What multiverse model is this author referring to?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of a multiverse as described in John Barrow's book "The Constants of Nature," particularly focusing on the idea of universes governed by different logics. Participants explore whether such a multiverse model exists and the implications of varying logical frameworks across different universes.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Barrow discusses a hypothetical multiverse where fundamental logic could change, but they question the existence of a specific model that supports this idea.
  • One participant argues that within established frameworks of physics (Many-Worlds Interpretation, inflationary cosmology, and string landscape), the notion of different logics is speculative and lacks empirical support.
  • Another participant mentions that the multiverse concept is often used in cosmology to explain the nature of our universe, sometimes invoking the anthropic principle, but critiques the reliance on Bayesian statistics and arbitrary priors as speculative.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about what it means for a universe to obey "different logic," discussing philosophical implications and examples, such as the idea that internal observers might perceive different mathematical truths.
  • One participant references Wittgenstein's philosophy, suggesting that while mathematical statements like "2 + 2 = 4" are logically true, their application in real-world contexts may lead to different interpretations.
  • Another participant argues that if internal observers in a hypothetical universe consistently count "2 + 2 = 5," it raises questions about the nature of logic and empirical facts for those observers.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of logical positivism and the philosophy of science, with references to Karl Popper's contributions and the distinction between mathematical tautologies and empirical statements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and implications of a multiverse with varying logics. There is no consensus on whether such a model exists or how to interpret the concept of "different logic." The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the discussion, such as the speculative nature of the multiverse concept, the dependence on philosophical interpretations of logic, and the unresolved status of mathematical claims in hypothetical scenarios.

Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
John's Barrow book "The Constants of Nature" in chapter 13, he talks about a hypothetical multiverse composed of universes governed by other logics. Specifically, he talks about different approaches that physicists take when studying the multiverse, and he mentions a radical approach where even logic could change from one universe to another. But he does not specify any multiverse model...So what is he talking about? Is it there any multiverse model where even the fundamental logic of universes could change?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Not within the three frameworks of physics (MWI, inflation and the string landscape) as far as I know. It seems like wild speculation.
 
It is popular in cosmology to imagine that there are many possible laws of nature all of which exist in one universe or another to try to explain why our universe is the way that it is, often in conjunction with the anthropic principle.

The problem with this approach is that this is done using Bayesian statistics with an arbitrary "prior" expectation concerning how the possibilities are distributed that has no empirical basis, which makes it purely speculative.

Many critics of this approach are loathe to even call this kind of approach "scientific" but it is used by a fair number of professional trained and employed theoretical physicists.
 
It is not clear what a universe obeying a "different logic" means. If we observe such a universe from the outside, it will certainly obey our laws of logic. If we watch a movie about a mental institution, the logic of the inpatients may be broken, but our own logic does work.

Ludwig Wittgenstein pondered if 2 + 2 = 4 is an empirical fact or somehow dictated by logic. We may imagine a universe where every internal observer at every experiment would observe 2 + 2 = 5. Then one might say that the universe obeys a "different logic", for the observers living inside that universe.

If everything in a universe would happen in a random way, then "logic" would not be of much use for the creatures living there.
 
Heikki Tuuri said:
It is not clear what a universe obeying a "different logic" means. If we observe such a universe from the outside, it will certainly obey our laws of logic. If we watch a movie about a mental institution, the logic of the inpatients may be broken, but our own logic does work.

Ludwig Wittgenstein pondered if 2 + 2 = 4 is an empirical fact or somehow dictated by logic. We may imagine a universe where every internal observer at every experiment would observe 2 + 2 = 5. Then one might say that the universe obeys a "different logic", for the observers living inside that universe.

If everything in a universe would happen in a random way, then "logic" would not be of much use for the creatures living there.
2+2=4 is true by definition of 4.
So it would work in every universe possible.
 
And at least one branch of Wittgenstein's philosophy Logical positivism fell out of favor well within the 20th Century particularly after work by Karl Popper, among others. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science).

Popper's approach to the statement 2+2=4 appears simple but may offer guidance to understanding the implications of the original post.
Popper's solution[45] was an original contribution in the philosophy of mathematics. His idea was that a number statement such as "2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples" can be taken in two senses. In one sense it is irrefutable and logically true, in the second sense it is factually true and falsifiable. Concisely, the pure mathematics "2 + 2 = 4" is always true, but, when the formula is applied to real-world apples, it is open to falsification.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Heikki Tuuri
Klystron, exactly. If I put 2 + 2 apples in a bag and always can count 5 apples when I empty a bag, then I conclude that 2 + 2 = 5 in the physical world. We can imagine a universe where every observer at every situation will count 2 + 2 = 5.

An outside observer may see that the observers living in that universe always make a counting error. Or he may see that apples materialize from nothing. For the outside observer, 2 + 2 = 4, but internal observers will find the rule 2 + 2 = 5 more useful.

One may claim that the rules of logic are an empirical fact for the internal observers. They are not dictated by some Platonic mathematical universe.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Klystron
Klystron said:
And at least one branch of Wittgenstein's philosophy Logical positivism fell out of favor well within the 20th Century particularly after work by Karl Popper, among others. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science).

Popper's approach to the statement 2+2=4 appears simple but may offer guidance to understanding the implications of the original post.
2+2=4 doesn't concern itself with apples, it's a tautology.
2 apples +2 apples will not equal 4 apples just in case one apple does some transformation that adds another one to it. (like in the Banach-Tarski paradox, which is not physical as far as I can tell no physicist has been using this type of maths in his reasoning).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K