Hacker News Reader

Comment by gmlk | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that one has to be convinced that multiple universes (which by definition can't be observed) exist. Which means rejecting the idea of one (potentially empirically observable) unknown entity [a creator or "god"] only to replace it with the idea of an infinite number of universes which however can never be observed…

So I think that this has nothing to do with empirical science?

View on HN

My comments above are certainly inductive rather than empirical in nature. I think the potential (or lack of same) for empirical observation is about the same; I can imagine being transported to 'other dimensions' just as I can imagine being with miraculous powers of creation and destruction.

However, I disagree with your implied argument that one is unnecessarily multiplying entities by postulating multiple universes rather than the philosophically more economical single being. When people postulate a God, they usually ascribe infinite power and potential to that being. By contrast, the idea of multiple universes assumes that they are individually finite and have fundamental limitations, which is in line with empirical experience.

Likewise we could postulate a more realistic and limited creator-god, one which might even be empirical observable, either directly or indirect. The point being that we can only know which features a deity actually has after one has been observed in action.

Given available evidence at least some postulated deities have become increasingly unlikely, but this is not the case of all. Some might have merit if only they where actual observed from time to time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com