What should Morals and Ethics be?

[Roboramma]

I don't think the problem here is one of reasoning but one of axioms.

Yes, I think you're right. I think that some moral axioms are, well, reasonable, but I won't go so far as to say that it's unreasonable to reject them. As I said, we have to start from somewhere, and that applies to more things than just morality.

 

[Belz...]

It's a separate bubble in the sense that it's causally disconnected.

Yes, in that sense.

This is actually what cosmologists mean when they talk about a multiverse.

I don't know where you get this idea, but that's not what we usually mean by the word multiverse.

I think you're confusing the term "observable universe" with the word "universe". One's a subset of the other. Other universe would exist on different "planes" as the universe of which the observable universe is a part of.

 

[caveman1917]

Not outside of the limited instances I talked about. There's a reason why we require the claimant to show evidence for their positive claims. The alternative is unworkable.

Exactly, that's why we require the claimant to show evidence for their positive claims. You've claimed that other reality-bubbles don't exist (adding "for all practical purposes" but since there are, by definition, no practical purposes that kind of falls away) but you've not shown evidence for your claim, merely appealed to your ignorance.

I'm not sure what you think is unworkable, but for instance astronomy (and many other sciences) are almost entirely made up of showing the non-existence of things.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly, that's why we require the claimant to show evidence for their positive claims. You've claimed that other reality-bubbles don't exist (adding "for all practical purposes" but since there are, by definition, no practical purposes that kind of falls away) but you've not shown evidence for your claim, merely appealed to your ignorance.

The thing that you've repeatedly demonstrated is that you don't understand what "for all practical purposes" means. You keep ignoring it when it's the most important part of the sentence.

 

[caveman1917]

The thing that you've repeatedly demonstrated is that you don't understand what "for all practical purposes" means. You keep ignoring it when it's the most important part of the sentence.

Ok then, what practical purposes would there be to the existence or non-existence of other universes, assuming we can't even detect them in principle?

 

[Roboramma]

Er... yes I do, actually. If there's no way to know, even in principle, if something exists, then it really doesn't, from your perspective. Doesn't mean that it actually doesn't, but that makes no difference to you.


Which should be an indication to you that this isn't one of the situations we're discussing. If you can conclude that something exists via implication, then it isn't an unknown, is it?

You're misunderstanding. We can conclude via implication that distant regions exist. But there are many things about those regions that we can't know, like the specific arrange of galaxies. We know that there is something there, but we don't know what.

Simply to help explain what I'm saying, here's an analogy: I put a card on the table, face down. You know that it's either a black card or a red card, but you don't know which. You know it has to be something. Regarding those distant regions of space, we know they exist and we know that the energy in them is arranged in some way, but we don't know, and can never know, how it's arranged.

 

[Belz...]

Ok then, what practical purposes would there be to the existence or non-existence of other universes, assuming we can't even detect them in principle?

"For all practical purposes" means that it makes no actual difference to us. For instance, if spirits exist, but we can never interact with them, sure, they exist, but we'd never know, and it makes no difference to us, in our lives. So while it sure makes a difference to the spirits, it's pointless from our perspective.

It's such a common phrase that I thought it was obvious. My bad.

 

[caveman1917]

"For all practical purposes" means that it makes no actual difference to us. For instance, if spirits exist, but we can never interact with them, sure, they exist, but we'd never know, and it makes no difference to us, in our lives. So while it sure makes a difference to the spirits, it's pointless from our perspective.

It's such a common phrase that I thought it was obvious. My bad.

If it makes no actual difference to us then I can just as well say "it exists for all practical purposes" as "it doesn't exist for all practical purposes" bringing us back to my original point about arguments from ignorance.

 

[caveman1917]

As I said, we have to start from somewhere

Do we?

 

[Belz...]

If it makes no actual difference to us then I can just as well say "it exists for all practical purposes" as "it doesn't exist for all practical purposes" bringing us back to my original point about arguments from ignorance.

This just shows that you still don't understand the phrase.

If it existed for all practical purposes then it WOULD make a difference. That's what practical purposes ARE.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, in that sense.



I don't know where you get this idea, but that's not what we usually mean by the word multiverse.

I think you're confusing the term "observable universe" with the word "universe". One's a subset of the other. Other universe would exist on different "planes" as the universe of which the observable universe is a part of.

I get the idea by studying the subject in as much depth as I can. If you look at that page it specifically has a link to "level 1 multiverse", which is what I've been talking about. It's an extension of our space. I'm not making this up.

A level 2 multiverse is also an extension of our space, but it's one in which the apparent laws of physics vary from place to place (because of the presence of fields that influence the geometry of the extra dimensions of string theory).

The level 3 multiverse is the many worlds of QM. It's true that this isn't a multiverse of many hubble volumes "out there". But the previous 2 are.

The level 4 multiverse is a rather speculative idea that all mathematical patterns exist in some sense.

This "level X multiverse" framework is due to Max Tegmark, but I find it quite clear. The level 1 and 2 multiverses are the multiverses implied by inflation, which is probably the multiverse you've heard of (that's the one that is often described as "separate bubbles" because of the phase transition that happens locally when inflation ends).

Perhaps you are familiar with some other idea of a multiverse. What multiverse idea do you think isn't described as regions of space that are very distant and separated by cosmological expansion?

 

[Roboramma]

Do we?

As I said to Robin earlier, you are right, we don't necessarily.

I find myself trying to find some reasoned argument that suggests we must, but in all the time I've spent thinking, talking, and reading about these issues I haven't found one, so yeah, for now at least I concede that point.

 

[Belz...]

I get the idea by studying the subject in as much depth as I can. If you look at that page it specifically has a link to "level 1 multiverse", which is what I've been talking about. It's an extension of our space. I'm not making this up.

I'm not saying you are. But when we talk about multiverse we're not usually refering to that version.

A level 2 multiverse is also an extension of our space, but it's one in which the apparent laws of physics vary from place to place (because of the presence of fields that influence the geometry of the extra dimensions of string theory).

That would certainly be interesting to see. Well, maybe painful as well.

The level 3 multiverse is the many worlds of QM. It's true that this isn't a multiverse of many hubble volumes "out there".

The level 4 multiverse is a rather speculative idea that all mathematical patterns exist in some sense.

Those are more what I'm refering to, myself. Different "big bangs" with entirely detached realities. I'd say they're more likely to exist than not, but presumably we could never detect them unless they can "collide" with ours.

 

[caveman1917]

This just shows that you still don't understand the phrase.

If it existed for all practical purposes then it WOULD make a difference. That's what practical purposes ARE.

That doesn't follow. What difference would it make if undetectable fairies existed? Besides, you claimed just one post earlier that "for all practical purposes" means that it makes no difference to us. Hence, if they exist and their existence makes no difference to us, then they exist for all practical purposes.

 

[Cheetah]

Sorry, success of what?

Brains, please follow.

They make a **** ton of babies because most of them will die. The rest will live a thankless life, but many will have their own babies. What's well-being got to do with any of that?

You are missing the point. From an evolutionary perspective they make a **** ton of babies because most of them will die, sure.
From an individual perspective they search for a 'good' mate, fight off rivals and eventually reproduce because they feel attracted to a appealing mate which they bonk because they feel horny. What they find attractive and appealing in a mate are features that led to reproductive success in previous generations.

No, that doesn't follow. You could just as logically conclude "to each his own".

No, you cannot, see next.

Yes but it can't tell you if that's good or bad.

Sure it can, but it really does not need to, it's obvious.
We are the proof, cooperation evolved, social behaviour and caring evolved. Cooperation is the most successful strategy at many levels in evolution.

 

[Belz...]

That doesn't follow. What difference would it make if undetectable fairies existed?

You said "exists for all practical purposes". That would imply that it makes a difference in our lives. Did you mean something else? Perhaps "if it existed, it would make no difference for all practical purposes" or something similar?

 

[caveman1917]

Sure it can, but it really does not need to, it's obvious.
We are the proof, cooperation evolved, social behaviour and caring evolved. Cooperation is the most successful strategy at many levels in evolution.

You realize that our society is based around competition, don't you?

 

[Belz...]

Brains, please follow.

Ok brains, and?

You are missing the point. From an evolutionary perspective they make a **** ton of babies because most of them will die, sure.
From an individual perspective they search for a 'good' mate, fight off rivals and eventually reproduce because they feel attracted to a appealing mate which they bonk because they feel horny. What they find attractive and appealing in a mate are features that led to reproductive success in previous generations.

Uh-huh, and how does that relate to well-being?

No, you cannot, see next.

Yes you can. Many animals have been very successful by being solitary. We're looking at a very narrow moment in time and saying "hey, look how successful humans have been!" I say give it a million years and get back to me about that.

Sure it can, but it really does not need to, it's obvious.
We are the proof, cooperation evolved, social behaviour and caring evolved. Cooperation is the most successful strategy at many levels in evolution.

Tell that to Krill. They have an enormous biomass and their strategy is quite different.

 

[Belz...]

You realize that our society is based around competition, don't you?

Also that.

Humans are cooperative but only to a degree. We quickly fracture into fiercely competitive units.

 

[Cheetah]

You realize that our society is based around competition, don't you?

Duh! And cooperation.