Lewis's Plurality of Worlds

Lewis’s Plurality of Worlds

By Eric Hoffmann

                The purpose of this essay is to argue against the position of Professor David Lewis and his theory of a plurality of worlds. Let us begin by stating Lewis’s position. Lewis posits that there is an infinity of possible worlds. These possible worlds are as real as our world. By possible worlds, Lewis does not mean other planets or any other regions in our space-time continuum. All these different worlds have their own space-time continuum, and do not touch or in any way interact with any other possible world; including the world we live in. before examining Lewis’s justification for believing in an infinity of other worlds, let us look at any evidence for this belief. The old saying comes to mind “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”. The only extraordinary fact about Lewis’ evidence for these other worlds is that there is no evidence. Lewis even asserts there is no evidence. This fact that there is no evidence should show us that Lewis’ theory is not scientific. We shall show what discipline Lewis’ theory belongs to later. This seems very curious, because many people take Lewis seriously. We shall examine later the thinking that is involved to take such a theory seriously. In Western Philosophy the definition of concrete objects has been that concrete objects need to be able to act upon other objects and be acted upon by other objects. Lewis worlds definitely fail this test; Lewis asserts that none of these worlds can interact with any other world. One would expect now that Lewis claims some sort of privileged knowledge. That a god or some other spirit has shown him a vision of these other worlds, but again no. Lewis claims no privileged knowledge or visions from the divine. Let us recap the situation Lewis has laid out; he has no experience of any of these worlds, and neither does anyone else, nor can anyone have experience of any of these worlds. So there is no evidence that these worlds exist.

                Lewis’s justification for believing in the reality of an infinity of worlds is that it gives us a way to talk about possibility, necessity, and counter-factuals. That his theory demystifies the above subjects, but does it? One would like to ask if when we imagine one of these worlds, is the world conjured up by our imagining, or do these worlds exist before being imagined. Maybe, when one is playing a computer game such as “World of Warcraft”, they are really having a vision of another actual world. Before moving to our final refutation of Lewis, let us look at what Immanuel Kant has had to say about the limits of logic.  In his transcendental deduction, K ant asserted that logical categories are not in the real world, the noumenal, but are in the minds of the subject. The categoreis which are universal to all subjects create our everyday worlds; the phenenomal world. Data or intuitions the thing in itself, are organized by categories that are innate in the subject (us), create the experience of the world we all share. This is why Kant asserts that logic cannot be used to go beyond experience. The categories are empty without intuitions, so they cannot be used to explore beyond experience. This is why Kant says we cannot prove or disprove issues such as the existence of God, the reality of souls, or if the Cosmos had a beginning or existed from eternity; he calls these antimonies. The can both be proved and disproved using logic, but are not subjects of experience. Therefore, they can never be proven or disproven. Using Kant’s criteria, Lewis’s theory of an infant of World’s is an illegitimate use of logic.

                Let us now move to the final refutation of Lewis theory, and examine why otherwise intelligent people would take such an absurd theory seriously. There is a logical dictum named “Ockam’s Razor” that asserts the simplest theory should be used that explains the facts. Of course, there is nothing simple about Lewis theory, which multiples superfluous entities to infinity to supposedly gain clarity. So our final refutation of Lewis shall consist in a simpler theory that explains the facts without multiplying superfluous entities.

                We think in scenarios. As humans, we have the power of imagination. That is the power to sublate the scenarios. We imagine a scenario without doing the activity. We can also change elements of the scenario to examine if they would turn out differently. An ordinary example would be if someone is cutting an apple with a knife while cutting the apple. If the person cuts her hand during this operation, she can review the activity in her mind by sublating the scenario and changing elements of the scenario; by putting the apple on a table before trying to cut the apple with the knife. Then she can test the scenario by putting the apple on the table and trying to cut the apple. This tells a person whether the imagined scenario actually works or not. This is the origin or possibility and actuality. The imagined scenario is the possibility; the tying out of a scenario in practice tells whether the possible scenario can be actualized or not. Counter-factuals and alternate histories operate the same way. A person imagines a scenario with elements of the scenario changed; the difference is there is no way to actually try the scenario out.

                As can be seen in the above example, there is no need to posit that every scenario we imagine creates or represent another possible world. The possible worlds are nothing but superfluous entities. Now we can move to the more interesting question of why such an absurd theory has been taken seriously by supposedly learned people. Another observation shall help us to answer this question. It is people that are effluent in modal logic that usually are the ones to take the theory seriously. The layman or non-initiate or modal logic seems to have a natural revulsion of Lewis’s theory.

                Lewis’s theory again shows the short comings of the correspondence theory of truth. If one were using the coherence theory of truth, and absurdity such as Lewis’s theory could never arise. Words are seen as symbols or images that trigger feelings in the subject, and nothing more. Take for example the term “necessary.” Necessary is the feeling that one is powerless to alter a series of events. In the correspondence theory of truth, words are viewed as symbols that correspond to objects. In the language of ceremonial magic, words or logical symbols become sigils. Yes, Lewis’s theory is better classed as belonging to ceremonial magic than philosophy. It is quite common for ceremonial magicians to take voyages into other worlds created by their imaginations. To get back to the correspondence theory of truth and words and logical symbols as sigils. When a sigil has been properly charged it is supposed to have power of the object it corresponds with. The most common way to charge a sigil is through an invocation, and do we find an invocation in modal logic? Of course we do. Every translation into modal logic starts with “there is a world.” Let us break down this invocation. There term “there” gives a person a feeling necessity; that is a series of events that cannot be altered. The second part of the invocation is “is a world”. This phrase gives a person the feeling of a geographic place. It must be said that we should congratulate modal logicians in their ability to write efficacious invocations. Lewis’s theory may not have come to be if modal logicians had used the invocation “one can imagine a scenario in which.” Let us not go back to logical symbols as sigils. When the logical symbol has gained the status of sigil, the sigil becomes a nexus of influence that is in contact with objects it corresponds with. The objects can be controlled by manipulating this sigils. The modal logician believes his sigils are in direct correspondence with the objects. So by manipulating the sigil (logical symbol), they can manipulate reality. This is why so many supposedly learned people took Lewis’s plurality of Worlds’ theory seriously.

                David Lewis crossed the line between philosophy and theurgy. If he had realized that he’d crossed the line, he may have become a great occultist; instead, he is cautionary tale about becoming bewitched by his own language.