The History of the Multiverse and the Philosophy of Science

by Max Andrews

The Pre-Socratics were the first philosophers of science.  They were known as the sophos (the wise ones).  They were ecliplised by the British and German philosophers of science in the seventeenth century and were largely disconnected from science hence forth. Science sets the agenda, but philosophers bring philosophical reasons instead of scientific reasons.  Science answers the questions. The Pre-Socratics were the first to deal with metaphysics and did so to provide a rational philosophy.  This allowed for a rational and objective observation and the use of reason to systematize and order the content to make it coherent.

The Sophists were worldly-wise in contrast with the sophos–frustrated by the plurality of answers in the current philosophy. The Sophists were the original skeptics as evidenced in Pyrrho. They came out of the sixth century BC and broke away from religious dogma, which had never happened before.  Their methods were pragmatic and subjective–rhetorical and fashionable.  The phrase, “The One and the Many” became important.  The One (reality) had everything related to it (Many).  This is where we get Monism–the quality of oneness.  We see Monism appear later in Leibniz’s monads, which take us to a single substance and leads to atomic theory.

Ionian cosmology picked up the discourse. The poet, Hesiod, promoted a moral consistency with the gods and the Milesians used this as the next step of consistency to get to the natural order. Thales (624-546 BC) is often referred to as the first philosopher when he predicted an eclipse of the sun.  This was the first step in the evolution of metaphysical discovery. Thales’ theorem postulated that if angles A and C were the diameter of a circle then angle B was a right angle.  The world was rational and could be predicted and ordered.

Anaximander (611-547 BC) was Thales’ pupil.  The Aperion was considered to be the intermediate boundaries of the heavens.  Reality must be more fundamental than water (a la Thales).  The Apeiron was in eternal motion.  Anaximander postulated many universes. Universes are always in the mode of creation and destruction. This was very naturalistic–the universe was its own cause.  It was through Anaximander we first see the theory of evolution. The Earth was believed to be a cylindrical column. Since it’s on the center it does not fall.  This principle was applied to matter.  Democritus took these principles and applied it to the atom itself.  Democritus believed there we an infinite number of universes being created and being destroyed at every moment.

Descartes came around during the Enlightment and sought a non-empirical explanation for the emprical.  This takes us back to Descartes’ skepticism.  How could he know if he was being deceived by an evil demon? Well, Descartes didn’t believe that God would allow him to be so deceived by a demon. Knowledge about who God is, a priori, would be to have humans have the ability to have knowledge of the objective world and to experience it via the senses.


3 Responses to “The History of the Multiverse and the Philosophy of Science”

  1. Useful for examination from a general perspective

  2. Common Cosmic Time

    The nature of time has had extensive attention in part down through the ages, such as Plato, St. Augustine, Pascal, Leonardo, Newton etc. For example, Newton considered time to flow uniformly, as if it were a separate manifold (1-surface) from the 3-surface of his mechanics described universe.

    ‘Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external…’ Newton’s Principia
    For a manifold, this would give a product space description M3 x M1 , the simplest fiber bundle description. Hence such description would be universal; that is the same common time for throughout the universe. Subsequently, the relativistic model refers to time as the interval between events, wherein clocks are associated with respective observers. However an event such as the Big Bang, and concomitant Big Expansion of our manifold (i.e. 3-surface), does not have such a General Relativity Theory description; nor is ‘initial’ 3-expansion (i.e. Hubble expansion) of our 3-volume limited by velocity of light, as in Special Relativity. Hence the possibility of further modeling in regards to how our 3-space and contents evolves.
    Might there be another common time description as to how our 3-volume evolves? Just as Gauss described curvature of a surface intrinsic to such 2-surface, and Riemann described curvature of a 3-surface as intrinsic to such 3-surface, might not one analogously describe time as intrinsic to our 3-surface? Could the nonlinear Hubble expansion be utilized as such common time description for our 3-surface, and perhaps for a set of such 3-surfaces (i.e. 3-volumes, 3-manifolds); that is for misnomer, ‘multiple universes’? Universe, denotes all inclusiveness, rather than multi-universe which implies a set of such all inclusiveness. Hence better to refer to a set of 3-volumes i.e. 3-manifolds. Also non-linearity to Hubble expansion might even be of an always exponential nature, if it is just a specific example of the more general case: all explosiveness is of an exponential nature. So do all locations of our 3-volume, and for a possible set of 3-volumes, share the same common time i.e. common cosmic time? That is, perceiving the same Big Bang ~13.8 billion years ago; and thus the same ~2.7 degree kelvin temperature of cosmic background radiation for our now i.e. common positive definite modified global instant?
    Also for a set of 3-volumes, contained in an array of planes, spherically symmetrical about a modified central force, might one also have a concomitant common cosmic time description intrinsic to the System i.e. array of planes consisting of 3-volumes? That is, might one utilize the construct of a spherical shell through the respective centers of all 3-volumes, denoting such common cosmic time for all 3-manifolds? This might be referred to as Modified Global Simultaneity (MGS) construct. Such set of successive MGSs would be matched to the integers; hence having positive definite separation. And such set of MGSs could be rendered as always exponentially changing i.e. part of an exponential curve. Likewise for the changing rate of Hubble expansion, intrinsic to each and all 3-volumes.
    Thus in such modeling, would one have two concomitant descriptions of an overall common cosmic time; the Hubble Expansion, intrinsic to 3-volume, and MGS, intrinsic to the System? TMM

  3. Trackbacks

Leave a Reply