Finally, SOMEBODY who seems to ‘get it’ ...
The whole point of the Multi-verse’s infinite proliferation of ‘universes’ is to ‘allow’ mutually exclusive events / outcomes / histories in a limited single ‘Universe’ that MUST otherwise forbid ( exclude ) them. THAT, after all, is what ‘mutually exclusive’ means.
Since there is NO possible way to observe / experience / act upon these ‘other universes’ from within our own, they may as well not EXIST because their ‘existence’ has NO meaning or significance, from our frame of reference.
As Gertrude Stein ( speaking about her home town of Oakland, CA ) said “There is no ‘there’ there ...”.
I objected, originally, to the fallacious and ‘hand-waving’ pseudo-logic being used to describe a ‘Multi-verse theory’ and what significance such a ‘theory’ might have. I also argued that the use of the term ‘theory’ in this discussion was unsound and, in fact, incorrect.
Essentially, I was NOT arguing for or against any ‘proof’ derived from this conjecture. I merely tried to point out that the conjecture itself was unsound, unnecessary and pointless.
Thank you, LogicWings, for honing in on the essence of my rather prolix exercise.
Regards,
21stCenturion
Be that as it may, I found your arguments cogent and in need of support, thus my post. And I will expand the offering by dishing up some other examples. Maybe this thread isn't dead yet.
I noticed in your first post on this thread that you raised the issue of Begging the Question. You will find that many of the assertions here suffer from this fallacy. Whether it be Intelligent Design or the existence of Multi-verses the conclusion is smuggled somewhere in the premise. Even the term “Intelligent Design” implies an intelligence that has yet to be proven. And, by definition, cannot be. But I have another example that may serve to demonstrate my point.
Texas Songwriter (TS) noted in his first post
Hubble, Eddington, Wilson and Penzias (microwave background), Smoots findings via WMAP, and COBE (cosmic background explorer).....all scientifially point to a cosmological beginning....a moment when just before that singularity...there was nothing...NO THING.
Which I agree with and will take as a given, by definition. Then TS writes:
The moment, just prior to the singularity,...that point in the history of the universe when time, space, energy and matter came to be....what caused it. Why would nothing suddenly create...it is not a scientific concept or a valid philosophical concept. To creeate everhything from nothing. Nothing exist at that time...science tells us....So, by inductive reasoning something, beyond time and space, some atemporal entity had to be the cause...had to make a personal decision to create from nothing...
The problem here is that the writer is applying Post Hoc Laws to an empty Universe that contained none. By his previous post he stated there was nothing...NO THING which means there were no Laws of Causality either. NOTHING mean precisely that, NOTHING . So the Law of Physics that says something can't come from nothing didn't exist either. It is a very subtle form of Begging the Question that escapes most. The majority of posters here indulge in it on a regular basis though, get used to it.
Same goes for the Circular Argument issue. 'reasonisfaith' (now there's an oxymoron for you) demonstrated that in the posting:
1) All things must take place in ‘Infinite Universes’ 2) The God of Abraham is included in the set of all things (this is termed from the point of view of the secular logician). 3) Therefore God must be included in at least one of those universes.
We have Assertion Without Proof All things must take place in ‘Infinite Universes which is fallacious since this is unprovable as a premise, Propositional Fallacy. Then: The God of Abraham is included in the set of all things (this is termed from the point of view of the secular logician). Begging the Question. Followed by Therefore God must be included in at least one of those universes. Circular Argument since neither 'Infinite Universes' nor 'the God of Abraham' is verifiable. Sure in a formal syllogistic sense of:
If A then B
A
Therefore B
the structure is valid but the Propositions which form the Premises are either Circular or Begging the Question, THEREFORE invalid.
Returning to Texas Songwriter (109) again:
So, since the universe had a beginning (science tells us) it had to have a beginner (a Cause).
Once again applying Laws of Physics to a NOTHING by asserting an absolute Law of Causality which wouldn't have existed yet. If it did exist then something existed in the Universe prior to the Big Bang, refutes the proposition that EVERYTHING came into existence at that point.
I'll end this post here since the discussion takes a radically different turn due to the entrance of some new players.