscope. I don't think anyone who's heard of him and it sounds as though you hadn't, considers him an online theist

https://joshualrasmussen.com/articles/an-ontological-argument-from-value.pdf#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20most%20intriguing%20contemporary%20defences%20of,God%3A%20maximal%20knowledge%2C%20maximal%20power%2C%20and%20moral%20perfection.

Well, at least it gave me a laugh. What a pile of shit. Even the linked document points out some of the massive gaping holes it the 'argument'. Anyway, here is the summary (don't know why you couldn't be bothered to post this yourself):

C1. There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.
C2. A being has maximal greatness in a possible world only if it has maximal greatness
in every possible world, including the actual world.
C3. Therefore, there is a being with maximal greatness in the actual world.

First of all, how the hell are you going to define a nebulous idea like 'greatness' in an exact, and therefore logically relevant, way?

Secondly, what exactly is meant by a 'possible world'? There is no reference to a multiverse hypothesis, so I have no idea why you were gibbering about them. I would regard a 'possible world' as any self-consistent (contradiction free) 'world' that anybody could imagine. Since it is perfectly self-consistent to imagine a world that has nothing but empty Newtonian space in it, with do idea of any 'beings' at all, the idea of a being that exists in 'every possible world' becomes incoherent in itself. If the idea was to restrict the 'possible worlds' in some way, then how, and why isn't it in the argument?

This counts as a specific instance of the 'parallel arguments' that is mentioned in the article itself:

D1. There is a possible world W in which there is no being with maximal greatness.
D2. A being has maximal greatness in a possible world only if it has maximal greatness
in every world.
D3. Therefore, there is no being with maximal greatness in the actual world.

I've just given an example of D1.

It then starts wittering on about plausibility, which is another subjective notion that has no place in a logical deduction. What one person finds plausible may be entirely different to what somebody else does.

What's the point of it all, when you might just as well say "I find the idea of god plausible, therefore god"? Every bit as unconvincing and without the comical pseudo-logical nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Accusing other people of trolling instead of addressing the point is the sort of thing we've come to expect from yourself.

It depends on premises being true. If we can't be sure, then the argument cannot be considered sound.

Since it looks as though you are proposing that truth is established by empiricism I wonder if that isn't fallaciously unsound in itself since logical arguments frequently involve possible ''worlds'' as a matter of course and empiricism itself is probably unsound.

Non-sequitur of the week (at least). What I think about the various multiverse ideas is irrelevant to the how good a case I think can be made for some god(s).

Well, you should know all about non sequiturs with your block universes and all.

Still going way over your head. If an argument is based on a premiss about the universe, or any idea of a multiverse, then the only way in which we can assess its truth is via science and evidence. Those are the relevant tools for examining physical reality.

Now that is scientism and probably untrue at that given empiricism's precarious position in the truth stakes

Well, at least it gave me a laugh. What a pile of shit. Even the linked document points out some of the massive gaping holes it the 'argument'. Anyway, here is the summary (don't know why you couldn't be bothered to post this yourself):

C1. There is a possible world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.
C2. A being has maximal greatness in a possible world only if it has maximal greatness
in every possible world, including the actual world.
C3. Therefore, there is a being with maximal greatness in the actual world.

First of all, how the hell are you going to define a nebulous idea like 'greatness' in an exact, and therefore logically relevant, way?

The piece made it clear that it was talking about power, knowledge, morality. To suggest it didn't, as you have here tells me either a) you didn't read it properly or b) you didn't understand it.

Secondly, what exactly is meant by a 'possible world'?

You've just lost your credibility in terms of following philosophy and logic. Possible worlds include counterfactuals, alternative scenarios and other alternatives and have been referred to for centuries in philosophy.

There is no reference to a multiverse hypothesis,

Multiverse theories are obvious examples of possible worlds in philosophy

so I have no idea why you were gibbering about them.

yes we've established you are not a follower of philosophy o

I would regard a 'possible world' as any self-consistent (contradiction free) 'world' that anybody could imagine.

Yes I would as well except i'm a bit down on involving your imagination because I think this is where Anselm and Hume go a bit wrong

Since it is perfectly self-consistent to imagine a world that has nothing but empty Newtonian space in it, with do idea of any 'be didn'tings' at all, the idea of a being that exists in 'every possible world' becomes incoherent in itself. If the idea was to restrict the 'possible worlds' in some way, then how, and why isn't it in the argument?

Have to work through this one, Is a world that has nothing but empty newtonian space possible? That depends on whether newtonian space can be empty I suppose and whether that necessary rules out occupation by any entity and if nothing exists in this universe can the universe itself be rightly described to exist at all?

[Stranger]

Since it looks as though you are proposing that truth is established by empiricism I wonder if that isn't fallaciously unsound in itself since logical arguments frequently involve possible ''worlds'' as a matter of course and empiricism itself is probably unsound.

As far as the real, physical world is concerned, we have the methodology of empirical science or guessing. Since empiricism isn't a logical argument, it's rather difficult to see how it can be unsound.

Well, you should know all about non sequiturs with your block universes and all.

So what non-sequiturs are involved is that, then? Doesn't look as if you even understand what the term means. Hint: it doesn't mean something that you think is intuitively impossible or unreasonable.

The piece made it clear that it was talking about power, knowledge, morality.

Morality is subjective and it doesn't make the argument any better if you manage to quantify the others.

Possible worlds include counterfactuals, alternative scenarios and other alternatives and have been referred to for centuries in philosophy.

So, just imagination as I said then.

Multiverse theories are obvious examples of possible worlds in philosophy

To an extent. However, as I said, as soon as an argument is based on the existence or non-existence of some type of multiverse, it breaks down on the grounds of soundness because we don't know whether they exist or not. So we are only left with imagined 'other worlds' that are unrestricted but may well be unreal too.

yes we've established you are not a follower of philosophy...

What's really funny is that you think that you are and yet fail to grasp basic logic and many of the arguments you try to use.

Yes I would as well except i'm a bit down on involving your imagination because I think this is where Anselm and Hume go a bit wrong

But that is literally all you have left, if you're not going to fall into unsoundness by assuming some version of a multiverse.

Is a world that has nothing but empty newtonian space possible? That depends on whether newtonian space can be empty I suppose and whether that necessary rules out occupation by any entity and if nothing exists in this universe can the universe itself be rightly described to exist at all?

We can easily imagine a universe that consists of nothing but empty space. There is nothing contradictory about it. Whether it's a physical possibility or not is something that only science can tell you (sorry), and anyway if we're talking about unrestricted imagined worlds (or even some multiverse ideas, for that matter), we can easily imagine different physics.

The fatal flaw is therefore that a world in which no beings at all exist, let alone one with 'maximal greatness', is possible unless you're going to try to restrict the notion of 'possible worlds' somehow.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as the real, physical world is concerned, we have the methodology of empirical science or guessing. Since empiricism isn't a logical argument, it's rather difficult to see how it can be unsound.

Not denying that methodological empiricism doesn't produce empirical facts but the difference between yourself and myself is that you are promoting physicalism. Empiricism undercuts itself and you cannot physically put before me an idea, in this case physicalism. Methodological empiricism has never revealed the notion that it is the only way to know what is true, If you think it has where is that empirical and physical kept?

Morality is subjective and it doesn't make the argument any better if you manage to quantify the others.

And yet we see people of your stripe bring up omnibenevolence all the time. Quantifying of knowledge , power etc makes your argument of nebulousness questionable.

To an extent. However, as I said, as soon as an argument is based on the existence or non-existence of some type of multiverse, it breaks down on the grounds of soundness because we don't know whether they exist or not. So we are only left with imagined 'other worlds' that are unrestricted but may well be unreal too.

You don't understand the philosophical concept of ''possible worlds''

What's really funny is that you think that you are and yet fail to grasp basic logic and many of the arguments you try to use.

But that is literally all you have left, if you're not going to fall into unsoundness by assuming some version of a multiverse.

eh?

We can easily imagine a universe that consists of nothing but empty space. There is nothing contradictory about it. Whether it's a physical possibility or not is something that only science can tell you (sorry), and anyway if we're talking about unrestricted imagined worlds (or even some multiverse ideas, for that matter), we can easily imagine different physics.

Allowable in multiverse thinking

The fatal flaw is therefore that a world in which no beings at all exist, let alone one with 'maximal greatness', is possible

an existing world of non existence is an absurdity

unless you're going to try to restrict the notion of 'possible worlds' somehow.

Yes, to worlds that are possible. Universes that have absolutely nothing but non existence don't exist definitionally and are probably a logical absurdity.
First of all then, why are you referring to nothing but empty space? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? But wait, you have a little trick up your sleeve because science says that empty space isn't empty and that's why you referred to Newtonian space'' what a wag you turn out to be. So what then is the maximal entity in this universe? Your move.

Of course for a multiverse the PSR still operates and we ask why does this universe not exist, or has purple monkeys, or has nothing but empty space? So that favours a maximal entity existing for all possible universes.

I am not a big multiverse fan and note the difficulties you have legitimately touched on and my initial post is more about how people see the multiverse.

[Stranger]

Why is using preview and sorting out your quote boxes so hard?

...you are promoting physicalism.

No, I'm not.

Yes, to worlds that are possible. Universes that have absolutely nothing but non existence don't exist definitionally and are probably a logical absurdity.

Except I didn't actually say nothing at all or non-existence, I said empty space. If you can't see the difference then a world with just space and (say) two particles, would do just as well.

So what then is the maximal entity in this universe? Your move.

Well as you defined it in terms of power, knowledge, and morality, then there isn't one because nothing has any of those things.

Of course for a multiverse the PSR still operates...

Or not.

...and we ask why does this universe not exist, or has purple monkeys, or has nothing but empty space?

Just as we could ask similar questions of any god you dream up, and you'd still only have "well it's magic, innit?" except you'd use the equally meaningless "it's a necessary entity".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not denying that empiricism doesn't produce empirical facts but the difference between yourself and myself is that you are promoting physicalism.

Why do you keep lying about this? No-one here "promotes" physicalism, or even suggests it.

Empiricism undercuts itself...

No is doesn't. It only "undercuts itself" when you lie about what it entails. 

...and you cannot physically put before me an idea, in this case physicalism.

Gibberish, and he he didn't do that in any case. No-one here does.

And yet we see people of your stripe bring up omnibenevolence all the time. IQuantifying makes your argument of nebulousness questionable.

People only bring it up here in responses to theistic claims about it, not as a cogent position to take. Try to remember this.

First of all then, why are you referring to nothing but empty space? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? But wait, you have a little trick up your sleeve because science says that empty space isn't empty and that's why you referred to Newtonian space'' what a wag you turn out to be. So what then is the maximal entity in this universe? Your move.

No, your next move is to try at least to grasp the explanations you're given rather than to knee-jerk your way to misrepresenting them.

Of course for a multiverse the PSR still operates and we ask why does this universe not exist, or has purple monkeys, or has nothing but empty space?

The PSR is a busted flush for reasons that have been explained to you many time now without rebuttal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The PSR is a busted flush for reasons that have been explained to you many time now without rebuttal.

No evidence of that anywhere i'm afraid Hillside. You are utterly deluded....but then you were the bloke who thought Naturalism was the default position and then crapped himself when that turned out to mean that a contingent universe was also the default position.......You cannot rebut the PSR with composite necessities, infinite regressions, causal loops, ad hominem, contingent necessities and the daddy of all fallacies, trying to rebut the PSR with the PSR etc to which Stranger has added a few more classic howling absurdities in this thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except I didn't actually say nothing at all or non-existence, I said empty space. If you can't see the difference then a world with just space and (say) two particles, would do just as well.

I feel the dead hand of Lawrence Krauss is upon your argument and you are handwaving between a philosophers nothing and a physicists empty space.

That is tedious for normal people but a Kraussian wankfantasy for certain atheists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No evidence of that anywhere i'm afraid Hillside.

The evidence is that whenever you’re invited to justify your assertion that the universe must have been caused by something else you head for the nearest exit.

Running away isn’t a rebuttal - try to remember this.

You are utterly deluded....

Wrong again – see above.

…but then you were the bloke who thought Naturalism was the default position and then crapped himself when that turned out to mean that a contingent universe was also the default position.......

More lying won’t help you here. Materialism is the “default” position inasmuch as the only truths we’ve ever verifiably demonstrated have been materialistic in character. The universe being necessarily contingent on something else on the other hand runs into problems immediately you bother thinking about it (something you resolutely refuse to do), not least because it leans heavily on the fallacy of composition.     

You cannot rebut the PSR with composite necessities, infinite regressions, causal loops, ad hominem, contingent necessities etc to which Stranger has added a few more classic howling absurdities in this thread.

And the lying continues apace. The only rebuttal needed here is your utter inability even to propose a logical path from “universe” to “contingent thing”, no matter how many times you’ve been asked to try at least. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The evidence is that whenever you’re invited to justify your assertion that the universe must have been caused by something else you head for the nearest exit.

Running away isn’t a rebuttal - try to remember this.

Wrong again – see above.

More lying won’t help you here. Materialism is the “default” position inasmuch as the only truths we’ve ever verifiably demonstrated have been materialistic in character. The universe being necessarily contingent on something else on the other hand runs into problems immediately you bother thinking about it (something you resolutely refuse to do), not least because it leans heavily on the fallacy of composition.     

And the lying continues apace. The only rebuttal needed here is your utter inability even to propose a logical path from “universe” to “contingent thing”, no matter how many times you’ve been asked to try at least.

The universe is contingent is the default because the universe isn’t supernatural is the default
The default is what is observed and what is not observed has the burden of proof, and as it is the default, according to you, it has no burden of proof.

But it is not my position which is the universe is possibly
1: A contingent thing in need of a necessary entity
2 The sum of contingent things and the necessary entity on which all contingent things are dependent for their existence.

Then there are the absurd alternatives you have come out with.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The universe is contingent is the default because the universe isn’t supernatural is the default

Dear god but you struggle. One person standing at a cricket match has a better view, therefore everyone standing at a cricket match will have a better view too because a cricket crowd isn’t supernatural.

Does anything strike you as problematic about that statement? Anything?

Your problem here with observing contingent stuff in the universe and jumping straight to the universe itself therefore being a “contingent thing” with no connecting logic to get you there is that you run immediately slap bang into the fallacy of composition.

Try to remember this.

The default is what is observed and what is not observed has the burden of proof, and as it is the default, according to you, it has no burden of proof.

No, the default is what can reasonably but provisionally be concluded because the hypothesis is coherent and does not rely on fallacies.

Try to remember this too.

But it is not my position which is the universe is possibly
1: A contingent thing in need of a necessary entity
2 The sum of contingent things and the necessary entity on which all contingent things are dependent for their existence.

No-one says that the universe isn’t “possibly” anything. Your mistake here is to take an ”if, then” statement (“if the universe is contingent, then it must be contingent on something else”) for a proof (in this case, for “god”). Proofs cannot rely on “if, then” statements; they require “is” statements (“the universe is a contingent thing”), which claim so far at least you’ve utterly failed to justify.

You might want to remember this too.   

Then there are the absurd alternatives you have come out with.

First, I haven’t “come out with” (ie, argued for) these hypotheses at all; I’ve merely noted that they exist and that they’re coherent. It would help if you stopped lying about this.

Second though, to dismiss out of hand these hypotheses as “absurd” while relying on a “it’s magic innit” god for your alternative is beyond absurd by comparison don’t you think?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Dear god but you struggle. One person standing at a cricket match has a better view, therefore everyone standing at a cricket match will have a better view too because a cricket crowd isn’t supernatural.

Not only bullshit, but weird turdpolishing Bullshit. There is nothing necessary observed by science in the universe therefore contingency is the default. There is nothing supernatural observed i.e. necessary entities so contingency is again the default.

Does anything strike you as problematic about that statement? Anything?

Your problem here with observing contingent stuff in the universe and jumping straight to the universe itself therefore being a “contingent thing” with no connecting logic to get you there is that you run immediately slap bang into the fallacy of composition.

Try to remember this.

No, the default is what can reasonably but provisionally be concluded because the hypothesis is coherent and does not rely on fallacies.

Try to remember this too.

No-one says that the universe isn’t “possibly” anything. Your mistake here is to take an ”if, then” statement (“if the universe is contingent, then it must be contingent on something else”) for a proof (in this case, for “god”). Proofs cannot rely on “if, then” statements; they require “is” statements (“the universe is a contingent thing”), which claim so far at least you’ve utterly failed to justify.

You might want to remember this too.   

First, I haven’t “come out with” (ie, argued for) these hypotheses at all; I’ve merely noted that they exist and that they’re coherent. It would help if you stopped lying about this.

Second though, to dismiss out of hand these hypotheses as “absurd” while relying on a “it’s magic innit” god for your alternative is beyond absurd by comparison don’t you think?   

My point is to impress upon you the contingency of the universe as the default position and that I personally am prepared to accept there are two possible definitions of the universe which contradicts your claim of me jumping straight to one of them.

Since I have pointed this out to you several times the fault lies with you and in that respect I am prepared to accept the following possibilities some of which are not mutually exclusive

1: You are Bullshitting
2:You are Gaslighting
3: You are mindgaming
4: You are pigeon chessing
5: You are turdpolishing

I have no choice but to ignore you.

[Sebastian Toe]

I have no choice but to ignore you.

Indefinitely?
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indefinitely?
 

You'll now have more time with me Seb.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not only bullshit, but weird turdpolishing Bullshit. There is nothing necessary observed by science in the universe therefore contingency is the default. There is nothing supernatural observed i.e. necessary entities so contingency is again the default.

I just explained to you why you’re wrong about this. Spitting the dummy in reply rather than trying at least to address your mistakes isn’t helping you – it’s just more avoidance. 

My point is to impress upon you the contingency of the universe as the default position and that I personally am prepared to accept there are two possible definitions of the universe which contradicts your claim of me jumping straight to one of them.

You can’t “impress upon” somebody a claim you’re wholly unable to justify, and if you want to retrench now to an either/or position then you have no ground to claim one of those possibilities as a proof.     

Since I have pointed this out to you several times the fault lies with you and in that respect I am prepared to accept the following possibilities some of which are not mutually exclusive

Anything you think you’ve tried to “point out” has been thoroughly rebutted, and you have no reply to the rebuttals you’ve been given. 

1: You are Bullshitting
2:You are Gaslighting
3: You are mindgaming
4: You are pigeon chessing
5: You are turdpolishing

1: You are Bullshitting
2:You are Gaslighting
3: You are mindgaming
4: You are pigeon chessing
5: You are turdpolishing
6. You are arguing much more coherently and cogently than I’m capable of responding to, so I’ll spit the dummy instead and hope no-one notices while I make my retreat.

FIFY

(It’s 6. by the way.)

I have no choice but to ignore you.

As you’ve never managed to answer as single question or rebut a single argument that undoes you here, what difference do you think just running away again will make?

Look, it’s ok – really it is. We all know this in any case, but I’ll even say it for you if it helps: “I Vlad have no logical argument to take me from observably contingent phenomena in the universe to the universe itself therefore being a contingent thing.” 

There, doesn’t that feel better just to see it written down?

You can run along now. 

[jeremyp]

It seems to me we can consider, in various contexts, the multiverse to be a singular entity or multiple entities, whatever suits your argument at whatever time.

In what way is a tree a singular entity or a collection of multiple branches and root?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way is a tree a singular entity or a collection of multiple branches and root?

I'm not sure care to enlightenment me?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not sure care to enlightenment me?

No-one can do that. I could stand you in front of the Beachy Head lighthouse with a 1,000 lumen torch pointing up your hooter and a quasar ten feet behind you and you’d still be unenlightened. You’re unenlightenable.