The Multiverse of 1686 | Hacker News Reader

The Multiverse of 1686

nautil.us

28 pointsdnetesn12 comments

It is really a stretch to say that Leibniz's "best of all possible worlds" argument means he believed in the existence of a multiverse. The centerpiece of the argument is that, of all the potential worlds, this is the one that has to be the best, because it's the one that God created. If the actual set of possible worlds were all created, then there is no reason to believe that the one we exist in is special in any way, which defeats the purpose of the argument in the first place. So the multiverse exists only in the metaphysical sense of "we can imagine a universe where gravity is repulsive instead of attractive," not in any physical sense of "the universe where gravity is repulsive exists next door."

A second point to bring up... Leibniz's theodicy hasn't really gone over well with anyone, particularly any notable theologians. The core argument really boils down to "evil exists because God thought that a universe where it exists was the best one," which is more of a dodge than an answer. Most theodicies instead present evil as somehow necessary to appreciate good or a necessary component of human agency and free will.

As someone else said, Nautilus loves their multiverse theory. Even if they have to twist the words to make it seem like other people believe it.

I don't know... some days I find gravity repulsive just on principal!

Nautilus loves their multiverse. Every other article seems to be about possible worlds :)

I've always been a fan of Leibniz (and never liked Spinoza when I studied him), but I've recently started to have a change of heart. Modal logic, which is based on Leibnizian metaphysics, seems very clunky. Specifically, I take issue with the metalogical concepts of necessity and contingency. It may seem easy to say "I'm an engineer, but I could have been a musician" -- but it doesn't seem straightforward (and in fact it isn't) showing that that statement is true.

But at the same time, I find myself between a rock and a hard place. I can't be an existentialist either, as Plantinga's anti-existentialst argument[1] is, I think, pretty knock-down.

[1] https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/93507/_HANDOUTS...

One philosopher that isn't mentioned is Malebranche who tries to solve the interaction problem in a way that also relies on God, but in this case by having God facilitate the correlation of events in mind and body. This position is called occasionalism.

Really wish this link worked, looks like a cool article!

Google Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jvoc1Ku...

Looks like it works now.

I swear, philosophy is just throwing arbitrary labels on things without truly testing them. What the fuck is a "substance"

It is a label ;)

You are, in fact, right; but "substance" is a terrible example as it's been a technical term for the two-and-a-half millennia.

  “All that is very well,” answered Candide, “but let us cultivate our garden.”

Candide replied, smugly and derisively, to the man who was cultivating his own garden of metaphysical insights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com