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

[jeremyp]

I'm not sure care to enlightenment me?

If you can't understand my analogy, I don't think it's possible to enlighten you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

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

Your projecting again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your projecting again.

It's "you're", and your use of the tu quoque fallacy (again) is noted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[Stranger]

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.

I never once mention philosophical nothingness. Do try not to tell blatant porkies. The point is that it is easy to imagine a perfectly self-consistent, therefore possible, world with no beings at all, which undermines the entire stupid, obviously flawed argument.

[Stranger]

There is nothing necessary observed by science in the universe therefore contingency is the default.

Once again ignoring the questions of what you think the entire space-time is contingent on, and how it is logically possible for anything to be its own reason for existing?

Lost count of how many times you've run away from those questions. Intellectual cowardice at its worst.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again ignoring the questions of what you think the entire space-time is contingent on, and how it is logically possible for anything to be its own reason for existing?

Lost count of how many times you've run away from those questions. Intellectual cowardice at its worst.

Again you are taking your cue from Hillside.
Here is what I am saying.
If we go by the default burden of proof line of argument then a contingent universe is the default and if it is the default we are then entitled to ask what it is necessarily contingent on.
If we define the universe as all that exists we still have contingent things but we have also included that which they are ultimately contingent on.

Now you can make a case for space time to be that necessary entity but what is absurd is making a case for the universe, the necessary entity and the contingent entities to be necessary. That would be contradictory.

An entity which is composite cannot be necessary therefore for both components depend ontological on each other, Whereas the necessary entity does not depend on its existence on that which is contingent on it.

It is not true therefore that my case is the universe is contingent and there's the end to it.

But it is true that the universe is contingent is the default because of the rules of burden of proof set up by people who bother about having default positions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again ignoring the questions of what you think the entire space-time is contingent on, and how it is logically possible for anything to be its own reason for existing?

Lost count of how many times you've run away from those questions. Intellectual cowardice at its worst.

Arguments logically show that it must exist.
Your question is based on not recognising that in some matters there is a final question e.g.Why something and not nothing beyond which questions are non sequitur.

In raising your question though you are coming out, carnival style, that the universe must be contingent.

Well done

[Stranger]

Again you are taking your cue from Hillside.

No.

Here is what I am saying.
If we go by the default burden of proof line of argument then a contingent universe is the default...

Why? Yet again: What do you think the whole space-time is contingent on?

...and if it is the default we are then entitled to ask what it is necessarily contingent on.

Even if I was to accept the idiocy of it being the default, then the answer to this is: we don't know.

Now you can make a case for space time to be that necessary entity...

I didn't. Do try to pay attention. I can't see how a necessary entity is even logically possible. To repeat the same question you keep running away from: in what way is it even logically possible for something to be its own reason for existing? How is it possible for anything to cause a logical contradiction if it weren't to exist?

The whole 'argument' that insists upon a necessary entity totally collapses without answers to those questions.

Arguments logically show that it must exist.

What arguments? A 'necessary entity' can be replaced with a 'magic entity' in all the arguments you've put forward to date, and make just as much/little sense.

Your question is based on not recognising that in some matters there is a final question e.g.Why something and not nothing beyond which questions are non sequitur.

Questions can't be non-sequiturs. Do learn some basic logic, FFS! None of what you've proposed would make the answer to the question "Why something and not nothing?" any more meaningful than "it's magic, innit?"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.

Why? Yet again: What do you think the whole space-time is contingent on?

Even if I was to accept the idiocy of it being the default, then the answer to this is: we don't know.

I didn't. Do try to pay attention. I can't see how a necessary entity is even logically possible. To repeat the same question you keep running away from: in what way is it even logically possible for something to be its own reason for existing? How is it possible for anything to cause a logical contradiction if it weren't to exist?

The whole 'argument' that insists upon a necessary entity totally collapses without answers to those questions.

What arguments? A 'necessary entity' can be replaced with a 'magic entity' in all the arguments you've put forward to date, and make just as much/little sense.

Questions can't be non-sequiturs. Do learn some basic logic, FFS! None of what you've proposed would make the answer to the question "Why something and not nothing?" any more meaningful than "it's magic, innit?"

It's ironic that a post which starts with a plea of psychological independence from Hillside ends with an appeal to a hillsidean accusation.

You ask how space time is contingent?
You then go on to suggest that necessary entities don't exist.
Do you not even glimpse the contradiction here?

I would be most grateful if you could tell me
If space time is composite or could be.
If space time has been observed scientifically.
If space time could be different.

[Stranger]

It's ironic that a post which starts with a plea of psychological independence from Hillside ends with an appeal to a hillsidean accusation.

Do try to get over your bizarre obsession with Blue. I haven't even read in any detail what he's said here yet.

You ask how space time is contingent?
You then go on to suggest that necessary entities don't exist.
Do you not even glimpse the contradiction here?

No, because you seem incapable of separating not contingent from necessary. The first could be a brute fact, the second seems to be incoherent gibberish akin to magic.

So I'll ask yet again:

• In what way is it even logically possible for something to be its own reason for existing?
• How is it possible for anything to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't to exist?

Until and unless you can answer those questions, your whole argument is nothing but an appeal to magic.

I would be most grateful if you could tell me
If space time is composite or could be.
If space time has been observed scientifically.
If space time could be different.

Why should I answer your questions when you keep running away from mine?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do try to get over your bizarre obsession with Blue. I haven't even read in any detail what he's said here yet.

No, because you seem incapable of separating not contingent from necessary. The first could be a brute fact, the second seems to be incoherent gibberish akin to magic.

So I'll ask yet again:

• In what way is it even logically possible for something to be its own reason for existing?
• How is it possible for anything to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't to exist?

Until and unless you can answer those questions, your whole argument is nothing but an appeal to magic.

Why should I answer your questions when you keep running away from mine?

Non contingent equates to necessary. They are the same thing.

Why are you even trying to separate them?

[Stranger]

Non contingent equates to necessary. They are the same thing.

Drivel. What's more, drivel which makes your entire 'argument' a case of begging the question. You want there to be a necessary entity, so you can pretend it must be like your god (which is equally absurd), so you're just ignoring other possibilities, such as, for example, a brute fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. What's more, drivel which makes your entire 'argument' a case of begging the question. You want there to be a necessary entity, so you can pretend it must be like your god (which is equally absurd), so you're just ignoring other possibilities, such as, for example, a brute fact.

No, It's perfectly possible to be agnostic of all this and be a faithful and saved Christian of the truest and fullest variey and agnosticism is of course apparently in the DNA of atheism.

But the fact remains, you cannot have contingency alone and the question remains why something and not nothing?

So all in all a position that wants to eliminate necessity and the PSR and have some strange absurd mode of existence that isn't quite contingent and isn't quite necessary is far more redolent of NOT WANTING A NECESSARY ENTITY.

Have a nice day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If we go by the default burden of proof line of argument then a contingent universe is the default and if it is the default we are then entitled to ask what it is necessarily contingent on.

“If we go by the default burden of proof line of argument then a contingent universe is the default…” !!!

What on earth is this even supposed to mean? The burden of proof requires that the person making the claim (eg, “the universe is contingent on something else”) is responsible for justifying it. The universe being contingent on something else isn’t “the default position” at all though because it depends on the fallacy of composition. You can’t just declare something to be a default position – you need to tell us why you think that (ie, justify your claim) – something you’ve entirely failed to do despite being asked several times.

As a second order problem by the way, you think the first cause argument is a proof of “god”. Default positions though (even if you had one) are provisional – you can’t have a provisional “if then” statement for a proof – you need an “is” statement. I’ve explained this to you already but, predictably, you just ignored this problem too.         

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But the fact remains, you cannot have contingency alone and the question remains why something and not nothing?

Why god and not not god?

[Stranger]

But the fact remains, you cannot have contingency alone...

Assertion.

...and the question remains why something and not nothing?

And the answer is that we don't know.

So all in all a position that wants to eliminate necessity and the PSR and have some strange absurd mode of existence that isn't quite contingent and isn't quite necessary is far more redolent of NOT WANTING A NECESSARY ENTITY.

The PSR is just another assertion that doesn't seem to even universally apply within the universe, and you have yet to show that a 'necessary entity' even makes sense. As far as I can see it's just magical gibberish. Yet again:

• In what way is it even logically possible for something to be its own reason for existing?
• How is it possible for anything to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't to exist?

Until and unless you can answer those questions, your whole argument is nothing but an appeal to magic. You literally might as well just say "it's magic, innit?"

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Assertion.

And the answer is that we don't know.

The PSR is just another assertion that doesn't seem to even universally apply within the universe, and you have yet to show that a 'necessary entity' even makes sense. As far as I can see it's just magical gibberish. Yet again:

• In what way is it even logically possible for something to be its own reason for existing?
• How is it possible for anything to cause a logical contradiction if it didn't to exist?

Until and unless you can answer those questions, your whole argument is nothing but an appeal to magic. You literally might as well just say "it's magic, innit?"

You can not logically go back further than the reason why there is something rather than nothing. Nor do I have to even if there was another reason for the reason. We have however reached metaphysical necessity. You have arrived at the final reason. If it did not exist nothing would so it necessarily exists. You are at the south Pole as it were. Nothing does not exist.

Sound familiar? Hawking uses the analogy.

[Stranger]

You can not logically go back further than the reason why there is something rather than nothing.

I didn't claim that you could.

We have however reached metaphysical necessity. You have arrived at the final reason.

Not in the sense that it couldn't have failed to exist and that would satisfy the PSR that you're so keen on putting blind faith in, i.e. that it contains within itself the reason for its own existence - which is no better than claiming magic.

If it did not exist nothing would so it necessarily exists.

Which still doesn't make it necessary in the sense of satisfying the PSR. You have given no reason why it couldn't have been different and have led to an entirely different reality or might not have existed at all and so nothing would.

Without such a reason, it's just a brute fact and the PSR doesn't apply.

This really isn't hard. Either you can answer my questions or you have nothing but an unexplained brute fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't claim that you could.

Not in the sense that it couldn't have failed to exist and that would satisfy the PSR that you're so keen on putting blind faith in, i.e. that it contains within itself the reason for its own existence - which is no better than claiming magic.

Which still doesn't make it necessary in the sense of satisfying the PSR. You have given no reason why it couldn't have been different and have led to an entirely different reality or might not have existed at all and so nothing would.

Without such a reason, it's just a brute fact and the PSR doesn't apply.

This really isn't hard. Either you can answer my questions or you have nothing but an unexplained brute fact.

If you have reached the final reason in a hierarchy then the PSR has been satisfied and that is the reason for why something and not nothing. The reason for that must be within that entity because there is no where else for the reason to reside. There is no external so there cannot be an external reason. It must necessarily exist for it's own sake and not fail to exist.

A metaphysical necessary entity is of no use to you anyway and there is no real successful argument that it doesn't or can't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You can not logically go back further than the reason why there is something rather than nothing.

Yes you can – you can just as logically ask why that reason rather than not that reason. Inserting an “it’s magic innit” god merely relocates the question to a different object (god rather than the universe) but it answers nothing.

Nor do I have to even if there was another reason for the reason. We have however reached metaphysical necessity. You have arrived at the final reason. If it did not exist nothing would so it necessarily exists. You are at the south Pole as it were. Nothing does not exist.

Drivel. Why cannot the universe itself be that “South Pole” answer? As you’re unable to tell us why the universe must be contingent on something else (opting instead just to declare it to be the “default position” with no justification at all). Just adding another layer that’s confronted with the same basic question falls foul of Occam’s razor.   

Sound familiar? Hawking uses the analogy.

But appropriately – that’s the difference.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you can – you can just as logically ask why that reason rather than not that reason. Inserting an “it’s magic innit” god merely relocates the question to a different object (god rather than the universe) but it answers nothing.

Drivel. Why cannot the universe itself be that “South Pole” answer? As you’re unable to tell us why the universe must be contingent on something else (opting instead just to declare it to be the “default position” with no justification at all). Just adding another layer that’s confronted with the same basic question falls foul of Occam’s razor.   

But appropriately – that’s the difference.

Sorry but it's about external reasons Hillside.
Once you have arrived at the final and sole entity. I.e. the reason why there is something rather than nothing The only place in which a reason can be is in that entity.

You're welcome.

PS Occams razor means not multiplying entities beyond necessity NOT beyond what you'd actually prefer yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry but it's about external reasons Hillside.

Why? If your supposed first cause requires no “external reason” why then must the universe itself require an external reason?
 

Once you have arrived at the final and sole entity. I.e. the reason why there is something rather than nothing The only place in which a reason can be is in that entity.

Except you’ve still even to try to justify your un-argued and unqualified declaration that the universe itself cannot be its own reason remember?

You're welcome.

For what – your continued ducking and diving?

PS Occams razor means not multiplying entities beyond necessity NOT beyond what you'd actually prefer yourself.

Except of course you’ve still to explain why adding your speculation “god” isn’t adding an unnecessary assumption.

Perhaps if you stopped running away from justifying your assertion that the universe must be contingent on something and, finally, tried at least to answer that instead that would help?

[Stranger]

If you have reached the final reason in a hierarchy then the PSR has been satisfied...

If you can't give sufficient reason why it had to exist and couldn't have been different, then it obviously hasn't. Why is this so hard?

The reason for that must be within that entity because there is no where else for the reason to reside. There is no external so there cannot be an external reason.

Which is nothing but blind faith in the PSR, which doesn't even seem to universally apply within the universe and leads you to the absurdity of something that is its own reason for existing.

Blind faith in the PSR is no better than blind faith in magic, or just direct blind faith in a god. All equally idiotic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you can't give sufficient reason why it had to exist and couldn't have been different, then it obviously hasn't. Why is this so hard?

Which is nothing but blind faith in the PSR, which doesn't even seem to universally apply within the universe and leads you to the absurdity of something that is its own reason for existing.

Blind faith in the PSR is no better than blind faith in magic, or just direct blind faith in a god. All equally idiotic.

You are once again trying to disprove the PSR using the PSR and you and Hillside are confusing PSR with whatever it is you appeal to to justify infinite regress.
It doesn't there can be a final reason for something and the ultimate something is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. There can be no other external reason because there is nothing external to the final reason. It is it's own reason as it were. It has sufficient reason because we have reached it logically.
I feel I'm repeating myself and you and Hillside need to absorb it.

Hillside of course wants to dispense with the PSR at a way too premature stage.

[Stranger]

You are once again trying to disprove the PSR using the PSR...

I'm doing no such thing. I'm am showing that your own blind faith in it is all you have to support your foolish claim that it is automatically satisfied when you reach the end of the hierarchy of explanation (if such a thing exists).

...and you and Hillside are confusing PSR with whatever it is you appeal to to justify infinite regress.

Neither am I trying to justify infinite regress. You really are totally out of your intellectual depth here, aren't you?

It doesn't there can be a final reason for something and the ultimate something is the reason why there is something rather than nothing. There can be no other external reason because there is nothing external to the final reason. It is it's own reason as it were.

Just repeating the same idiotic argument, won't magically make it non-idiotic.

It has sufficient reason because we have reached it logically.

No, we have not. If you can't explain exactly why it had to be the way it is and not different (and hence why reality couldn't possibly have been different), you have not arrived at anything but a brute fact. This isn't difficult. Either you have a reason why reality couldn't have been different (or not at all), or you have no 'necessary entity'.

Hillside of course wants to dispense with the PSR at a way too premature stage.

More obsession with Blue And, as I keep on pointing out, the PSR doesn't even seem to universally apply within the universe, so trying to claim that it must apply to the basis of existence is totally absurd.