undefined | Better HN

0 pointswhatshisface6y ago0 comments

That's a paper about ontology, I'm talking about the actual physical reality of "the multiverse," you know, the one with the meta-landscape of all possible string theories, and all the different spidermans.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

bordercases6y ago· 2 in thread

In what way can statements about a multiverse not be ontological? Are you committing to modal realism, Platonic realism, or are you just pulling my leg?

If you commit to the multiverse being physical, by extension you're making claims about ontological concerns, since all physical claims require there to be a notion of something existing, even if you're wanting to claim that something counterfactually exists. Then that gets into modal realism etc etc.

Likewise you can't be fully confident in multiversal theories since no physicist endorses a multiversal theory without also accepting it as interpretative, as no experiment has been performed to anoint multiversal theories as being correct. So you're still postulating something worthy of criticism even if there was nothing ontological involved.

whatshisfaceOP6y ago

Each universe gets its own version of Spiderman, and we live in the universe with the fictional Spiderman. That's one theory that matches our observations. Since basically every theory matches our observations, including the theory that there isn't a physical multiverse, every argument is equally specious and aesthetic.

bordercases6y ago

Every theory matches observations given interpretations of those theories, and it's impossible to engage in discourse without additionally engaging in interpretation. So some theories are going to be eliminated from view given one perspective or the other since interpretations must be chosen over others. I think where you're wrong is thinking it's possible to evade this and make the claim that all arguments are specious without simultaneously gesturing that you don't want to engage in the discourse anymore: it's a self-defeating claim.

Notice that none of this prevents there from being a singular subject that we can talk about, but there can still be substantial disagreement as to the nature of the thing be discussed. If we are disputing whether or not there is a multiverse I would just ask you, what are your grounds for accepting that we occupy a multiverse and what brought you to do so?

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse