Quick Thoughts on the Multiverse

I actually love Dawkins' claim that the multiverse is the Darwinian approach to solving the issue of the fine-tuning of the universe. The Darwinian approach is purely by imagining connections between distinct observatons, and creating fantasy observations to fill the holes in the observational history.

But there is a logical disconnect even outside the Darwinian fantasy approach, which is this:

Materialist claim:

All things which exist are material (note 1);

The source of all things which exist is therefore material.

This is a direct example of Russell's "Set of All Sets Paradox". When Russell and Whitehead were writing Principia Mathematica, which they intended to explain all mathematical concepts, Russell encountered the paradox whereby a "set of all sets" must also include itself, and therefore could not be a true set of all sets. Paradoxically, there can be no set of all sets.

The materialist claim, above, is paradoxical for the same reason. If the source of all things which exist material, then it must be the source of itself (self-referencing), or have existed forever in infinite time (infinite regression), or else require a non-material source (the claim is false).

The multiverse is an extension of the known universe (actually only partially known), and is an attempt to assert the infinite regression without having to face the usual philosophical disdain for such a claim.

Some try to assert the "material source created itself" position, but unsuccessfully. Hawking required preexisting physical laws which affected a quantum field. Krauss claimed that "coming from nothing" meant coming from the preexisting quantum field or foam or whatever preexisted, which was not material but only pre-material (or something like that). In every case, there is never an actual absence of all concepts of preexistence involved in creation-from-nothing. So it devolves to another infinite regression.

But under Godel's theorems, a hierarchy must exist if knowledge is to be certain. This brings us back to Darwinian Just So Stories, which are created imaginings of connections, fables without evidence, and then considered to actually BE evidence. That is exactly what the multiverse is.

Note 1: This claim cannot be proven materially or rationally; it is an assertion only. The use of this assertion as a premise renders the entire argument to be false. Further, it is part of a Category Error, in which material methodology (required) is used in attempts to claim that there is no material evidence for non-material existence.

Arguments Regarding Atheism

Offered for refutation.

IF: Atheism is one of the following assertions: (a) There is no god; (b) There might be no god, more material evidence is required; (c) I have no god theory or theories,
THEN: Atheism has no explicit or implicit or embedded moral statements attached to it.

IF: Atheism has no explicit or implicit or embedded moral statements attached to it,
THEN: Any moral system which is claimed by an Atheist derives from some other source than Atheism.

IF: Atheism is one of the following assertions: (a) There is no god; (b) There might be no god, more material evidence is required; (c) I have no god theory or theories,
AND, Any moral system which is claimed by an Atheist derives from some other source than Atheism,
THEN: The moral system is a human derivation.

IF: The moral system is a human derivation,
THEN: Any human can derive a moral system.

IF: Any human can derive a moral system,
THEN: Any Atheist could derive his own moral system.

IF: Any Atheist could derive his own moral system,
THEN: There would be a plethora of competing Atheist moral systems.

IF: There would be a plethora of competing Atheist moral systems,
THEN: They cannot all be correct;
AND: Possibly none of the competing Atheist moral systems are correct.

IF: Possibly none of the competing Atheist moral systems are correct,
THEN: Any Atheist moral system assertion must be justified as being correct.

IF: Any Atheist moral system assertion must be justified as being correct,
THEN: Standards for moral system correctness must be in place.

IF: Standards for moral system correctness must be in place in order to judge correctness of the Atheist moral system assertion,
THEN: The Atheist making the assertion must also assert a set of standards for moral system correctness.

IF: The Atheist making the assertion also asserts a set of standards for moral system correctness,
THEN: The Atheist making the assertion of the set of standards must also assert a higher, or Gödel set of Standards by which to determine the correctness of the first set of standards.

IF: Gödel is correct in the derivation of both his theorems,
THEN: A hierarchy has been entered which is an infinite regress, AND which precludes any Atheist moral knowledge being verified for correctness.

NOW:
IF: The Atheist asserts “common sense” as the driver for the Atheist Moral Standards,
THEN: “Common sense” must be validated just as demonstrated above.

IF: More than one Atheist “ethic” asserts “common sense” as its base, then for competing Atheist ethics, not all can actually claim “common sense” without each changing the interpretation to his own advantage,
THEN: Not all, and maybe none of the competing Atheist ethics which claim “common sense” as its base can be valid, based on a single interpretation of “common sense”.

IF: Not all, and maybe none of the competing Atheist ethics which claim “common sense” as its base can be valid, based on a single interpretation of “common sense”,
THEN: The Gödel infinite regress occurs again.

IF: “Common sense” can be interpreted differently so that it can be used in contradictory assertions for Atheist moral statements,
THEN: “Common sense” is not a differentiator for Atheist moral statements and cannot provide the moral basis for Atheist moral statements.

Further,
IF: “Empathy” is the solution to all issues,
THEN: It must be established that Empathy always produces answers which are “Good”.

IF: It must be established that Empathy always produces answers which are “Good”;
THEN: the meaning of “Good” must be established before trusting Empathy as a solution.

Hierarchical Domains, not Magesteria

In the first post, the idea that reality extends beyond the realm of the tangible is presented. The first level of transcendence is the intangible domain of intuition, which is a form of thought. Thought itself is an intangible, as with many concepts that we use and believe every day. On another list one commenter observed that his "jar of 'meaning' is empty". Meaning is transcendent; it can't be weighed, measured, or thrown out with the trash. And what about the "meaning of meaning"? The word "meaning" does have a meaning or we wouldn't be able to use it. And the "meaning of the meaning of meaning"? Well, this demonstrates a hierarchy, all of which do have...meaning. In the world of the hierarchy of "domains", what would the next domain level above thought and intuition look like?



If level 1 is "sensate", and level 2 is extra-natural "intuition / thought", then we find that level 3 is "acquired through a second level of extra-natural faculties". And if Godel's theorems hold, the third level would be required to exist in order to validate the second level. So the third level fully encompasses the second level, just as the second level fully encompasses the first.



Think of two concentric spheres, with level 1 at the very center filling the smallest sphere, and level 2 between the level 1 sphere and the level 2 sphere. Level 3 would exist outside the other two spheres while encompassing them at the same time. The "magesteria" are concentric spheres, and by the way, they are not magesteria at all: they are hierarchical domains, with the "sensate", natural empiricism fully enclosed by the other two "extranatural" domains.



This argument for the extra-extra-natural depends only upon logic and rational thought, and does not involve theism, deism, or fantasy in any way. And I am aware of the argument against Godel's theorems: must they have higher order validation in order for the theorems themselves to be known to be true? If so then they are true. If not, they are also true! But wait, maybe Godel's theorems don't apply to anything but math! However, math is just logic and rational thought appied to sets and numbers. So Godel's theorems must apply to logic and rational thought as well! That is the beauty of it.



Level 3; it's out there.