The Things That Men Are Willing To Believe....

[seer]

If I grant that they are rational conclusions, they still get us nowhere. Sure, you can claim that all people must maintain positions of 'faith', but to do so seems to intentionally equivocate between two very different usages of the term. Regardless, it still seems to lead back to a position of "I can believe whatever I want to believe." Honestly, go believe what you want to believe. Be happy with it. When you come to debate/discuss what you believe, though, you better have a more substantial backing. That sort of stance is unconvincing at best and often comes across as insincere.

My only problem is when non-theists claim the higher rational ground. That they are somehow more rational or fact based when none of us can even approach reality without first accepting unprovable assumptions.

[Carrikature]

My only problem is when non-theists claim the higher rational ground. That they are somehow more rational or fact based when none of us can even approach reality without first accepting unprovable assumptions.

Most people accept these unprovable assumptions as a base point. It's the only way to function. The acceptance may be implicit, but it's there nonetheless. The true higher rational ground is claimed when one person is doing their best to work within the framework given while the other is not. Claiming that we may not actually know anything doesn't work as a valid dismissal for science. You've pushed your rejection of Vilenkin all the way to an assumption that is unprovable either way. That's not a valid critique. It's also shifting goalposts, as pancreasman pointed out in the Occam's Razor thread.

[seer]

You've pushed your rejection of Vilenkin all the way to an assumption that is unprovable either way. That's not a valid critique. It's also shifting goalposts, as pancreasman pointed out in the Occam's Razor thread.

Sorry Carrikature, I see no good reason to believe that there are a zillion copies of me out there. Yes, it is a gut feeling, but like I said we often trust our gut feelings on even more important issues.

[Carrikature]

Sorry Carrikature, I see no good reason to believe that there are a zillion copies of me out there. Yes, it is a gut feeling, but like I said we often trust our gut feelings on even more important issues.

No one is forcing you to believe anything. Your gut feeling may even be right. I'm simply stating the fact that if you want to discuss this option, you need something more than incredulity. Once you can explain why Vilenkin's suggestion is distasteful to you, then we can begin to have a discussion. Be forewarned, however, that this will entail acceptance of and concern for logical fallacies.

You're not obligated to explain your reasoning. Just know that most of the rest of us will find such insistence without substance less than compelling.

[seer]

No one is forcing you to believe anything. Your gut feeling may even be right. I'm simply stating the fact that if you want to discuss this option, you need something more than incredulity. Once you can explain why Vilenkin's suggestion is distasteful to you, then we can begin to have a discussion. Be forewarned, however, that this will entail acceptance of and concern for logical fallacies.

You're not obligated to explain your reasoning. Just know that most of the rest of us will find such insistence without substance less than compelling.

What is wrong with incredulity? Why on earth should I (or anyone) even entertain the idea that there are a zillion copies of me out there? It seems to me that the onus is on the one making this claim.

[Carrikature]

What is wrong with incredulity? Why on earth should I (or anyone) even entertain the idea that there are a zillion copies of me out there? It seems to me that the onus is on the one making this claim.

This has been explained at length already in this thread. Here's an excellent example (my emphasis added):

Yes I would. The fact that you're not willing to entertain these ideas isn't a good indication whether the ideas are sound. So far you've simple said "Look at these ideas, I find them really absurd, therefore the people who entertain them must be irrational". Why should I take an objection of that form serious? Having gone through a college education, I've had many powerful stomach reactions against ideas that I later found to be perfectly sound based on the evidence. Even if my intuition was strongly against the idea of a multiverse of the form that he's proposing, I'd still rationally examine the idea.

If your gut is screaming "His theory is false, it simple can't be", then that's fine Seer. I can't argue rationally with your gut. I can only tell you that my gut doesn't have much to say on those ideas. I'm not saying that a gut reaction is worthless, it can be an okay starting point, but it should be supplanted with reasoned out judgements. And I'm not sure how you go beyond your gut without rationally entertaining Vilenkins ideas. Even if you disagree with him, and have derived unsolvable paradoxes or problems in it, you'd still have to think the concept through to get there. What else are you suggesting?

You can't honestly expect me to believe that at no point in your life have you come across something where your gut reaction was dead wrong.

[seer]

You can't honestly expect me to believe that at no point in your life have you come across something where your gut reaction was dead wrong.

Yes, my gut has been wrong in the past, like when I denied the existence of God. But really Carrikature, why on earth should I believe there there are a zillion copies of me out there? And here is a greater problem - I'm a layman, men like Vilenkin certainly could make their theories sound plausible - how would I know, how could I counter? I couldn't. Then there are the conflicts - one physicist says A, another says the opposite - who does the layman believe? What am I left with but intuition?

[Carrikature]

Yes, my gut has been wrong in the past, like when I denied the existence of God. But really Carrikature, why on earth should I believe there there are a zillion copies of me out there? And here is a greater problem - I'm a layman, men like Vilenkin certainly could make their theories sound plausible - how would I know, how could I counter? I couldn't. Then there are the conflicts - one physicist says A, another says the opposite - who does the layman believe? What am I left with but intuition?

I have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who ignores large, important parts of peoples' posts. Thanks anyway.

[pancreasman]

You don't have to 'believe' anything about advanced speculative notions in physics. It is perfectly possible (and I think advisable) to recognize the limits of our personal ability and to hold no firm opinion on matters about which we are uninformed.

[Carrikature]

Yes, my gut has been wrong in the past, like when I denied the existence of God. But really Carrikature, why on earth should I believe there there are a zillion copies of me out there? And here is a greater problem - I'm a layman, men like Vilenkin certainly could make their theories sound plausible - how would I know, how could I counter? I couldn't. Then there are the conflicts - one physicist says A, another says the opposite - who does the layman believe? What am I left with but intuition?

I'm going to make one more comment and leave it at that. If you were truly of a mind, you could learn most, if not all, of the science behind these ideas. The math is complicated, sure. With patience and diligence, it is not beyond your reach. One doesn't need to be an expert in the field to be able to reasonably evaluate some claims. You seem to find time to listen to philosophy videos on youtube. You've managed to find the quote from Vilenkin. If you were truly interested in learning this information, I'm sure there are many people in this and the Nat. Sci. sub-forums that would gladly give you tips to get started. Like my mother has always said, "Where there's a will, there's a way."

[Carrikature]

You don't have to 'believe' anything about advanced speculative notions in physics. It is perfectly possible (and I think advisable) to recognize the limits of our personal ability and to hold no firm opinion on matters about which we are uninformed.

Most people seem incapable of exercising this option.

[Seasanctuary]

I recommend Guth's book The Inflationary Universe. You'll see how inflationary theory is a quite reasonable, evidence-based refinement of Big Bang theory which hints at, among other things, the possibility of eternal inflation. This would be a vast expansion of the size of the universe (or multi-verse depending on which term we arbitrarily decide to use), but then we've already gone through vast conceptual expansions when we learned there were other stars...then other galaxies.

The conjecture about other patches of spacetime being exact duplicates of ours is, I think, more of a way to grab attention than something current science hints at. It isn't fair to focus on that particular idea as representative of Big Bang or inflationary cosmology as a whole.

[seer]

I recommend Guth's book The Inflationary Universe. You'll see how inflationary theory is a quite reasonable, evidence-based refinement of Big Bang theory which hints at, among other things, the possibility of eternal inflation. This would be a vast expansion of the size of the universe (or multi-verse depending on which term we arbitrarily decide to use), but then we've already gone through vast conceptual expansions when we learned there were other stars...then other galaxies.

The conjecture about other patches of spacetime being exact duplicates of ours is, I think, more of a way to grab attention than something current science hints at. It isn't fair to focus on that particular idea as representative of Big Bang or inflationary cosmology as a whole.

Like I said already, from what I have read on line I don't have a real problem with Inflation theory per say, but the idea of eternal inflation where a zillion copies of me exist. And it seems that my gut is correct on this - that there really is no good evidence to believe that such a thing is true.

[Seasanctuary]

Like I said already, from what I have read on line I don't have a real problem with Inflation theory per say, but the idea of eternal inflation where a zillion copies of me exist. And it seems that my gut is correct on this - that there really is no good evidence to believe that such a thing is true.

Well, now I can't complain about you.

[seer]

Well, now I can't complain about you.

Well that never stopped anyone else! ; )