RE: Is there really any problem with an infinate regresion of universes?
April 5, 2015 at 9:00 am
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2015 at 9:02 am by John V.)
OK, let's look at it closer.
Further, if you're giving yourself a multiverse, you don't need one universe to be dependent on another. They're already there as a given.
(April 5, 2015 at 1:06 am)Chuck Wrote: Think of an infinite foam. Let's say if any bubbleAs the bubbles are analogous to universes, the foam is analogous to a multiverse. You're giving yourself an infinite number of universes as a starting position. No one bubble needs another for its existence. They're already there.
Quote:in the foam pops, it would destabilize an adjacent bubble and cause that to pop as well. So each popping of a bubble is attributable to the popping of another bubble in an infinite regression.Now you're adding popping to dress it up like an infinite regression.
Quote:Yet the popping of any particular bubble does not require its antecedent to unpop.Yes, but only because you gave yourself a multiverse to begin with.
Quote:In a like manner, the fact that our universe appear to be headed towards some end state wildly different from what appeared to have been its beginning state does not show its beginning is therefore not part of infinite regression.If you're limiting yourself to what we know - our universe - and not giving yourself an infinite multiverse as a starting point, then yes, you do need a mechanism to get from the end of one universe to the beginning of another.
Further, if you're giving yourself a multiverse, you don't need one universe to be dependent on another. They're already there as a given.
(April 5, 2015 at 8:15 am)Chuck Wrote: And define why it is not?See above.
Either each instantiation itself, or the detaileds of each instantiation, is made possible by a prior instantiation, which in turn depends upon yet another, going back along an infinite chain. How is that not infinite regression?
Quote:You just can't admit you didn't, or more likely won't, see how infinite regression - not necessarily true but already too threatening to the canard cited to justify the need for theistic creation bullshit - can be embedded in different flavor a of cosmologies consistent with observation.A multiverse as a starting point is not "consistent with observation." We have observed exactly one universe.