Have you ever heard someone say "Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes in which every single possibility comes true"?
Did you ever think about what that means?
Suppose you have a child you love with all your heart and soul. In THIS universe. According to the theory, there are multiple other universes in which you neglect, abuse, or murder your child. There's one where you toss your child over a cliff and one where you pour gasoline on them and light them on fire.
It would seem to follow with necessity from the "every single possibility" theory.
If you don't have a child, think of your spouse, your pet, your parents, or your best friend.
Of course there are universes where bad things are happening to you as well.
Have you ever thought of this before?
Is there any way to escape these seemingly necessary conclusions?
Do you still believe in the infinite universes concept?
What does Godel and his proof of incompleteness have to do with this discussion? and how can something which isn't provable be "true"?
It has to d0 with systems of axioms, includiñg this discussion, since it comes down to true or false statements. Not all statements can be shown to be true or false due to limits in mathematics as shown by Godel.
see why 'some' true statements are non provable: http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/godels-proof.cfm
Okay, so some statements can't be determined to be true or false. Apply that to this discussion in a way any among us can understand.
Let me modify my question: "How can anything which isn't provable be 'true' in the sense of being known to be true?"
Because it can't be 'demonstrated' to be true outside of its axiomatic system, neither can it be shown to be untrue. But it can be true (logic) within the system, but it remains incomplete because it can't be shown outside the system to be true or false. So in essence any argument can be expressed mathematically, but it has it's limitations, same with this discussion, or even with the idea of a God, all abstract axiomatic systems have limitations. I can't make it anymore simpler for those who might not understand it, I'm a terrible teacher.
There are some good books on logic i can recommend:
Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argument
An Introduction to Philosophical Logic by Anthony C. Grayling
Language, Proof and Logic by David Barker-plummer, Jon Barwise and John Etchemendy
by the way nwe is a religious wiki, so be careful apart from the above article, i'd be careful. better link but more complex: http://web.mnstate.edu/peil/geometry/C1AxiomSystem/AxiomaticSystems...
Anyway you're more qualified in philosophy than me, so i'll just shut, you know more than me on the topic.
Actually, I've taught logic. I'm still waiting for the impact of Godel on this discussion. Godel's proof demonstrated that there are expressions in any internally consistent system which can't be proven. He didn't assert that all expressions can't be proven or that you never know where an expression is unprovable. Quite the opposite: such expressions will take the form of paradoxes like the famous Russell's Paradox of the barber who shaves all and only those who don't shave themselves. (Who shaves the barber, then?) We go on doing science despite Godel and rarely, if ever. run into logical paradoxes.
You seem to think it can be applied so broadly that no logic could ever be trusted. Not so. Also, merely because an expression can't be proven within a particular system (and let's be clear here that we are talking about symbolic logic systems, not more everyday kinds of logical discussion), it doesn't call every conclusion the system reaches into question.
He showed that, for any internally consistent system of logic (axioms, operators, etc.), there will be certain kinds of expressions that can't be proven within that system. One may need a metasystem (a more encompassing logical system) to prove them. To think or say that they are literally unprovable per se is to go beyond what he asserts.
At any rate, this is a problem in a symbolic logic, it doesn't follow from it that our ordinary daily syllogisms don't work. "All mammals breast feed their offspring, a dog is a mammal, therefor dogs breast feed their offspring" remains safe.
Read more on Godel at Wikipedia. You'll find that trying to apply Godel outside the rather rarified atmosphere of mathematical logic is pretty much frowned upon. His insight was brilliant as was his proof, but it has little effect on our everyday lives and I still don't see its role in the multiple universe discussion.
Ok i stand corrected, as youre far more qualified than me. Thanks for corrections, and recommendations.
I expect that 'ethical thought' would be conditioned upon 'biology', what ever that might look like in the 'universe'.
I use the term 'biology' loosely, due to the possibility that, given different system laws, 'biology' might be a little less 'organic' than we might recognize. I see no reason to suggest that predation would not exist as the 'organic' drops off. If 'life' exists, surely it develops as an 'energy disapative structure'?
Give enough intelligence, will a 'life' form develop anything like 'ethical thought'? I expect that this emerges from an awareness of 'predation' and 'survival'.
I believe that our understanding of time, and space, especially "infinity", is a very finite one. We all once believed the world was flat until someone was brave enough to explore deeper into the cosmos. The danger in believing in something that isn't 100% true is that it may always lead to other non-scientifically based beliefs which have no proof whatsoever. However, in today's society with modern technology, we are able to explore the cosmos on a deep scale. I believe as time goes on, we may be revealed more about other universes, however, is it necessary that we know? There is so much to be taught about our very own universe, so why move on to others quite yet? I look forward to the day when we do, however until then, it is most important to focus on what is right in front of us. We may just find we have been trying to get into a room we've been in the whole time; the light just needed to be turned on. Just my thought.
What in the world would an infinite understanding of infinity be?
What does it mean for something to be less than 100% true? Truth is binary, is it not?
There is no conflict between exploring the notion of other universes and exploring our own, is there?
If there are other universes coincident with our own, they ARE right in front of us. In fact out universe and the other may even occupy the same space.
By finite, I simply mean limited. Truth is relative to its subject, but not limited to it in comparison to other subjects. Although there is no physical conflict, I believe that we create this idea of a "mind" which we believe is all-knowing and all-powerful, which is both untrue and stupid. I am simply suggesting, let us start with point "a" and end with point "z", shall we? B-Y are simple bridges, and last time I checked, we cannot jump any letters or else we'd have a faulty bridge, hmm? Keep your pants on, mate! No reason to be upset. I did not mention nor imply that I disagree with a multi-universe theory, I just simply suggested we may not wish to put the cart before the horse. A table is no table without legs.
Good day, sir!