The multiverse argument for the existence of paranormal phenomena.

#1
If there are enough universes to explain the existence of our "improbable" universe (being fine tuned for life and having had life arise and evolve naturally on earth) as the result of chance, then there should be enough universes for one to exist with a God, spirits, Sasquatch, intelligent designer(s), UFOs, alien abductions, psi, etc, etc. Postulating a multiverse explains nothing. If you propose the the multiverse can explain our improbable universe, the same argument can explain anything and you have no grounds to reject any paranormal explanation for empirical evidence.
 
Last edited:
#2
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#3
If there are enough universes to explain the existence of our "improbable" universe (being fine tuned for life and having had life arise and evolve naturally on earth) as the result of chance, then there should be enough universes for one to exist with a God, spirits, Sasquatch, intelligent designer(s), UFOs, alien abductions, psi, etc, etc. Postulating a multiverse explains nothing.
Multiverse enthusiast Michael Hanlon actually brings this up as well:

But you probably won’t know that (if their findings are taken to their logical conclusion) these machines have also detected hints that Elvis lives, or that out there, among the flaming stars and planets, are unicorns, actual unicorns with horns on their noses. There’s even weirder stuff, too: devils and demons; gods and nymphs; places where Hitler won the Second World War, or where there was no war at all. Places where the most outlandish fantasies come true. A weirdiverse, if you will. Most bizarre of all, scientists are now seriously discussing the possibility that our universe is a fake, a thing of smoke and mirrors.
Dude seemed particularly taken with unicorns, which I found a bit weird but I suppose there might be some good reason for it:

'Yet each time I see my unicorns, it's like that first morning in the woods, and I am truly young again in spite of myself.

And I think that anything can happen in a world that holds such beauty.'
--Peter S. Beagle, The Last Unicorn


 
#4
Since it explains nothing why did you bring it up?
Signed,
Very Confused.
I think you're missing the overall point of the post. The multiverse cosmological creation-story is currently touted as the ultimate reductionist/rationalist defense to creationism and superstition (take Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing for a case in point), when in fact it is as unverifiable as any deity, and in fact can be used to argue for the existence of all sorts of nonsense (i.e. infinitely diverse sets of physical laws in infinite universes = existence of everything and anything). So in that sense it "explains nothing" (no evidence, no predictive power, etc.) and is no better than any other epistemological method / theory for interpreting the universe we find ourselves in.
 
#5
I think you're missing the overall point of the post. The multiverse cosmological creation-story is currently touted as the ultimate reductionist/rationalist defense to creationism and superstition (take Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing for a case in point), when in fact it is as unverifiable as any deity, and in fact can be used to argue for the existence of all sorts of nonsense (i.e. infinitely diverse sets of physical laws in infinite universes = existence of everything and anything). So in that sense it "explains nothing" (no evidence, no predictive power, etc.) and is no better than any other epistemological method / theory for interpreting the universe we find ourselves in.
I agree. Have I then missed the point?
 
#7
I have always found it odd that materialists are willing to throw a theoretical multiverse out there as though it has any proof behind it or has any way to be tested or proven despite the fact that it's literally impossible to actually verify there being more than one universe, barring some physics-breaking rip in reality that provides access to another universe, and even going through said physics-breaking rifts doesn't guarantee that you end up in another universe rather than another time and place in this one.

But obviously that makes more sense than consciousness and free will. Those are ridiculous illusions that should be gotten rid of. Honestly, how does the materialist nonsense like totally unsubstantiated multiverse hypotheses stand in the public eye while avoiding any real questioning?

It even seems like sort of a "multiverse of the gaps" idea, with "I don't know, therefore infinite universes" right at the center.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#8
I think you're missing the overall point of the post. The multiverse cosmological creation-story is currently touted as the ultimate reductionist/rationalist defense to creationism and superstition (take Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing for a case in point), when in fact it is as unverifiable as any deity, and in fact can be used to argue for the existence of all sorts of nonsense (i.e. infinitely diverse sets of physical laws in infinite universes = existence of everything and anything). So in that sense it "explains nothing" (no evidence, no predictive power, etc.) and is no better than any other epistemological method / theory for interpreting the universe we find ourselves in.
Aczel wrote an article rather critical of both Krauss and the Multiverse.

=-=-=

But obviously that makes more sense than consciousness and free will. Those are ridiculous illusions that should be gotten rid of. Honestly, how does the materialist nonsense like totally unsubstantiated multiverse hypotheses stand in the public eye while avoiding any real questioning?
I think Chomsky has the right of it when he says free will + consciousness are just a mystery we have to accept, as there isn't a way to have a functional society without them. As for consciousness being an illusion, this always takes us back to Peter Hankins question, "If consciousness is an illusion, who is being fooled?"
 
#9
"If consciousness is an illusion, who is being fooled?"
Right, your toaster can't be fooled by an illusion into thinking it is conscious. You have to be conscious first, you have to have subjective experience first, in order for there to be a "you" that can be fooled about anything.

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies
Furthermore, the suggestion that consciousness is an illusion is blatantly preposterous. The idea that consciousness is an illusion is refuted by Rene Descartes' formulation, Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. The reality of consciousness is self-evident. To understand how foolish it is to suggest that consciousness could be an illusion, consider what type of entity can be fooled by an illusion into believing it is conscious. Can your car be fooled by an illusion into believing it is conscious? No. Can your computer be fooled by an illusion into believing it is conscious? No. The only type of entity that can be fooled by an illusion into believing it is conscious has to be conscious in the first place because only a conscious entity can have the subjective experience of belief. The brain is a physical machine and is no more capable of being fooled into believing it is conscious than your computer is. Consciousness cannot be an illusion.
 
Last edited:
Top