Can the multiverse explain human history?

[acey]

"If human history turns on the tilt of the multiverse, can we still trust our ideas of achievement, progress and morality?" Article (by me) in Aeon magazine.

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/can-the-multiverse-explain-the-course-of-history/

[Knight of Clear Skies]

Congratulations on getting it published. Had a read through. Lots of interesting bits and pieces in there, but I don't really see what you are driving at I'm afraid.

I don't understand how the multiverse can be invoked to explain anything about human history, or how we think about it. Certainly, it's possible to imagine a multitude of possible worlds, with chance playing a major role. Perhaps somewhere a bizarre sequence of disqualifications, injury, mental disintegration and inspiration conspired to give Belize an Olympic clean-sweep. However, for every reality where Belize are champions of the world, there must be billions where they are not: not all outcomes are equally likely. You could attempt to win Wimbledon simply by turning up and hoping that all your opponents hit an unprecedented series of unforced errors, but a better strategy is to actually try to learn the game. From our perspective, why does it matter if these realities actually exist somewhere - inaccessible to us - or merely exist in potentia? We can't distinguish between the two cases.

Am I missing something fundamental here?

[acey]

Thanks for responding. The article is about the history of the idea, not whether it's true or not. As I show in my article, the concept goes back to Ancient Greece if not earlier, and in modern times it has been thought about by philosophers such as Walter Benjamin and writers such as Borges - all before physicists began to consider the idea seriously.

The moral implications of the multiverse depend on the kind of multiverse you choose to believe in. Leibniz believed that every "possible world" existed in the mind of God, but he chose to make only one of them (ours, the "best") actual. Leibniz tells the story of Sextus Tarquinius, who raped Lucretia, leading to the expulsion of the Roman monarchy. In many possible worlds, Sextus is a good man, but in the actual world his evil act led to a greater good (the founding of the Roman Republic). This argument worked for Leibniz, but we might wonder where it leaves Lucretia, who in God's plan had to be raped in order that the Republic could happen.

In the multiverse of Blanqui, which I also mention in my article, the other worlds are supposed to physically exist. As Walter Benjamin pointed out, this renders the idea of historical progress somewhat meaningless. Benjamin saw Blanqui's theory as really being a picture of capitalism, transformed into a cosmological theory. Mass-produced universes apparently offering infinite variety, novelty and choice, but actually producing nothing except a feeling of inadequacy.

So you're right, we have no access to other universes (if they exist), no way of seeing them, and no way they can influence ours. What's interesting is the kind of universes or multiverses that have been imagined, the reasons why they have been imagined, what they say about the society which produces them, and what they tell us about how physics can be subject to wider cultural ideas from outside science. That's what I discuss (albeit more briefly than I might have wished) in my article.

[Qualia]

Congratulations with the article, Acey. I'll take it away with me this weekend (heading up to the mountains) and will have a read.

The great thing about the world of ideas be they notions of multi worlds or universes, M theory, cosmological arguments or what have you, is that they are ways of telling ourselves a story. Ancient human thought, its myths and tales put Man at the center of the universe and nowadays we can contrast such anthropocentric tales with the disinterested insights underlying the discoveries of modern science. But the myth continues.

A myth is not a lie. It's a narrative, a conceptual scheme and framework that gives order and purpose and reason to human experience. Even if the post-Copernicun world has been evicting Man from the center of the universe, Man remains at the center. Realism, reality - however we decide to define that term, depends on us – on the structure of our cognitive faculties, on the architecture of our brains and sensory systems, on the given interpretation of sense data by our still very mysterious minds.

We see through a glass darkly because we are the glass.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

What's interesting is the kind of universes or multiverses that have been imagined, the reasons why they have been imagined, what they say about the society which produces them, and what they tell us about how physics can be subject to wider cultural ideas from outside science. That's what I discuss (albeit more briefly than I might have wished) in my article.

Thanks for clearing that up, think the title confused me a little. It's a nice overview of the history of the concept. I'm very interested in the history of ideas and the development of science but am not deeply read on these subjects, due to time (lack of), energy (ditto) and other interests. I don't suppose there are any books you'd particularly recommend along these lines?

You might find this article on how inflation theory underpins the theoretical basis of the multiverse interesting.

As I show in my article, the concept goes back to Ancient Greece if not earlier...

(Italics mine.) That seems very likely to me. Simple "What If?" speculations may not even require language, accessible to any animal capable of rudimentary planning. It then requires a certain amount of self awareness to realise that if other choices had been made different outcomes would have resulted. The simplest route to start thinking of these hypotheticals as concrete instead of abstractions is through the concept of infinity. If the universe is infinite, all outcomes must happen somewhere (actually, each must occur an infinite number of times). I remember having some thoughts along these lines as a child, and I wasn't that bright, so I imagine that many people could have easily stumbled upon this line of reasoning.

The moral implications of the multiverse depend on the kind of multiverse you choose to believe in. Leibniz believed that every "possible world" existed in the mind of God, but he chose to make only one of them (ours, the "best") actual.

I'm more favourable towards his biscuits than his philosophy.

Especially the chocolate ones.

Good of poor Lucretia to take one for the team - it's no surprise Leibnitz attracted parody with his attempt to solve the problem of evil.

[acey]

Thanks, Knight of Clear Skies. A book worth looking at is Arthur Lovejoy's "The Great Chain Of Being" which traces the history of an idea which Lovejoy termed the "principle of plentiude", namely the idea (going back to Neoplatonism at least) that the world/universe/multiverse is "full", without gaps, i.e. every possibility must somehow be actualised (and if it isn't actualised then it was never really possible).

Leibniz (man not biscuit) figures in Lovejoy's analysis, but Lovejoy goes beyond physics into life sciences: mermaids, for example, filled a supposed gap (therefore ought to exist) and were even given a scientific nomenclature. Similarly, the idea of the "missing link" pre-dates Darwin - Lovejoy cites Barnum promoting a "missing link" exhibit some years before publication of Origin Of Species. You could see the multiverse concept in terms of this "principle of plenitude".

Arthur Lovejoy (1873-1962) was a notable intellectual historian, and nothing to do with the character played by Ian McShane.

[laowho]

Congratulations with the article, Acey. I'll take it away with me this weekend (heading up to the mountains) and will have a read.

The great thing about the world of ideas be they notions of multi worlds or universes, M theory, cosmological arguments or what have you, is that they are ways of telling ourselves a story. Ancient human thought, its myths and tales put Man at the center of the universe and nowadays we can contrast such anthropocentric tales with the disinterested insights underlying the discoveries of modern science. But the myth continues.

A myth is not a lie. It's a narrative, a conceptual scheme and framework that gives order and purpose and reason to human experience. Even if the post-Copernicun world has been evicting Man from the center of the universe, Man remains at the center. Realism, reality - however we decide to define that term, depends on us – on the structure of our cognitive faculties, on the architecture of our brains and sensory systems, on the given interpretation of sense data by our still very mysterious minds.

We see through a glass darkly because we are the glass.

Hear! Hear! Qualia,

At last, the voice of reason, or of one having even a smattering of language and history. As a huge fan of myth and archaeoastronomy and science, how refreshing...the world is made of stories, not of atoms, eh? Anyway, I'm gonna read your article Acey...thanks all.

Cheers

[laowho]

First thing I notice Acey is your allusion to light paths, as quantum behaviors of various superposition models. And what immediately sprang to mind is Seth Lloyd's work on quantum computing. He and other researchers found some plant life deep in the ocean where these--all possible paths--are in fact taken at the macro level and in "real" time. It's on YouTube.

[jetstream]

"If human history turns on the tilt of the multiverse, can we still trust our ideas of achievement, progress and morality?" Article (by me) in Aeon magazine.

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/can-the-multiverse-explain-the-course-of-history/

Great article-thanks

[jetstream]

Thanks for clearing that up, think the title confused me a little. It's a nice overview of the history of the concept. I'm very interested in the history of ideas and the development of science but am not deeply read on these subjects, due to time (lack of), energy (ditto) and other interests. I don't suppose there are any books you'd particularly recommend along these lines?

You might find this article on how inflation theory underpins the theoretical basis of the multiverse interesting.

(Italics mine.) That seems very likely to me. Simple "What If?" speculations may not even require language, accessible to any animal capable of rudimentary planning. It then requires a certain amount of self awareness to realise that if other choices had been made different outcomes would have resulted. The simplest route to start thinking of these hypotheticals as concrete instead of abstractions is through the concept of infinity. If the universe is infinite, all outcomes must happen somewhere (actually, each must occur an infinite number of times). I remember having some thoughts along these lines as a child, and I wasn't that bright, so I imagine that many people could have easily stumbled upon this line of reasoning.

I'm more favourable towards his biscuits than his philosophy.

Especially the chocolate ones.

Good of poor Lucretia to take one for the team - it's no surprise Leibnitz attracted parody with his attempt to solve the problem of evil.

Very good links