Philosophical implications and consequences of the “Universe as a Closed Loop”

by alexeyburov

Video of Mike Albrow and my own talks

Mike presentation

My presentation

After Mike’s and my own talks, there was a lively discussion about metaphysical and ethical considerations associated with the closed-loop universe/multiverse of Mike Albrow, where no infinity is allowed. Below I am trying to reproduce some of the questions and objections I received, followed by my brief answers to them.  As always, everybody is more than welcome to add any question or remark in the comments to this note, to correct my recollections, to make any sort of objection, addition or support.

  1. In my talk, I stated that there are several philosophical ideas implied in physics, namely, the objective reason, underlying the physical world (the laws of nature), the unity of this reason, and our ability to improve our vision of that. Unity of the laws of nature, which are mental entities, implies their singular source, which is what the Transcendental Mind is. On that, Albert Stebbins noted that my claims about the implications are just my own personal vision. I expressed a partial agreement with that—certainly I am expressing what I see; we all have different eyes. However, I disagree that these specific implications are just my personal opinions, or something foreign to science. The philosophy where these implications were explicit, the objective idealism of Plato, was more than shared by all fathers of science (see my talks on the “Faith of the Fundamental Science”). This philosophy gave birth to mathematics and physics, nurturing them through centuries, from Euclid to Galileo, Descartes and Kepler, from Newton to Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg and Dirac.
  2. When I claimed that the very consideration of the entire multiverse, with an attempt to find any reason in that, implies that we are dual creatures, both immanent and transcendent, there was an objection (sorry, I do not remember whose) that our thinking about the universe is entirely a part of the universe, so the concept of “transcendent” is useless. This objection is not correct, since my very attempt to see the laws of the universe sets me outside of it, as a subject who thinks about the object, whose thought is not determined by causalities of the physical world. The laws of nature and random kicks determine us, as immanent creatures. As thinkers, we imply our freedom from all natural necessities for our thought to be sufficiently free from material causality and fully devoted to its search for truth and reason. Thus, we are both immanent (internal to the universe) and transcendent (external to it) beings.