Universes. Is one a sign of others?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems, "we dont know if there are any other things like this" is the position we're in prior to observing one ( we just imagined one with a "I wonder if it's possible" thought).

Having observed one, doesn't that increase the chance there are two or more compared to the pre-observation chance when we had observed zero?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been mulling this over and it still seems to me that yes the chance has increased when dealing with physical entities in our universe - but that's because we understand that physical laws have produced whatever-it-is and we anticipate they will act the same in the future and acted the same in the past. I dont think we are justified in inferring this if we dont have knowledge of the universe the entity is embedded in.

[ QUOTE ]
Prior to observing one we would only have justification for believing A's were more likely than B's to exist if we had some idea about causation. Given equal ignorance of causation, once we observe one A, that is an argument in favor of other A's that imagined B doesn't have for B's.

I seem to operate on some "Uniqueness is very unique" viewpoint and can't shake the notion that observing an A raises "what would prevent another A from existing now we know they are possible". B seems to have " perhaps they are impossible to form" going against it which A has now escaped. That seems significant to me and more trivial to you ??

[/ QUOTE ]
Not trivial, no. Again I agree completely with the inference if we are talking about things occurring within our universe. I'm talking in circles now, but I question whether the inference is justified without some knowledge of how universe(s) come to be.

I dont really have much to say - as I mentioned before I dont think the inference is sensible in a completely random and chaotic universe. I wouldnt feel compelled to move either way until I knew more about how the universe came about.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm loathe to mention religion in a thread which has gone 20 or so posts without, yet it seems reminiscent of your atheism distinction - I dont think not believing there's another such object implies you believe there isnt another one.

[/ QUOTE ]

To indulge your loathing -
There is a category 'Animal'.
Things that don't fit the shirt are Non-Animals.
That not all Non-Animals are identical does not reduce the purity of the statement "These are all Non-Animals".
It almost seems like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to wiggle that one Non-Animal is less or more of a Non-Animal than the next if the only criteria for Non-Animal is that it 'ain't no Animal'.

It does relate to this thread because there are two groups of objects, "this Universe" and "Non-this Universes". To point out that there are differences between the various Non-this Universes doesn't alter the fact that "Non-this Universes" is a proper and distinct category.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not used to this way of arguing, so I may be bailing out shortly. To give it a try though:

You and I wander around characterising objects but somehow not noticing the universe. Then you suddenly say "Hey, consider everything that exists. Let's call that the universe." Without either of us considering the possibility of other universes.

As I understand your position we were both previously A-universists and it seems to me we are still both A-otheruniversists. When you later make the leap that perhaps similar things to our universe might exist, even though we have no evidence for them, I dont see how our position changes.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont really have much to say - as I mentioned before I dont think the inference is sensible in a completely random and chaotic universe. I wouldnt feel compelled to move either way until I knew more about how the universe came about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say there is a completely random and chaotic universe -
Situation A emerges in it.
Prior to that, I'd have no idea if situation A could occur in a universe with these strange conditions.

Situation B has not occurred.

If I have to bet on running into another situation A or situation B, wouldn't I want to put my money ( at the same odds) on A?

This universe seems like situation A to me and taking the position that there are no other universes seems to be bucking the odds. To steal a Boro, "what prevents another one". True I don't have direct proof of another one, but this one proves that situation A's are not impossible.

Anyone claiming 'other universes are impossible' would seem to bear quite a burden when we have one in front of our nose.

thanks again bunny, luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont really have much to say - as I mentioned before I dont think the inference is sensible in a completely random and chaotic universe. I wouldnt feel compelled to move either way until I knew more about how the universe came about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say there is a completely random and chaotic universe -
Situation A emerges in it.
Prior to that, I'd have no idea if situation A could occur in a universe with these strange conditions.

Situation B has not occurred.

If I have to bet on running into another situation A or situation B, wouldn't I want to put my money ( at the same odds) on A?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would too, but I suspect it's because we're not good at imagining completely random universes rather than because we're good at estimating probabilities in them. (Or at least I think it's possible that's the reason we'd bet that way).

[ QUOTE ]
This universe seems like situation A to me and taking the position that there are no other universes seems to be bucking the odds. To steal a Boro, "what prevents another one". True I don't have direct proof of another one, but this one proves that situation A's are not impossible.

Anyone claiming 'other universes are impossible' would seem to bear quite a burden when we have one in front of our nose.

[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly agree they shouldnt say they are impossible. The alternative I would defend is "We dont know if any others exist and the occurrence of this one may or may not have any bearing on the occurrence of others."

I know examples can get silly. But suppose the process which creates universes is such that only one specific universe out of many possibles can exist. If that were true then the appearance of this one guarantees there are no others. Of course, we have no reason to think that is the case, but no reason to think it isnt either without some knowledge of the universe-making process.

EDIT: Perhaps a better example would have been Einstein's "Did God have a choice?" question. If the answer turns out to be no, wouldnt it now seem more likely that there arent any others floating around?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont really have much to say - as I mentioned before I dont think the inference is sensible in a completely random and chaotic universe. I wouldnt feel compelled to move either way until I knew more about how the universe came about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say there is a completely random and chaotic universe -
Situation A emerges in it.
Prior to that, I'd have no idea if situation A could occur in a universe with these strange conditions.

Situation B has not occurred.

If I have to bet on running into another situation A or situation B, wouldn't I want to put my money ( at the same odds) on A?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would too, but I suspect it's because we're not good at imagining completely random universes rather than because we're good at estimating probabilities in them. (Or at least I think it's possible that's the reason we'd bet that way).

[ QUOTE ]
This universe seems like situation A to me and taking the position that there are no other universes seems to be bucking the odds. To steal a Boro, "what prevents another one". True I don't have direct proof of another one, but this one proves that situation A's are not impossible.

Anyone claiming 'other universes are impossible' would seem to bear quite a burden when we have one in front of our nose.

[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly agree they shouldnt say they are impossible. The alternative I would defend is "We dont know if any others exist and the occurrence of this one may or may not have any bearing on the occurrence of others."

I know examples can get silly. But suppose the process which creates universes is such that only one specific universe out of many possibles can exist. If that were true then the appearance of this one guarantees there are no others. Of course, we have no reason to think that is the case, but no reason to think it isnt either without some knowledge of the universe-making process.

EDIT: Perhaps a better example would have been Einstein's "Did God have a choice?" question. If the answer turns out to be no, wouldnt it now seem more likely that there arent any others floating around?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it's this Limiting Factor that you keep adding that I see no justification for. Even Einsteins no-choice can be looked at as pertaining to this universe in the sense that once he picks condition Aa, he has no option but to add Ab and Ac etc. There is no reason to think that starting with Bx, or even Bb, wouldn't lead to a different universe ( perhaps another no-choice one).

The is no evidence that the answer to Einsteins question is 'No', is there? It sounds like a vague coffee-room statement, a thought provoker rather than a sound premise.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps it's this Limiting Factor that you keep adding that I see no justification for. Even Einsteins no-choice can be looked at as pertaining to this universe in the sense that once he picks condition Aa, he has no option but to add Ab and Ac etc. There is no reason to think that starting with Bx, or even Bb, wouldn't lead to a different universe ( perhaps another no-choice one).

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know that I'm adding a limiting factor. I'm allowing the possibility that one exists and therefore not willing to say whether the occurrence of this specific universe increases the likelihood of another or decreases it.

[ QUOTE ]
The is no evidence that the answer to Einsteins question is 'No', is there? It sounds like a vague coffee-room statement, a thought provoker rather than a sound premise.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think there's much evidence no, but I am claiming that the possibility is enough to preclude adjusting the likelihood of another universe upon "discovering" this one.

[CrayZee]

Sounds like proof by induction with only the base case or something.

What about other physical things like your body? You exist, right? Then there must be identical luckyme's somewhere...perhaps in a parallel universe, except that you have a Brian Bosworth haircut instead Vanilla Ice's.

People do generally learn things inductively in the real world, e.g., that teapot was hot on the stove yesterday morning so it must hot this morning. (This also currently sets us apart from computers in that they work best deductively.)

[Piers]

definition > human intuition.

Considering unanswerable questions about multiple universes was not a large factor in the development of human intuition.