
The Multiverse of 1686 - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/49/the-absurd/the-multiverse-of-1686
======
jcranmer
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.

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

------
dvt
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...](https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/93507/_HANDOUTS/existentialism.pdf)

------
danielam
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.

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

~~~
sctb
Google Cache:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jvoc1Ku...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jvoc1Kua_aQJ:nautil.us/issue/49/the-
absurd/the-multiverse-of-1686+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)

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

~~~
dvt
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.

------
panoptimist

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

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

