|
|
| Occam's Razor and the Multiverse Theory | | |
|  harls | Oct 8, 2007 3:56pm | | Is Occam's Razor incompatible with the multiverse theory? If the simplest possible outcome is the one that occurs doesn't that suggest the collapse of the wave function or sum over histories approach? |
|
| 
|  hdparab | Dec 4, 2007 10:12pm | | I think yes. Occam's razor should be valid only in "simple situations". It may be difficult to apply it in the case of highly nonlinear cases where outcome depends extremely on the initial conditions, small error in it may lead to different outcome |
|
| 
|  d-monk | Dec 5, 2007 9:34am | I think there is a place for Occam's Razor in the multi-verse question. Of course, the problem will be to define what is simpler.
In the multi-verse debate, one of the questions seeking explanation is how is it that a universe exists which is so compatible with the existence of intelligent life such as ourselves. Two possible explanations: (i) the universe was created or designed; or (ii)this is just one of many, many universes (i.e., part of a multi-verse) and within such a grand structure a universe such as ours is bound to occur somewhere.
I think that the challenge would be to ask which of these solutions does Occam's Razor support? Both solutions could be reasonably argued to be simpler. The creator solution is simpler because it only requires a single cause. Or the multi-verse solution is simpler because it does not rely on a supreme being/creator/higher power. |
|
| 
Sponsor |  Haselhurst | Feb 7, 1:41am | Hi everyone,
I think you need to first define universe / multiverse - is the universe everything that exists - or everything that we can see and interact with?
I am strongly influenced by Occam's razor.
spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm [spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm]
This leads to a wave structure of matter (WSM) in space - where Space must be infinite and eternal (as one thing existing must be). As to the universe - well WSM deduces that we only see and interact with a finite region of infinite space (our universe).
From this foundation there are an infinite number of universes within infinite space.
spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm [spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm]
I realise this is not mainstream physics view - but it is simple - and we do all experience existing in space so it is a good foundation to work from.
All the best,
Geoff Haselhurst
PS - Though I set up this physics group, I do not visit that often. So it is nice to see that people are discussing things intelligently without moderation. |
|
| 
| | schmickcl | Mar 4, 11:51pm | Occam's Razor... simple explanation. So, what is "simple", depends on who you are talking to. And btw, O.R. is sort of a conclusion based on resolved issues, not a tool used to resolve. Said that, "my" simple explanation is that a multiverse is just another degree of freedom (read "space dimension") that the matter we are made of can't reach. That is pretty simple to me.
Also, it allows for even higher and lower dimension levels such as a multiverse of multiverses. Say, what we consider a universe is a 4 dimension space-time, but, if time travel is possible, then two four dimension universes must exist in the same fifth time-dimension. This fifth dimension being constant for both 4 dimension universes.
Looking down, excluding the time dimension, our universe is just a set of snapshots of "current conditions", stitched together by the 4th time dimension. So, this 4th dimension trip of a particle could be considered to be a multiverse travel from one 3dimension universe to other 3dimension universe using time as a doorway between them.
It has been postulated that gravity can be the doorway to the higher dimension. Supergravity or closed loops strings that can't attach themselves to this time-space fabric or "membrane universe" and are free to wander to other universes, thus making it look too weak compared to the other forces.
Note:
One thing regarding infinite universes. Space can be length-less, but finite. You could go forever in one direction, without ever reaching an edge, but at the same time, be in a universe that has a limited space.
Just consider the earth. It's size is finite, but you can "walk" on it's surface forever, without ever reaching an "edge".
There are some real life examples of stuff that shouldn't be, but is.
Fractals, Koch Snowflake, has an infinite length, though it encloses a finite area. And Sirpinski Triangle, has Zero area, though it's perimeter is Infinite.
Even though all of this supergravity, strings and membranes are speculative (as of now), first it must be convincing, this is what I consider simple. A creator point of view is not technically an "explanation" but more as a way to "by-pass, leave it to someone else" analysis, thought and conclusions.
If a creator explanation could be considered for an O.R. scenario, then O.R. has been wrong almost always, as a creator by definition is the simplest of all, and as we know, it has never been the "correct" explanation, except for "why are we here", which btw, has no current answer. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Morosoph | Apr 16, 5:47am | 3: The creator explanation isn't a simplification, since a creator would itself have complexity. Once you account for the creator's internal structure, the cause is no longer a "single" one.
A creator-god is a psychological simplification, but is not a physical simplification. Also, a creator-god provides a "why" type explanation, which physics cannot, so that the latter simply cannot satisfy some people.
Further, even if god does not exist, that does not necessarily mean that we are in a multiverse. It could be that there are few, or even no "fundamental constants" as we understand the physics of the universe better.
That said, we should bare in mind that we already observe emergent intelligence in the form of the brain, and even in slime molds, which exhibit memory. Could intellience be a self-organising property of certain classes of complex systems? Even if we can rule a creator-god out as implausible, it does not rule out all celestial intelligences. |
|
|
| | d-monk | Apr 16, 7:28am | Morosoph:
Excellent points. You are right to draw the distinction between psychological/philosophical explanations and explanations that would satisfy the physical sciences.
To me, at least based on currently available technology and theory, the multiverse question has the characteristics of a philosophical question because there is no way to observe or measure data beyond the bounds of the universe we find ourselves in. But the scientific method has proved a very resilient tool and it could be that in the future - perhaps even in the near future - theorists will find a way to test the multiverse theory.
Until that point, I think occam's razor is open to both philosophical and "scientific" applications.
D-Monk |
|
| 
Sponsor |
|
| Occam's Razor and the Multiverse Theory | | |
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
|
Physics → Discussion