Mathematician and multiverse skeptic on Perimeter conference

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 23, 2015

Cosmology, Multiverse, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Further to The multiverse: Hi, Nonsense, meet Budget (This Perimeter Institute conference could be a party’s over signal; time to sweep up the streamers and bust balloons, and get back to evidence-based science):

Columbia mathematician Peter Woit is following the proceedings and notes,

You can follow a lot of what is going on at this conference on Twitter, here. For example, I was glad to hear about this comment from Dimopoulos

There is no difference that we know right now … between the story of divine intervention and the multiverse.

It’s great to see a conference on fundamental physics where the multiverse is coming in for some appropriate skepticism.

Nonsense, meet Prayer Beads. He has a wonderful plan for your life.

Update: One thing to say about the multiverse, it does provide an excuse for an endless number of popular articles mulling it over. Just today, there’s Caleb Scharf and George Johnson.

Oh dear. It seems Nonsense had to run off to an interview with two pop sci news sections and three pop sci mags, and was not able to discuss matters with either Budget or Prayer Beads.

That’s conferences for ya.

See also: Multiverse cosmology at your fingertips

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Thanks ppolish, here is a video by that name: Jim Warner Wallace - God's Crime Scene - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9zEqyi1c7Qbornagain77_{June 25, 2015
June
06
Jun
25
25
2015
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT}

OT...for those of you (like me) who enjoyed Wallace's "Cold Case Christianity", you may want to put his next book on your "to read" list: http://godscrimescene.com Looks like he will make a strong case for God being "guilty" of creating the Universe. Not a case of accidental or natural creation. Lots of ID facts will be entered into evidence no doubt.ppolish_{June 25, 2015
June
06
Jun
25
25
2015
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Re your #10, BA77, Cantor's obsession seem to have been a form of narcissistic idolatry - putting personal ambition for fame and greatness in the eyes of the world before everything else; most harmfully before any consideration of God's providential purposes with regard to himself. A soupcon of Job's holy resignation would have served him better, as it would all of us, I'm sure. I suspect it has happened to more than a few very gifted people. Despite Einstein's keen desire to discover a unified field theory, he always seemed to have a spiritual hinterland, which gave breadth and depth to his character, and seems to have been expressed in his intellectual self-confidence; a self-confidence that did not prevent his expressing admiration for rival scientists, and thereby a magnanimity of character, despite his failures as a family man. He expressed some interest in matters outside science, such as politics (Socialism), and the very nature of knowledge; seemingly, not knowledge qua book-learning of epistemology, but simple, personal reflection. How many scientists could point at a drawer in their table in their workplace (outside of Academia) and say with a large measure of truth that that was their Research Department! I get the impression that towards the end of his life, he did feel rather bitter at the intellectual sterility of his later years, but was never self-obsessed in that regard, famously remarking that he only continued to go to work for the pleasure of his conversations with Godel on their way home. I believe Godel did state his Christian belief, but I wonder if he'd used his status to witness to it more fearlessly, i.e. if his faith had been stronger, beyond holding it as a seemingly largely intellectual concept, he might have avoided the paranoia that afflicted him.Axel_{June 25, 2015
June
06
Jun
25
25
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

Somewhere in the Multiverse, 1 + 1 = 3, And somewhere else in the Multiverse, Dog Years = 5. In another Universe, Evolution is guided. Oh wait, that's here:)ppolish_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Hmm. Some quotes by physicists (edit: and AiG's resident mathematician!), but nothing relating to whether Gödel's theorem implies that it's impossible to prove 1 + 1 = 2. I'm satisfied to leave it there as well.daveS_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

One last time, daveS claims There are many proofs, depending on what you start with. Therein lies the catch, i.e. 'depending on what you start with Godel and Physics - John D. Barrow Excerpt (page 5-6): "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49 http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612253.pdf Even Hawking himself at one time admitted, and apparently subsequently forgot, that there cannot be a 'complete' mathematical theory of everything, The nature and significance of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems - Princeton - 2006 Excerpt: ,,Stephen Hawking and Freeman Dyson, among others, have come to the conclusion that Gödel’s theorem implies that there can’t be a (mathematical) Theory of Everything.,, http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/Godel-IAS.pdf Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity ... all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency ... no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness ... all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation# i.e. 'depending on what you start with' does not get you off the hook with incompleteness. Now that is absolutely the last word. I really do have much better things to do today than watch daveS chase his tail in a circle. The last word is all yours.bornagain77_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

BA77,
That is the wrong answer daveS. The correct answer, via Godel's incompleteness, is that you can’t prove that 1+1=2!
What?? I think you've misinterpreted Gödel's theorem. There are many proofs, depending on what you start with. See Russell and Whitehead, for a famous example, about 2/3 of the way down the page.
Moreover, you say my claim about mathematical intuition is unfalsifiable.
No, I said your claim that one infinity is superior to another is unfalsifiable, because it's nonsensical. How can anyone falsify it, when you haven't even defined what you mean by "superior" in this context?daveS_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

ppolish, I also was enchanted by eastern mysticism UNTIL I learned about their horrific NDE's: : All foreign, non-Judeo-Christian culture, NDE studies I have looked at have a extreme rarity of encounters with 'The Being Of Light' and tend to be very unpleasant NDE's save for the few pleasant children's NDEs of those cultures that I've seen (It seems there is indeed an 'age of accountability'). The following study was shocking for what was found in some non-Judeo-Christian NDE's: Near-Death Experiences in Thailand - Todd Murphy: Excerpt:The Light seems to be absent in Thai NDEs. So is the profound positive affect found in so many Western NDEs. The most common affect in our collection is negative. Unlike the negative affect in so many Western NDEs (cf. Greyson & Bush, 1992), that found in Thai NDEs (in all but case #11) has two recognizable causes. The first is fear of 'going'. The second is horror and fear of hell. It is worth noting that although half of our collection include seeing hell (cases 2,6,7,9,10) and being forced to witness horrific tortures, not one includes the NDEer having been subjected to these torments themselves. http://www.shaktitechnology.com/thaindes.htm Near Death Experience Thailand Asia - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8M5J3zWG5g Needless to say, the enchantment I once had for eastern mysticism is now gone! I'll stick to my Christian roots thank you very much, As to humbleness being found in Christianity,,, What is that whole Sermon on the Mount thing ppolish?bornagain77_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

daveS, when asked to 'mathematically prove that one + one = two without you yourself using your God given mathematical intuition to do so?' You stated that "I don’t know.,,," That is the wrong answer daveS. The correct answer, via Godel's incompleteness, is that you can't prove that 1+1=2! Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video https://vimeo.com/92387853 Moreover, you say my claim about mathematical intuition is unfalsifiable. Yet, I provided the way in which you, a atheistic naturalist, can 'easily' falsify the claim:
The mathematical world – James Franklin – 7 April 2014 Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,, James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/
Of note: Although neo-Darwinism has no rigid mathematical basis that will allow a straight up falsification by experiment, neo-Darwinism has, none-the-less, since it assumes reductive materialism as true, been falsified experimentally by the finding of non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement/information in molecular biology. Also of note. Since I can see that daveS is determined to, as he always does, chase his atheistic tail/tale in a circle, I will refrain from engaging him on this thread any further. I have much better things to do today. Verse: 2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.bornagain77_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

"I hold ‘growing large without measure’ to be a lesser quality infinity than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero." BA77, that may also be the foundation of Eastern Meditative practices? The more one can clear "their" mind (lower the denominator), the closer to God one becomesppolish_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

BA77,
Besides the clip I listed from Dr. Craig which you took exception to, I intuitively know it to be a 'higher quality infinity' because no effort by man, no matter how great, could/can ever bridge the infinite chasm that separated(s) sinful man from Almighty God, but Christ, when He emptied Himself on the Cross, (Philippians 2: 6-9,) was able to bridge that infinite chasm that separated(s) sinful man from Almighty God through his death and resurrection.
What does this have to do with the infinities obtained by "growing with out measure" vs. letting the denominator go to zero? I'm not taking exception to WLC's video, incidentally.
You may object to my use of my mathematical intuition to prove the point of the superiority of one type of infinity over another type of infinity, but can you mathematically prove that one + one = two without you yourself using your God given mathematical intuition to do so?
I don't know. I'm still trying to understand the difference between the two infinities that you have presented, and how one is superior to another. Here's what I find ironic: You say Darwinism is unfalsifiable in part because it doesn't have a rigid mathematical basis (no need to repost the links, I've seen them). Yet you post these strange claims about one infinity being "superior" to another, which are themselves meaningless, and therefore unfalsifiable. It's the mathematical equivalent of "colorless green ideas sleep furiously". Why don't you hold yourself to the same standards that you hold Darwinists to?daveS_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Proof??? The Proof is that Death has Died and Love has Won! Hallelujah!!!
Mercy Tree - Lacey Sturm - Lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07lDxRvaoI4
Besides the clip I listed from Dr. Craig which you took exception to, I intuitively know it to be a 'higher quality infinity' because no effort by man, no matter how great, could/can ever bridge the infinite chasm that separated(s) sinful man from Almighty God, but Christ, when He emptied Himself on the Cross, (Philippians 2: 6-9,) was able to bridge that infinite chasm that separated(s) sinful man from Almighty God through his death and resurrection.
Shroud Of Turin - Photographic Negative - 3D Hologram - The Lamb - video https://vimeo.com/122495080
You may object to my use of my mathematical intuition to prove the point of the superiority of one type of infinity over another type of infinity, but can you mathematically prove that one + one = two without you yourself using your God given mathematical intuition to do so?
Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video https://vimeo.com/92387853 "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine" Kurt Gödel The mathematical world - James Franklin - 7 April 2014 Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,, James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/
Verse:
2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
bornagain77_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

BA77,
Of note: I hold 'growing large without measure' to be a lesser quality infinity than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The main principle for why I hold growing large without measure to be a ‘lesser quality infinity’ is stated at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video:
What precisely do you mean by "lesser quality infinity"? Do you mean one is smaller than the other? Can you prove this? Regarding the WLC argument, Just as x + 1 is finite for all natural numbers x, 1/y is also finite for all 0 < y < x. I don't see that WLC's point allows you to make a distinction between the two. You're invited to prove me wrong, however.daveS_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – Michio Kaku - The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It ? - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfrvTbsRWHs
Dr. William Dembski offers insight into the 'unification' of the infinite and the finite:
The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
Of note: I hold 'growing large without measure' to be a lesser quality infinity than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The main principle for why I hold growing large without measure to be a 'lesser quality infinity' is stated at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video:
Can A "Beginning-less Universe" Exist? - William Lane Craig – video ,,"the impossiblity of forming an actually infinite number of things by adding one member after another.,,, 1. A collection formed by adding one member to another cannot be actually infinite,,," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8YN0fwo5J4
And if we allow the possibility that God can 'play the role of a person', as even Kurt Gödel himself allowed,,,
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
If we allow that possibility, then a empirically back reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity readily pops out for us:
The Center Of The Universe Is Life (i.e. Jesus Christ) - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values - Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio - 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the 'quantum' is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 Particle Radiation from the Body - July 2012 - M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. http://www.academicjournals.org/sre/PDF/pdf2012/30JulSpeIss/Antonacci.pdf
Verses and Music:
Philippians 2: 6-9 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, Romans 11:36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. Lacey Sturm - Mercy Tree - Lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07lDxRvaoI4
Supplemental note: Infinity also appears here
"By special relativity, the energy needed to accelerate a particle (with mass) grow super-quadratically when the speed is close to c, and is infinite when it is c. Since you can't supply infinite energy to the particle, it is not possible to get (a particle with mass) to 100% c (to the speed of light)." http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches-that-of-light/1696#1696
bornagain77_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

Moreover, a photon, whilst in its quantum wave state, can theoretically be encoded with an infinite amount of information:
Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 “By its conventional definition, a photon is one unit of excitation of a mode of the electromagnetic field. The modes of the electromagnetic field constitute a countably infinite set of basis functions, and in this sense the amount of information that can be impressed onto an individual photon is unlimited.” Robert W. Boyd – The Enabling Technology for Quantum Information Science 2013 - University of Rochester, Rochester, NY - lead researcher of the experiment which encoded information in a photon in 2010 http://www.bostonphotonics.org/workshops/quantumoptics14/workshopseminar.aspx?seminar=202
Robert W. Boyd succeeded in encoding an entire image worth of information onto a single photon whilst it was in its quantum wave state
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.,,, As a wave, it passed through all parts of the stencil at once,,, http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html
Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon?
John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
To go on with infinity: Feynman tried to 'brush infinity under the rug':
THE INFINITY PUZZLE: Quantum Field Theory and the Hunt for an Orderly Universe Excerpt: In quantum electrodynamics, which applies quantum mechanics to the electromagnetic field and its interactions with matter, the equations led to infinite results for the self-energy or mass of the electron. After nearly two decades of effort, this problem was solved after World War II by a procedure called renormalization, in which the infinities are rolled up into the electron’s observed mass and charge, and are thereafter conveniently ignored. Richard Feynman, who shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga for this breakthrough, referred to this sleight of hand as “brushing infinity under the rug.” http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/tackling-infinity
Feynman rightly expresses his unease with “brushing infinity under the rug” here:
“It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:
John1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic
Max Tegmark, Dr. Multiverse himself, wants to get rid of infinity since infinity, at least the way he uses infinity as a source for 'random miracles', (Bruce Gordon post 1), predicts everything and therefore predicts nothing:
WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity - Max Tegmark - January 2014 and Feb. 2015 Excerpt: Physics is all about predicting the future from the past, but inflation seems to sabotage this: when we try to predict the probability that something particular will happen, inflation always gives the same useless answer: infinity divided by infinity. The problem is that whatever experiment you make, inflation predicts that there will be infinitely many copies of you far away in our infinite space, obtaining each physically possible outcome, and despite years of tooth-grinding in the cosmology community, no consensus has emerged on how to extract sensible answers from these infinities. So strictly speaking, we physicists are no longer able to predict anything at all! This means that today’s best theories similarly need a major shakeup, by retiring an incorrect assumption. Which one? Here’s my prime suspect: infinity. MAX TEGMARK – Physicist http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/02/20/infinity-ruining-physics/#.VOsRyS7cBCA
Actually, contrary to what Tegmark may prefer to believe, the incorrect ‘assumption' that needs to be retired from science is his atheistic philosophy of materialism since it is that philosophy that postulates infinite randomness as a foundational presupposition. To continue on. The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity conflict that crops up in different places of each theory:
THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm
bornagain77_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

A few notes on infinity. In the following video, it is held that Georg Cantor was eventually driven insane trying to mathematically 'tame infinity'.
Dangerous Knowledge - BBC video Excerpt of Description: The film begins with Georg Cantor, the great mathematician whose work proved to be the foundation for much of the 20th-century mathematics. He believed he was God's messenger and was eventually driven insane trying to prove his theories of infinity. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dangerous-knowledge/ Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity – video https://vimeo.com/96082227
Subsequently, apparently through the work that Georg Cantor had started trying to mathematically 'tame infinity', Kurt Gödel was later able to formulate the incompleteness theorem: Kurt Gödel's part in bringing the incompleteness theorem to fruition can be picked up here:
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem – video https://vimeo.com/92387853 THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
Moreover, Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem is intimately connected to No Free Lunch Theorems and to Dembski and Marks's Law Of Conservation Of Information:
Conservation of information, evolution, etc - Sept. 30, 2014 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel’s logical objection to Darwinian evolution: "The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation]." As quoted in H. Wang. “On `computabilism’ and physicalism: Some Problems.” in Nature’s Imagination, J. Cornwall, Ed, pp.161-189, Oxford University Press (1995). Gödel’s argument is that if evolution is unfolding from an initial state by mathematical laws of physics, it cannot generate any information not inherent from the start – and in his view, neither the primaeval environment nor the laws are information-rich enough.,,, More recently this led him (Dembski) to postulate a Law of Conservation of Information, or actually to consolidate the idea, first put forward by Nobel-prizewinner Peter Medawar in the 1980s. Medawar had shown, as others before him, that in mathematical and computational operations, no new information can be created, but new findings are always implicit in the original starting points – laws and axioms. http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/09/30/conservation-of-information-evolution-etc/ Evolutionary Computing: The Invisible Hand of Intelligence - June 17, 2015 Excerpt: William Dembski and Robert Marks have shown that no evolutionary algorithm is superior to blind search -- unless information is added from an intelligent cause, which means it is not, in the Darwinian sense, an evolutionary algorithm after all. This mathematically proven law, based on the accepted No Free Lunch Theorems, seems to be lost on the champions of evolutionary computing. Researchers keep confusing an evolutionary algorithm (a form of artificial selection) with "natural evolution." ,,, Marks and Dembski account for the invisible hand required in evolutionary computing. The Lab's website states, "The principal theme of the lab's research is teasing apart the respective roles of internally generated and externally applied information in the performance of evolutionary systems." So yes, systems can evolve, but when they appear to solve a problem (such as generating complex specified information or reaching a sufficiently narrow predefined target), intelligence can be shown to be active. Any internally generated information is conserved or degraded by the law of Conservation of Information.,,, What Marks and Dembski prove is as scientifically valid and relevant as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics. You can't prove a system of mathematics from within the system, and you can't derive an information-rich pattern from within the pattern.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/06/evolutionary_co_1096931.html
A few more notes on infinity: Interestingly, the quantum wave state is mathematically described as infinite dimensional:
Wave function Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) — Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
bornagain77_{June 24, 2015
June
06
Jun
24
24
2015
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Ok, I guess you win.daveS_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Talk to the hand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8Fyf4R-nzIbornagain77_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

BA77,
daveS, you seem to think that I should respect your opinion on matters. Your mistaken in your assumption. I don't. Whereas, since Dr. Sheldon called the BICEP gravitational wave findings bogus immediately when they came out (gave it a 1 in 10^60 probability of being correct), whereas others belittled him harshly as an IDiot for doing so, I respect his opinion since he was vindicated.
I don't doubt that Dr Sheldon is an accomplished physicist. It's his mathematics in that essay that I take issue with. It contains several obvious, elementary errors, one of which nullifies his entire thesis (see the 2nd to last paragraph, 3rd sentence). You don't have to respect my opinion---if you're at all interested in disseminating accurate information, just ask anyone with the slightest background in mathematics what they think of that essay.daveS_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

daveS, you seem to think that I should respect your opinion on matters. Your mistaken in your assumption. I don't. Whereas, since Dr. Sheldon called the BICEP gravitational wave findings bogus immediately when they came out (gave it a 1 in 10^60 probability of being correct), whereas others belittled him harshly as an IDiot for doing so, I respect his opinion since he was vindicated. i.e. He has earned my respect in these matters whereas you have lost it a few months ago for what I perceive to be a inherent dishonesty towards the evidence. That's just the way it works in my book. I thought I let you know what I thought of your lack of integrity already!.
Bang for the Buck: What the BICEP2 Consortium's Discovery Means Rob Sheldon March 19, 2014 Excerpt: Isn't this the very model of propriety in science -- careful measurement, skeptical modeling, confirmatory measurements, cautious publication? Why then do I give this paper a 1 in 10^60 chance of being correct?,,, --------------- In plain talk, they just said they guessed as to what the dust effect would be and then found a 2.2-sigma signal above that assumed noise. That means if the dust were to be, oh, three times as bright as they expected, their signal would disappear. From my own contacts in the astrophysics field, I know that magnetized dust is even more polarizing than regular dust, which for them is an unknown unknown. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/bang_for_the_bu083451.html
bornagain77_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

PS to #4: Here's an archived version. Warning: Click that link at your own risk. BA77, you might want to remove this particular essay from your set of links. It's reeeally bad.daveS_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

BA77,
Infinitely wrong – Dr. Sheldon – November 2010 Excerpt: So you see, they gleefully cry, even [1 / 10^(10^123)] x infinity = 1! Even the most improbable events can be certain if you have an infinite number of tries.,,,Ahh, but does it? I mean, zero divided by zero is not one, nor is 1/infinity x infinity = 1. Why? Well for starters, it assumes that the two infinities have the same cardinality. http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/infinitely-wrong/
Do you have an updated link to that essay? That website is no longer active. It looks very ... interesting. I'd especially like to see where he came up with [1 / 10^(10^123)] x infinity = 1. You'll recall his tease for that post from UD in 2010:
Georg Cantor, of course, couldn’t stop thinking about it and was driven mad. But before he went into the sanatorium, he produced a most remarkable result about sizes of infinity. Some infinities are bigger than others. For example, take the number line from 1 to infinity. It’s infinite of course. But now divide every number by the largest number on the line, and we have mapped the entire number line into the fractions between 0 and 1. So the rational numbers contain the entire integer number line between 0 and 1, and the rational numbers go up to infinity too. Then the rational numbers are at least infinity^2 bigger. (Yup, I’m being sloppy, because Cantor also showed how to map x^2 -> x, so instead of calling it infinity^2, he called it aleph-null cardinality where integers and rational numbers have the same size infinity.)
Yeah, that's a bit sloppy to be sure. Edit: Minor edits to the above quote since some characters got mangled.daveS_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Sean Carrol compares Multiverse to Australia: https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/613043720795992066 Crikey.ppolish_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

"There is no difference that we know right now … between the story of divine intervention and the multiverse." I beg to differ. Divine Intervention rules, Multiverse drools. No comparision. Divine Intervention can create a Multiverse by definition. "Oh, but a Multiverse can create Divine Intervention". Well, Divine Intervention came first. More eternal than eternal Multiverse. Outside eternal.ppolish_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

as to:
"There is no difference that we know right now … between the story of divine intervention and the multiverse."
Actually there is, according to Bruce Gordon and others, a huge difference between divine intervention and the multiverse.
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027
Here is the last power-point slide of the preceding video:
The End Of Materialism? * In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all. * In other words, the materialist is forced to believe in random miracles as a explanatory principle. * In a Theistic universe, nothing happens without a reason. Miracles are therefore intelligently directed deviations from divinely maintained regularities, and are thus expressions of rational purpose. * Scientific materialism is (therefore) epistemically self defeating: it makes scientific rationality impossible. BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Nowhere is this destructive consequence more evident than in the machinations of multiverse cosmology to “explain” cosmological fine-tuning. Cosmic inflation is invoked to “explain” why our universe is so flat and its background radiation so uniform. All possible solutions of string theory are invoked to “explain” the incredible fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. But the evidence for cosmic inflation is both thin and equivocal; the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Multiverse and the Design Argument - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument The Fine Tuning of the Universe - drcraigvideos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA Infinity and Beyond: The Ultimate Test - Nov. 2014 Excerpt: If modern physics is to be believed, we shouldn’t be here. The meager dose of energy infusing empty space, which at higher levels would rip the cosmos apart, is a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times tinier than theory predicts. And the minuscule mass of the Higgs boson, whose relative smallness allows big structures such as galaxies and humans to form, falls roughly 100 quadrillion times short of expectations. Dialing up either of these constants even a little would render the universe unlivable.,,, “The multiverse idea is baroque, unnatural, untestable and, in the end, dangerous to science and society.” Paul Steinhardt - originally worked on eternal inflation theory, but has now repudiated it as 'unscientific' http://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-in-a-multiverse-what-are-the-odds/ Infinitely wrong - Dr. Sheldon - November 2010 Excerpt: So you see, they gleefully cry, even [1 / 10^(10^123)] x infinity = 1! Even the most improbable events can be certain if you have an infinite number of tries.,,,Ahh, but does it? I mean, zero divided by zero is not one, nor is 1/infinity x infinity = 1. Why? Well for starters, it assumes that the two infinities have the same cardinality. http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/infinitely-wrong/ The Multiverse Gods, final part - Robert Sheldon - June 2011 Excerpt: And so in our long journey through the purgatory of multiverse-theory, we discover as we previously discovered for materialism, there are two solutions, and only two. Either William Lane Craig is correct and multiverse-theory is just another ontological proof a personal Creator, or we follow Nietzsche into the dark nihilism of the loss of reason. Heaven or hell, there are no other solutions. “How can this be? Did we not begin with an infinity of solutions, how then did we end up with only two?” Because of feedback. When our solutions include us, then we have introduced unavoidable feedback. For positive feedback takes any number or even infinite inputs and returns just two outputs. It is the inevitable consequence of wanting to explain ourselves. If, as in most of our science endeavors, we leave out ourselves, our feelings, our metaphysics, our guilt, our pleasures and focus merely on the task at hand–say, building a better telescope–then we don’t suffer this indignity. But as soon as we try to avoid something that is rightfully ours–our conscience, our responsibility, our will–then we are up to our neck in a mess. What can deliver us from this metaphysical pit? Only another person, who isn’t us. Only by having an outside force can we avoid the metaphysical feedback that unleashes the Titans. And only by making that force personal, is the cure any better than the disease. We need a pure light, a simple truth, a thing of beauty, something outside our self to guide us through the minefield. Pandora slammed the box shut, but it was too late, the only thing left in it was Hope. http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/the-multiverse-gods-final-part/ But Who Needs Reality-Based Thinking Anyway? Not the New Cosmologists - Denyse O'Leary - January 2, 2014 Excerpt: "Multiverse theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism. It makes no predictions, it gives no insight, it provides no control, it produces no technology, it advances no mathematics, it is a science in name only, because it is really metaphysics." Dr. Robert B. Sheldon - PhD Physics "These multiverse theories all share the same fundamental defect: They can be neither confirmed nor falsified. Hence, they don't deserve to be called scientific, according to the well-known criterion proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Some defenders of multiverses and strings mock skeptics who raise the issue of falsification as "Popperazi" -- which is cute but not a counterargument. Multiverse theories aren't theories -- they're science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/but_who_needs_r080281.html
bornagain77_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply