You seem to draw the distinction between scientific and metaphysical in a different place than I do. Why is it any more "metaphysical" to notice scientific evidence of multiple universes, than it is to notice scientific evidence of multiple galaxies?
Doesn't really help (actually really doesn't - is counter to) my case, but here's a Pliny the Elder quote from Natural History:
"The world—what we often call the heavens—is an eternal, sacred entity. It is neither created nor capable of destruction, boundless in its form yet finite in its perfection. It encompasses everything, both inside and out, forming a self-contained unity that defies comprehension. To ask what lies beyond it is a question beyond human capacity, for our minds are not equipped to fathom such mysteries. The world itself is nature, and nature is its own creator.
Some have wasted their minds attempting to measure the immeasurable or speculate about the existence of countless other worlds, each with its own suns and moons. But this is folly. Even if we could prove there were multiple worlds, the same question would arise endlessly: what lies beyond them? Nature’s vastness is far easier to comprehend as a single, unified creation, infinite in its capacity yet contained within itself.
It is sheer madness for us, who cannot fully grasp our own existence, to attempt to measure what the universe itself cannot hold. To obsess over what lies beyond this world is as futile as trying to see with eyes that are blind to what is directly before them."
Thanks Scott for the feedback, yeah that’s a missing part. I got the same feedback from my friends. Main flaw is that I write assuming you accept my premises. Going to cook, get back something about 3 times longer.
You seem to draw the distinction between scientific and metaphysical in a different place than I do. Why is it any more "metaphysical" to notice scientific evidence of multiple universes, than it is to notice scientific evidence of multiple galaxies?
If you are over-indexing on the fact that the evidence of multiple universes is not directly sensory but requires some additional steps, see https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/06/building-intuitions-on-non-empirical-arguments-in-science/ and https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/18/more-intuition-building-on-non-empirical-science-three-stories/ for my response.
Doesn't really help (actually really doesn't - is counter to) my case, but here's a Pliny the Elder quote from Natural History:
"The world—what we often call the heavens—is an eternal, sacred entity. It is neither created nor capable of destruction, boundless in its form yet finite in its perfection. It encompasses everything, both inside and out, forming a self-contained unity that defies comprehension. To ask what lies beyond it is a question beyond human capacity, for our minds are not equipped to fathom such mysteries. The world itself is nature, and nature is its own creator.
Some have wasted their minds attempting to measure the immeasurable or speculate about the existence of countless other worlds, each with its own suns and moons. But this is folly. Even if we could prove there were multiple worlds, the same question would arise endlessly: what lies beyond them? Nature’s vastness is far easier to comprehend as a single, unified creation, infinite in its capacity yet contained within itself.
It is sheer madness for us, who cannot fully grasp our own existence, to attempt to measure what the universe itself cannot hold. To obsess over what lies beyond this world is as futile as trying to see with eyes that are blind to what is directly before them."
Thanks Scott for the feedback, yeah that’s a missing part. I got the same feedback from my friends. Main flaw is that I write assuming you accept my premises. Going to cook, get back something about 3 times longer.