Some more words on possible worlds

I just checked a triablogue entry on possible worlds and I must say that my views are not resembling the possible worlds they picture there. For instance they talk of a Moses for each possible world and a Jesus for each possible world. I dont believe that. I believe that each universe has their own particular things. Some may not even have any matter in them because of different physical constants. And the other if they have things at all, they cant be humans, because humans are a thing of this universe only. If they have sentient beings that look very much like humans, they will still be the same humans with this universe, even if they call themselves "humans" there. And I dont believe that there is a replica of each of us in other universes.

This kind of view expressed in there is just making a replica of this world, like the other worlds are just off-shoots of this world. this is not what I believe. I believe in totally seperate universes, that have no connection to one another. Different spacetimes. And the things in them aren't the same things, for instance saying "in one of the possible worlds Jesus was resurrected" makes no sense to me. Because there is only one Jesus and he lived here.

What I believe

I believe that there are an infinite number of possible worlds and our world is not special. I can express this view in terms of God talk and I would say that God reviews possible worlds and this is his whole purpose or function. He doesn't have to be a living sentient thing for this to work.

What I believe is not related to quantum multiverse theories, but more like modal realism of Lewis. Or I think it is called Possiblism? I am not sure.

The idea is that if our world exists then it exists because it is a possible world and all the other possible worlds also exist. If our world existed of all possible worlds then we would have to answer the question "why our world alone exists of all possible worlds?" And we would have to admit that God made a preference and picked out our world of all possible worlds. I deny there is such a preference and that our world is any special than any other possible world. And I dont think that God is concerned with our world or with humans or their affairs.

This view is not exactly atheism for I use the God word, but it is obviously not like theism or deism either where there is a personal God and who created our world. I dont believe that our world is created, or that it even exists: it is just a possible idea for God; for he is only reviewing what is possible. He is not making any possible worlds real. So our world is just an idea to God.

So while our world is an idea to God, it is material to us. But I dont deny the existence of mind and I think I believe in Cartesian dualism of body and mind.

I know that presuppositionalists attack atheism by challenging them to account for induction, morality and laws of logic. Here is my own personal view on those there subjects:

I believe that laws of logic are something about the world: because things persist being themselves and their properties also persist being themselves until there is some reason changing them, the world can't have two opposite things about the same thing beint true at the same time. And because we are evolved in this world our brains are hardwired to think this way. This is why there are laws of logic.

About induction, I believe that the usual swan example is silly. Because biologists have a theory they operate within, and they have the concept of "species". When they see a new animal they say it is a member of a species and if it is black then they assuem that the members of that species are black. If there are white of the same species then they change the defintion of that species to include white members too. I dont think scientists use induction.

This is how it is in little children too. They first realize that there are regularities in the world and then they learn to play with the rules of the game. They start organising things (occurings) into regularities, and they guess the nature of a particular regularity through what they observe as instances. If you call that "filling in the definition of a particular regularity" induction that is okay, but the thing is the idea of "the world comes with regularities and laws" precedes any induction, so induction is actually a deduction where the major premise is the expression of the way the world is; namely that it has species (for animals) and regualarities (for physical occurences).

And for morality I think that it is based on respect (Kant), empathy (Schopenhauer) or love (Jesus). Those three will yield in the same sort of moral principles regarding right conduct among people.

Please leave your criticism and comments.