DOCSLIB.ORG

The Structure of the Multiverse David Deutsch

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Structure of the Multiverse David Deutsch The Structure of the Multiverse David Deutsch Centre for Quantum Computation The Clarendon Laboratory University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK April 2001 Keywords: multiverse, parallel universes, quantum information, quantum computation, Heisenberg picture. The structure of the multiverse is determined by information flow. 1. Introduction The idea that quantum theory is a true description of physical reality led Everett (1957) and many subsequent investigators (e.g. DeWitt and Graham 1973, Deutsch 1985, 1997) to explain quantum-mechanical phenomena in terms of the simultaneous existence of parallel universes or histories. Similarly I and others have explained the power of quantum computation in terms of ‘quantum parallelism’ (many classical computations occurring in parallel). However, if reality – which in this context is called the multiverse – is indeed literally quantum-mechanical, then it must have a great deal more structure than merely a collection of entities each resembling the universe of classical physics. For one thing, elements of such a collection would indeed be ‘parallel’: they would have no effect on each other, and would therefore not exhibit quantum interference. For another, a ‘universe’ is a global construct – say, the whole of space and its contents at a given time – but since quantum interactions are local, it must in the first instance be local physical systems, such as qubits, measuring instruments and observers, that are split into multiple copies, and this multiplicity must propagate across the multiverse at subluminal speeds. And for another, the Hilbert space structure of quantum states provides an infinity of ways David Deutsch The Structure of the Multiverse of slicing up the multiverse into ‘universes’, each way corresponding to a choice of basis. This is reminiscent of the infinity of ways in which one can slice (‘foliate’) a spacetime into spacelike hypersurfaces in the general theory of relativity. Given such a foliation, the theory partitions physical quantities into those ‘within’ each of the hypersurfaces and those that relate hypersurfaces to each other. In this paper I shall sketch a somewhat analogous theory for a model of the multiverse. The quantum theory of computation is useful in this investigation because, as we shall see, the structure of the multiverse is determined by information flow, and the universality of computation ensures that by studying quantum computational networks it is possible to obtain results about information flow that must also hold for quantum systems in general. This approach was used by Deutsch and Hayden (2000) to analyse information flow in the presence of entanglement. In that analysis, as in this one, no quantitative definition of information is required; the following two qualitative properties suffice: · Property 1: A physical system S contains information about a parameter b if (though not necessarily only if) the probability of some outcome of some measurement on S alone depends on b. · Property 2: A physical system S contains no information about b if (and for present purposes we need not take a position about ‘only if’) there exists a complete description of S that is independent of b. I shall assume that an entity S qualifies as a ‘physical system’ if (but not necessarily only if) it is possible to store information in S and later to retrieve it. That is to say, it must be possible to cause S to satisfy the condition of Property 1 for containing information about some parameter b. It is implicit in this, and in Properties 1 and 2, that b must be capable of taking more than one possible value, so there must exist some suitable sense in which if S contained different information it would still be the 2 David Deutsch The Structure of the Multiverse same physical system. This condition raises interesting questions about the counter- factual nature of information which it will not be necessary to address here. It is also necessary that S be identifiable as the same system over time. This is particularly straightforward if S is causally autonomous – that is to say, if its evolution depends on nothing outside itself. 2. Classical computers Consider a classical reversible computational network containing N bits B B . A 1K N specification of the values b (t), , b (t) of the bits just after the t’th computational 1 K N step constitutes a complete description of the computational state of the network at that instant. Given the structure of the network (its gates, and how the carriers of the bits move between them), this also determines the computational state just after every other computational step. We are not interested in the network’s state during computational steps, nor in its non-computational degrees of freedom, because we know that the computational degrees of freedom at integer values of t form a causally autonomous system, and it is that system which we shall regard as faithfully modelling, with some finite but arbitrarily high degree of accuracy, the flow of information in a classical system or classical universe. Information flow in the network is local in the sense that if some information is confined to a set of bits C at time t, then at time t + 1 that information is confined to bits that have passed through the same gate as some member of C during the ( t +1) ‘th computational step. In particular, if a network consists of two or more sub- networks that are disconnected for a period, then information cannot flow from one of those sub-networks to another during that period. Where a system S has local dynamics – for instance, if it is a field governed by a differential equation of motion – and we want to draw conclusions about information flow in S by studying networks that model S to some degree of approximation, we must consider only models with 3 David Deutsch The Structure of the Multiverse the property that local regions of S correspond to local (in the above sense) regions of the network. If we were to construct such a network in the laboratory, then each of the 2 N possible bit-sequences b , , b would specify a physically and computationally 1 K N different state of the network. But if reality consisted of such a network, that would not necessarily be so, because there would then be no external labels, such as spatial location, to distinguish one bit from another. So, for instance, if the network consisted of two disjoint sub-networks with identical structures, containing bits B , , B and B , , B respectively, then any two bit-sequences of the form 1 K N 2 N 2+1 K N b , ,b and b , ,b ,b , ,b would refer to the same physical state. The same 1 K N N 2+1 K N 1 K N 2 applies when we are considering a hypothetical network that models information flow in reality as a whole: if the structure of such network is invariant under some permutation P of its bits, then any two bit-sequences that are related by P refer to the same state of reality. Let us refer to a bit-sequence b (t), , b (t) collectively as b(t) (which can be thought 1 K N N- 1 of as the binary number 2 b (t)+ + 2b (t) + b (t) Î Z N ). During each N K 2 1 2 computational step, the values of the bits in the network change according to ( ) ( ) b t +1 = ft(b t ), (1) where each f is some invertible function from Z N to itself, which characterises the t 2 action of all the gates through which the bits pass during the (t+1)’th computational step. 4 David Deutsch The Structure of the Multiverse Fig. 1: History of a classical computation The course of such a computation with initial state b(0) = b is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The parts of the graph in the shaded regions (i.e. during computational steps), and the non-integer values of b, have no significance except to indicate that the motion of a real computer would interpolate smoothly between computational states. 3. Ensembles of classical computers Consider a collection of M classical networks of the kind described in Section 2, all with the same structure in terms of gates, but not necessarily all starting in the same initial state. One way of describing such a collection is as a single network consisting of M disconnected sub-networks. The network has NM bits B B , where B B 1K NM 1K N belong to the ‘first’ sub-network, B B to the ‘second’, and so on. But since the N+ 1K 2N structure of the network is invariant under any permutation of the sub-networks, we must regard any pair of bit-sequences of length NM that are related by such a permutation as referring to physically identical states. In other words, when such sub-networks are in identical states, they are fungible. The term is borrowed from law, where it refers to objects, such as banknotes, that are deemed identical for the purpose of meeting legal obligations. In physics we may define entities as fungible if they are not merely deemed identical but are identical, in the sense that although they can be present in a physical system in varying numbers or amounts, permuting them does not change the physical state of that system. 5 David Deutsch The Structure of the Multiverse Fungibility is not new to physics. Many physical entities, such as amounts of energy, are fungible even in classical physics: one can add a Joule of energy to a physical system, but one cannot later extract the same Joule. In quantum physics some material objects – bosons – are fungible too: it makes sense to ask how many identical photons there are in a cavity, and it makes sense to add one more of the same kind and then to remove one, but it does not make sense to ask whether the photon that has been removed is or is not the photon that was previously added (unless there was exactly one photon of that kind present).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Everettian Probabilities, the Deutsch-Wallace Theorem and the Principal Principle
    Everettian probabilities, the Deutsch-Wallace theorem and the Principal Principle Harvey R. Brown and Gal Ben Porath Chance, when strictly examined, is a mere negative word, and means not any real power which has anywhere a being in nature. David Hume (Hume, 2008) [The Deutsch-Wallace theorem] permits what philosophy would hitherto have regarded as a formal impossibility, akin to deriving an ought from an is, namely deriving a probability statement from a factual statement. This could be called deriving a tends to from a does. David Deutsch (Deutsch, 1999) [The Deutsch-Wallace theorem] is a landmark in decision theory. Nothing comparable has been achieved in any chance theory. [It] is little short of a philosophical sensation . it shows why credences should conform to [quantum chances]. Simon Saunders (Saunders, 'The Everett interpretation: probability' [unpublished manuscript]) Abstract This paper is concerned with the nature of probability in physics, and in quantum mechanics in particular. It starts with a brief discussion of the evolution of Itamar Pitowsky's thinking about probability in quantum theory from 1994 to 2008, and the role of Gleason's 1957 theorem in his derivation of the Born Rule. Pitowsky's defence of probability therein as a logic of partial belief leads us into a broader discussion of probability in physics, in which the existence of objective \chances" is questioned, and the status of David Lewis influential Principal Principle is critically examined. This is followed by a sketch of the work by David Deutsch and David Wallace which resulted in the Deutsch-Wallace (DW) theorem in Everettian quantum mechanics.
    [Show full text]
  • Modelling Insight to Ball Eyes for Higher Dimensional Hyperspace Vision
    Physical Science & Biophysics Journal MEDWIN PUBLISHERS ISSN: 2641-9165 Committed to Create Value for Researchers Modelling Insight to Ball Eyes for Higher Dimensional Hyperspace Vision Shaikh S* Letter to Editor Aditya Institute of Management Studies and Research (AIMSR), India Volume 5 Issue 2 Received Date: July 16, 2021 Sadique Shaikh, Aditya Institute of Management Studies and *Corresponding author: Published Date: July 26, 2021 Research (IMSR), Jalgaon, India, Email: [email protected] DOI: 10.23880/psbj-16000183 Letter to Editor To understand this complicated conceptual idea let Quality vision even some animals, reptiles, birds and insect has good vision as compare to human eyes. To understand me begin first with the definition of VISION and then after toDIMENSIONS create animated (Figure CONSCIOUSNESS 1). The Vision inis theability help to ofacquire Brain “Dimensional-Vision” some depicts as given below. callsurrounding Observable with Life,input Planet,light, shapes, Universe places, and color Multiverse. to brain and Control to enhance, develop and shape planet earth and Equally Vision also important to grow Brain Intelligence term Dimensions as the ability of Eyes to scan surrounding at present observable Universe. Now I would like to define possibleavailable anglesVision and with geometry Left, Right, and Top,provide Bottom, data toReflection, Brain to Rotation, Transformation, Spinning and Diagonal with all universe and multiverse. For our understanding purpose create high definition Consciousness of environment, planet, understand are 3D Three-Dimensional World as X-Axis, we labeled the Dimensions which we (Human) can see and TIME and Brain create 3D consciousness using X, Y and Z Y-Axis and Z-Axis with additional fourth Dimension virtually Figure 1: has ability to see in three dimensions hence very easily can Axis’s Vision Data after input processed.
    [Show full text]
  • Teleportation
    TELEPORTATION ESSAY FOR THE COURSE QUANTUM MECHANICS FOR MATHEMATICIANS ANNE VAN WEERDEN SUPERVISOR DR B.R.U. DHERIN UTRECHT UNIVERSITY JUNE 2010 PREFACE The aim of this essay is to describe the teleportation process in such a way that it will be clear what is done so far, and what is still needed, to develop a teleportation device for humans, which would be my ultimate goal. However much is done already, there are thresholds that still have to be overcome, some of which will need real ingenuity, and others brute computing power, far more than we are now capable of. But I will show why I have confidence that we will reach this goal by describing the astonishing developments in the field of teleportation and the speed with which computing, or technology, evolves. The discovery that teleportation really is possible came about while I was in my thirties, but I was largely unaware of its further developments until I started the research for this essay. Assuming that I am not the only one who did not know, I wrote this essay aimed at people from my age, in their fifties, who, like me, started out without television and computer, I even remember my Mother telling me how she bought a transistor radio for the first time, placed it in a closet and closed the door, just to be amazed that it could still receive signals and play. We saw it all come by, from the first steps on the Moon watched on the television my parents had only bought a few years earlier, I clearly remember asking my Father who, with much foresight, got us out of our beds despite my
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy and Physics of Time Travel: the Possibility of Time Travel
    University of Minnesota Morris Digital Well University of Minnesota Morris Digital Well Honors Capstone Projects Student Scholarship 2017 The Philosophy and Physics of Time Travel: The Possibility of Time Travel Ramitha Rupasinghe University of Minnesota, Morris, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/honors Part of the Philosophy Commons, and the Physics Commons Recommended Citation Rupasinghe, Ramitha, "The Philosophy and Physics of Time Travel: The Possibility of Time Travel" (2017). Honors Capstone Projects. 1. https://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/honors/1 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of Minnesota Morris Digital Well. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of University of Minnesota Morris Digital Well. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Philosophy and Physics of Time Travel: The possibility of time travel Ramitha Rupasinghe IS 4994H - Honors Capstone Project Defense Panel – Pieranna Garavaso, Michael Korth, James Togeas University of Minnesota, Morris Spring 2017 1. Introduction Time is mysterious. Philosophers and scientists have pondered the question of what time might be for centuries and yet till this day, we don’t know what it is. Everyone talks about time, in fact, it’s the most common noun per the Oxford Dictionary. It’s in everything from history to music to culture. Despite time’s mysterious nature there are a lot of things that we can discuss in a logical manner. Time travel on the other hand is even more mysterious.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    THE BEGINNING OF INFINITY: EXPLANATIONS THAT TRANSFORM THE WORLD PDF, EPUB, EBOOK David Deutsch | 487 pages | 29 May 2012 | Penguin Putnam Inc | 9780143121350 | English | New York, NY, United States The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World PDF Book Every argument includes premises in support of a conclusion, but the premises themselves are left unargued. Nov 12, Gary rated it it was amazing Shelves: science. In other words we must have some form of evidence, and it must be coherent with our other beliefs. Nov 12, Gary rated it it was amazing Shelves: science. I can't say why exactly. It seems more to the point to think of it as something emotive — as the expression of a mood. This will lead to the development of explanatory theories variation , which can then be criticized and tested selection. Accuracy and precision are important standards in our evaluation of explanations; standards that are absent in bad explanations. Every argument includes premises in support of a conclusion, but the premises themselves are left unargued. Deutsch starts with explanations being the basis for knowledge, and builds up basic, hard-to-argue-with principles into convincing monoliths that smash some conventional interpretations of knowledge, science and philosophy to tiny pieces. His reliance on Popper is problematic. I will be re-reading them again until it really sinks in. Evolution, in contrast, represents a good explanation because it not only fits the evidence but the details are hard to vary. Barefoot Season Susan Mallery. But the "Occam's Razor" described by the author is not the one practiced in reality.
    [Show full text]
  • Many Worlds Model Resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox Via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition That Preserves Einstein Locality
    Many Worlds Model resolving the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox via a Direct Realism to Modal Realism Transition that preserves Einstein Locality Sascha Vongehr †,†† †Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University †† National Laboratory of Solid-State Microstructures, Thin-film and Nano-metals Laboratory, Nanjing University Hankou Lu 22, Nanjing 210093, P. R. China The violation of Bell inequalities by quantum physical experiments disproves all relativistic micro causal, classically real models, short Local Realistic Models (LRM). Non-locality, the infamous “spooky interaction at a distance” (A. Einstein), is already sufficiently ‘unreal’ to motivate modifying the “realistic” in “local realistic”. This has led to many worlds and finally many minds interpretations. We introduce a simple many world model that resolves the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. The model starts out as a classical LRM, thus clarifying that the many worlds concept alone does not imply quantum physics. Some of the desired ‘non-locality’, e.g. anti-correlation at equal measurement angles, is already present, but Bell’s inequality can of course not be violated. A single and natural step turns this LRM into a quantum model predicting the correct probabilities. Intriguingly, the crucial step does obviously not modify locality but instead reality: What before could have still been a direct realism turns into modal realism. This supports the trend away from the focus on non-locality in quantum mechanics towards a mature structural realism that preserves micro causality. Keywords: Many Worlds Interpretation; Many Minds Interpretation; Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox; Everett Relativity; Modal Realism; Non-Locality PACS: 03.65. Ud 1 1 Introduction: Quantum Physics and Different Realisms ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Creativity and Untidiness
    Search Creativity and Untidiness Submitted by Sarah Fitz-Claridge on 13 September, 2003 - 22:59 A Taking Children Seriously interview from TCS 21 by Sarah Fitz-Claridge (http://www.fitz-claridge.com/) Many TCS readers will know David Deutsch for his contributions to Taking Children Seriously and to the TCS List on the Internet, and perhaps as co-author of Home Education and the Law. Some will also know that he is a theoretical physicist who has, among other things, pioneered the new field of quantum computation. There is a major article about his work in the October 1995 Discover magazine (the issue was devoted to “Seven Ideas that could Change the World”). He is often quoted in the media and regularly makes appearances on television and radio programmes. You may have seen his programme on the physics of time travel in BBC 2's Antenna series. Recently, David was featured in the Channel 4 science documentary series, Reality on the Rocks, in which the actor, Ken Campbell, asked leading scientists about the nature of reality. Those who saw Reality on the Rocks may have caught a glimpse of David's extraordinarily untidy study, at his home in Oxford. Ken Campbell was so struck by its untidiness that he talks about it in his one-man show, Mystery Bruises. He relates the story of the Japanese film crew who, upon asking to tidy up David's home before filming there, were told that they could do so, on condition that they returned everything – every piece of paper, every book, every computer disk – to the exact position where it had been on the floor or wherever, and how they did just that! I put it to David that some might be surprised that someone so untidy could be so successful.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scientific Metaphysical Naturalisation of Information
    1 A Scientific Metaphysical Naturalisation of Information With a indication-based semantic theory of information and an informationist statement of physicalism. Bruce Long A thesis submitted to fulfil requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences The University of Sydney February 2018 2 Abstract The objective of this thesis is to present a naturalised metaphysics of information, or to naturalise information, by way of deploying a scientific metaphysics according to which contingency is privileged and a-priori conceptual analysis is excluded (or at least greatly diminished) in favour of contingent and defeasible metaphysics. The ontology of information is established according to the premises and mandate of the scientific metaphysics by inference to the best explanation, and in accordance with the idea that the primacy of physics constraint accommodates defeasibility of theorising in physics. This metaphysical approach is used to establish a field ontology as a basis for an informational structural realism. This is in turn, in combination with information theory and specifically mathematical and algorithmic theories of information, becomes the foundation of what will be called a source ontology, according to which the world is the totality of information sources. Information sources are to be understood as causally induced configurations of structure that are, or else reduce to and/or supervene upon, bounded (including distributed and non-contiguous) regions of the heterogeneous quantum field (all quantum fields combined) and fluctuating vacuum, all in accordance with the above-mentioned quantum field-ontic informational structural realism (FOSIR.) Arguments are presented for realism, physicalism, and reductionism about information on the basis of the stated contingent scientific metaphysics.
    [Show full text]
  • Many Worlds? an Introduction Simon Saunders
    Many Worlds? An Introduction Simon Saunders Introduction to Many Worlds? Everett, quantum theory, and reality, S. Saun- ders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, D. Wallace (eds.), Oxford University Press (2010). This problem of getting the interpretation proved to be rather more difficult than just working out the equation. P.A.M. Dirac Ask not if quantum mechanics is true, ask rather what the theory implies. What does realism about the quantum state imply? What follows then, when quantum theory is applied without restriction, if need be to the whole universe? This is the question this book addresses. The answers vary widely. Ac- cording to one view, `what follows' is a detailed and realistic picture of reality that provides a unified description of micro- and macroworlds. But according to another, the result is nonsense { there is no physically meaningful theory at all, or not in the sense of a realist theory, a theory supposed to give an intel- ligible picture of a reality existing independently of our thoughts and beliefs. According to the latter view, the formalism of quantum mechanics, if applied unrestrictedly, is at best a fragment of such a theory, in need of substantive additional assumptions and equations. So sharp a division about what appears to be a reasonably well-defined question is all the more striking given how much agreement there is otherwise. For all parties to the debate in this book are agreed on realism, and on the need, or the aspiration, for a theory that unites micro- and macroworlds. They all see it as legitimate { obligatory even { to ask whether the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics, principally the Schr¨odingerequation, already constitute such a system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parallel Universe Theory
    Jasmine Thomson The Parallel Universe Theory The Parallel Universe theory has been expanded on by lots of scientists over many years. There are many different theories related to it. The ones that I am going to cover in this essay are the multiverse, the many interacting worlds theory and the bubble universe. The bubble universe and the many interacting worlds theory are both slight deviations from the multiverse theory with their own twist. The multiverse theory is the idea that there is more than just our universe in the cosmos; there are lots of separate universes all that do their own things but on the grand scale of things our universe isn’t really significant (Ellis, 2011). The multiverse theory is levels one to four, all are slightly different. Level one of the multiverse theory states that everything that is possible e.g. “configurations of particles” will have happened in one universe or another because the multiverse is “virtually infinite”. By using this theory that means that somewhere out their planets like earth must exist but because they are so far away we may never be able to find them. The reason that we are unable to see these other universes is due to the extent of our cosmic vision and because this has a limit called the speed of light we are unable to see it. (Zimmerman-Jones & Robbins, n.d.) Level two is very similar to level one except that it uses the eternal inflation theory or the expansion theory. The expansion theory has evidence that supports it, known as red shift.
    [Show full text]
  • Demolishing Prejudices to Get to the Foundations: a Criterion of Demarcation for Fundamentality
    Demolishing prejudices to get to the foundations: a criterion of demarcation for fundamentality Flavio Del Santo1;2;3 and Chiara Cardelli1;2 1Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, Vienna A-1090, Austria 2Vienna Doctorate School of Physics (VDS) 3Basic Research Community for Physics (BRCP) Abstract In this paper, we reject commonly accepted views on fundamentality in science, either based on bottom-up construction or top-down reduction to isolate the alleged fundamental entities. We do not introduce any new scientific methodology, but rather describe the current scientific methodology and show how it entails an inherent search for foundations of science. This is achieved by phrasing (minimal sets of) metaphysical assumptions into falsifiable statements and define as fundamental those that survive empirical tests. The ones that are falsified are rejected, and the corresponding philosophical concept is demolished as a prejudice. Furthermore, we show the application of this criterion in concrete examples of the search for fundamentality in quantum physics and biophysics. 1 Introduction Scientific communities seem to agree, to some extent, on the fact that certain theories are more funda- mental than others, along with the physical entities that the theories entail (such as elementary particles, strings, etc.). But what do scientists mean by fundamental? This paper aims at clarifying this question in the face of a by now common scientific practice. We propose a criterion of demarcation for fundamen- tality based on (i) the formulation of metaphysical assumptions in terms of falsifiable statements, (ii) the empirical implementation of crucial experiments to test these statements, and (iii) the rejection of such assumptions in the case they are falsified.
    [Show full text]
  • AGAINST MULTIVERSE THEODICIES Bradley Monton
    Monton, B — Against Multiverse 1 5/7/2011 1:20 PM (1st Proof) VOL. 13, NO. 2 FALL-WINTER 2010 AGAINST MULTIVERSE THEODICIES Bradley Monton Abstract: In reply to the problem of evil, some suggest that God created an infinite number of universes—for example, that God created every uni- verse that contains more good than evil. I offer two objections to these mul- tiverse theodicies. First, I argue that, for any number of universes God cre- ates, he could have created more, because he could have created duplicates of universes. Next, I argue that multiverse theodicies can’t adequately account for why God would create universes with pointless suffering, and hence they don’t solve the problem of evil. 1. INTRODUCTION This article takes issue with a purported solution to two standard arguments against the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being (a being which I’ll call “God” for short). The first standard argument is the problem of evil: the fact that undeserving bad things happen to morally sig- nificant creatures is incompatible with, or at least provides strong evidence against, the existence of God. The second standard argument is the problem of no best world. To see how this argument works, assume for reductio that God exists. For every world that God could actualize, God could have actualized a better world, since for any world there is, one could make it better by adding more good- ness to the world. Hence, no matter what world God does actualize, he could have actualized a better one. It follows that God’s goodness is surpassable, but that is incompatible with God’s omnibenevolence, and hence there is no God.
    [Show full text]