[sciborg2]

Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary

Platonism leaves a lot to be desired. The main problem is that Platonism is metaphysics, not science. However, even if we were to accept it as true, many questions remain. Why does this Platonic world have these laws, that bring intelligent life into the universe, rather than other laws? How was this Platonic attic set up? Why does our physical universe follow these ethereal rules? How do scientists and mathematicians get access to Plato’s little treasure chest of exact ideals?

The multiverse is another answer that has recently become quite fashionable. This theory is an attempt to explain why our universe has the life-giving laws that it does. One who believes in a multiverse maintains that our universe is just one of many universes. Each universe has its own set of rules and its own possible structures that come along with those rules. Physicists who push the multiverse theory believe that the laws in each universe are somewhat arbitrary. The reason we see structures fit for life in our universe is that we happen to live in one of very few universes that have such laws. While the multiverse explains some of the structure that we see, there are questions that are left open. Rather than asking why the universe has the structure it does, we can push the question back and ask why the multiverse has the structure it does. Another problem is that while the multiverse would answer some of the questions we posed if it existed, who says it actually exists? Since most believe that we have no contact with possible other universes, the question of the existence of the multiverse is essentially metaphysics.

There is another, more interesting, explanation for the structure of the laws of nature. Rather than saying that the universe is very structured, say that the universe is mostly chaotic and for the most part lacks structure. The reason why we see the structure we do is that scientists act like a sieve and focus only on those phenomena that have structure and are predictable. They do not take into account all phenomena; rather, they select those phenomena they can deal with.

Some people say that science studies all physical phenomena. This is simply not true...

One possible conclusion would be that if we look at the universe in totality and not bracket any subset of phenomena, the mathematics we would need would have no axioms at all. That is, the universe in totality is devoid of structure and needs no axioms to describe it. Total lawlessness! The mathematics are just plain sets without structure. This would finally eliminate all metaphysics when dealing with the laws of nature and mathematical structure. It is only the way we look at the universe that gives us the illusion of structure.

With this view of physics we come to even more profound questions.

[TLEILAXU]

Rather, science studies predictable physical phenomena.

So this guy's argument is because people can't predict unpredictable/noisy/chaotic/computationally-untractable systems that means that somehow science is flawed? Is he familiar with the stockmarket, weather forecasting, biology etc.?
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

[sciborg2]

Rather, science studies predictable physical phenomena.

So this guy's argument is because people can't predict unpredictable/noisy/chaotic/computationally-untractable systems that means that somehow science is flawed? Is he familiar with the stockmarket, weather forecasting, biology etc.?
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

I don't think that was the argument? Rather he was appealing to hyper chaos as a means to explain reality without metaphysics...though that in itself is odd b/c he is paralleling the metaphysical argument of Mellissaoux...

In any case I don't think he is speaking of flaws in methodology of science at all?

[TLEILAXU]

Rather, science studies predictable physical phenomena.

So this guy's argument is because people can't predict unpredictable/noisy/chaotic/computationally-untractable systems that means that somehow science is flawed? Is he familiar with the stockmarket, weather forecasting, biology etc.?
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

I don't think that was the argument? Rather he was appealing to hyper chaos as a means to explain reality without metaphysics...though that in itself is odd b/c he is paralleling the metaphysical argument of Mellissaoux...

In any case I don't think he is speaking of flaws in methodology of science at all?

Yeah that's kinda what I meant, that science is flawed in that there are some phenomena it can't deal with since they are this hyperchaos thing. But the argument is based on a dichotomy to which you can ask "what's the evidence of this dichotomy"? The octonion analogy doesn't account for the fact that clouds are made of the same type of atoms an ice crystal is made of, not some subset of it with the last 4 dimensions set to 0 or something.

[sciborg2]

Rather, science studies predictable physical phenomena.

So this guy's argument is because people can't predict unpredictable/noisy/chaotic/computationally-untractable systems that means that somehow science is flawed? Is he familiar with the stockmarket, weather forecasting, biology etc.?
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

I don't think that was the argument? Rather he was appealing to hyper chaos as a means to explain reality without metaphysics...though that in itself is odd b/c he is paralleling the metaphysical argument of Mellissaoux...

In any case I don't think he is speaking of flaws in methodology of science at all?

Yeah that's kinda what I meant, that science is flawed in that there are some phenomena it deal with explain since they are this hyperchaos thing. But the argument is based on a dichotomy to which you can ask "what's the evidence of this dichotomy"? The octonion analogy doesn't account for the fact that clouds are made of the same type of atoms an ice crystal is made of, not some subset of it with the last 4 dimensions set to 0 or something.

I have to admit I think I am missing your point. What's the dichotomy? Aspects of reality amenable to scientific investigation vs those aspects that are not?

[TLEILAXU]

Rather, science studies predictable physical phenomena.

So this guy's argument is because people can't predict unpredictable/noisy/chaotic/computationally-untractable systems that means that somehow science is flawed? Is he familiar with the stockmarket, weather forecasting, biology etc.?
Sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

I don't think that was the argument? Rather he was appealing to hyper chaos as a means to explain reality without metaphysics...though that in itself is odd b/c he is paralleling the metaphysical argument of Mellissaoux...

In any case I don't think he is speaking of flaws in methodology of science at all?

Yeah that's kinda what I meant, that science is flawed in that there are some phenomena it deal with explain since they are this hyperchaos thing. But the argument is based on a dichotomy to which you can ask "what's the evidence of this dichotomy"? The octonion analogy doesn't account for the fact that clouds are made of the same type of atoms an ice crystal is made of, not some subset of it with the last 4 dimensions set to 0 or something.

I have to admit I think I am missing your point. What's the dichotomy? Aspects of reality amenable to scientific investigation vs those aspects that are not?

Yes, exactly, e.g. the shape of a cloud example.