Is “string theory world” in some trouble?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 23, 2021

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

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

Is Cool cosmology not getting results? Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, admittedly a critic, comments:

For quite a few years now, I’ve been mystified about what is going on in string theory, as the subject has become dominated by AdS/CFT inspired work which has nothing to do with either strings or any visible idea about a possible route to a unified fundamental theory. …
Peter Woit, “Deterioration of the World’s Thinking About the Deepest Stringy Ideas” at Not Even Wrong

The fun part is this quote:

This superficial approach – in which people reduced their understanding of string theory and its amazing properties to some mundane, constantly repetitive ideas about AdS/CFT, especially those that are just small superconstructions added on top of 4D quantum field theories – got even worse in the recent decade when the “quantum information” began to be treated as a part of “our field”. Quantum information is a legitimate set of ideas and laws but I think that in general, this field adds nothing to the fundamental physics so far which would go beyond the basic postulates of quantum mechanics…
Lubos Motl, “Evolution, deterioration of the world’s thinking about the deepest stringy ideas” at The Reference Frame (July 11, 2021)

And Woit adds,

According to Lubos, he’s not the only one who feels this way, with an “anonymous Princeton big shot” agreeing with him (hard to think of anyone else this could be other than Nima Arkani-Hamed)
Peter Woit, “Deterioration of the World’s Thinking About the Deepest Stringy Ideas” at Not Even Wrong

Nima Armani-Hamed has crossed our screen before.

Some of us think string theory only existed in order to give a bizarre twist to the fine-tuning of our universe and to create a basis for believing that there is an uncountable infinity of universes out there instead. Apart from that, it may be hard to see much point. We shall see.

Gossip is fun when it doesn’t hurt anyone.

Comments

Jack, if you have not noticed, I do not tailor my comments to please the whims of atheists. As to Jack's (false) claim that the "Greeks locked down the essentials of logic and reasoning upon which everything later stands", Jack could not be more wrong in his belief. Francis Bacon, (via his championing of the inductive form of reasoning over and above the deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around since the times of the ancient Greeks), was the devout Christian who brought forth the scientific method. As Henry Schaefer explained, “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
“The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.” – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415
“Bottom up” inductive reasoning is, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks in which they “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning – top-down vs. bottom-up – graph https://i2.wp.com/images.slideplayer.com/28/9351128/slides/slide_2.jpg Inductive reasoning Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence, but not full assurance, of the truth of the conclusion.[1] It is also described as a method where one’s experiences and observations, including what are learned from others, are synthesized to come up with a general truth.[2] Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as the derivation of general principles from specific observations (arguing from specific to general), although there are many inductive arguments that do not have that form.[3] Inductive reasoning is distinct from deductive reasoning. While, if the premises are correct, the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was first elucidated and championed by Francis Bacon in 1620 in his book that was entitled Novum Organum. Which is translated as ‘New Method’. In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work Organon, which was Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, Organum was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.
The Organon and the logic perspective of computation – 2016 Excerpt: The works of Aristotle on logic are collectively known as the Organon, that is, the ” instrument ” or ” tool ” of thought. In the ” Prior Analytics “, Aristotle introduced a list of inference rules that concern with the relation of premises to conclusion in arguments (syllogisms). His aim was to determine which kinds of arguments are valid. The validity of an argument is characterized and inferred based on its logical form (deduction) and for this reason Aristotle is considered as the father of formal logic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303407444_The_Organon_and_the_logic_perspective_of_computation
And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was actually championing a entirely new method of inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s deductive reasoning, (where one’s priori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning (Bacon vs Aristotle – Scientific Revolution) – video Excerpt: Deductive reasoning, which uses general premises to arrive at a certain conclusion, has been around since Aristotle. In his book Novum Organum (1620, translated ‘new method’), Sir Francis Bacon advanced a new way of philosophical inquiry known as inductive reasoning, in which the inquirer comes to a probable conclusion based on several specific observations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE
And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.
Francis Bacon, 1561–1626 Excerpt: Called the father of empiricism, Sir Francis Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena. In stark contrast to deductive reasoning, which had dominated science since the days of Aristotle, Bacon introduced inductive methodology—testing and refining hypotheses by observing, measuring, and experimenting. An Aristotelian might logically deduce that water is necessary for life by arguing that its lack causes death. Aren’t deserts arid and lifeless? But that is really an educated guess, limited to the subjective experience of the observer and not based on any objective facts gathered about the observed. A Baconian would want to test the hypothesis by experimenting with water deprivation under different conditions, using various forms of life. The results of those experiments would lead to more exacting, and illuminating, conclusions about life’s dependency on water. https://lib-dbserver.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/thematic-maps/bacon/bacon.html
bornagain77_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

BA77: "Science was born out of and is still dependent on presuppositions that find their root in the Judeo-Christian worldview." To what "presuppositions" do you refer? (Not cherry picked "accomplishments".) But actual grounding. Because from what I can glean, the Greeks locked down the essentials of logic and reasoning upon which everything later stands. And please, no copy and paste. Just a few bullet points in your own words. Thanks.Jack_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

^^^^^^ HUH??? Whatever WJM. The facts are what they are. Science was born out of and is still dependent on presuppositions that find their root in the Judeo-Christian worldview. And I certainly don't consider your MRT, IRT, (or whatever you are calling it today), to be a serious contender to ever replace the Judeo-Christian worldview, and its symbiotic relationship with science, anytime soon. Shoot, it is fairly obvious, via your recent switching of acronyms for your pet theory, that you yourself don't really have all the bugs worked out of your own theory yet. But hey, let's give it a few thousand years and see where your theory goes eh? :)
How Many Christians Are In the World Today? By Mary Fairchild -April 16, 2020 In the last 100 years, the number of Christians in the world has quadrupled from about 600 million in 1910 to well past 2 billion presently. Today, Christianity remains the world's largest religious group. https://www.learnreligions.com/christianity-statistics-700533
bornagain77_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
Perhaps it was only possible from the Judeo-Christian perspective given know available perspectives at the time; that doesn't mean that only the Judeo-Christian perspective out of all possible perspectives was up to the task. That's a case that can't be made. As far as theistic metaphysics being necessary to properly understand reality, that may or not be a good way of characterizing what is necessary to the task. Obviously, consciousness and information are essential commodities, and the question is: what can be said to be the ground for the existence of information and consciousness? Regardless of what you label it with, the potential for both specific, structured information and individual consciousness must exist at the root of both. Is that potential "God," or adequately labeled with that term? I think that more than just "infinite potential" would be required to make a case for basic, much less any particular kind of, theism. I think that BA77 has said and argued, and I think any such label would require some kind of individual agency, such as creating a specific world out of all the potential. Do we have evidence that "a" specific world was in fact chosen/created by such an agency? It seems to me that the evidence indicates this is not so, or perhaps there is an argument to be made that the agency created a world where a specific range of potentials was available for beings with free will to "choose" from, giving us the range of potentials available in quantum experimentation. It's not like we can shoot an electron through a double-slit board and the result being a tomato hitting the target or music being heard by the observers.William J Murray_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Next Seversky quotes me
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,
Seversky responds thusly,
As you were told before, Zeilinger’s work technically narrows the free-will loophole, It doesn’t close it.
Well, contrary to Seversky trying to play it off as no big deal, that 'technical' narrowing, since it excludes all 'local' deterministic models, happens to exclude Darwinian evolution itself since Darwinian evolution holds that all our thoughts and decisions were 'locally' determined by the prior state of the material particles in our brain. That is exactly why Sabine Hossenfelder herself appealed to 'super-determinism' in order to deal with the closing of the 'freedom of choice' loophole by Zeilinger and company. Which was basically Hossenfelder saying that she didn't care what the empirical evidence said to the contrary about the existence of free will, she was "determined' :) to still believe in 'local' determinism. And, as should be needless to say, if we cannot trust what our experimental results are telling us about reality, and insist on believing in things even when they contradict experimental results, then science is, for all practical purposes, dead. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-physicist-sean-carroll-rejects-logic-when-he-rejects-free-will/#comment-701634 As to any hypothetical 'non-local' models that try to deal with the closing of the 'freedom of choice' loop-hole, (perhaps Seversky is alluding to "Many Worlds"?), well, I think such a scenario is absurd on its face since, (besides believing that you exist in an infinite number of places being a completely insane belief to hold), free will, by definition, simply cannot be based on any type of mathematical formalism. Whereas on the other hand, Immaterial minds, via free will, create mathematical axioms.
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf
Seversky then claims,,
As for allowing the “Agent Causality of God” back into physics, that would be a science killer.
Actually the shoe is squarely on the other foot. Seversky own atheistic worldview is, not only a science killer, but is a science mass murderer! Although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 2021 - Detailed Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595 https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/from-philip-cunningham-the-human-eye-like-the-human-brain-is-a-wonder/#comment-727327
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Next Seversky goes into some type of bizarre Theological Argument, based on some work of fiction by Arthur C Clarke. as to why allowing God 'back' into science might be a science killer. All I have to say about that entire bizarre line of 'Theological' reasoning is that the necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science just did not magically evaporate into thin air and disappear into nothingness, but those necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science are still very much required for the continued practice, and success, of modern science. Science simply is impossible without assuming certain Judeo-Christian presuppositions to be true!
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24 Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.theistic.net/papers/R.Koons/Koons-science.pdf
bornagain77_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

At 7 Seversky tries to further address my posts 1 and 2, I claimed,
The main, irresolvable, problem for theoretical physicists in finding a purely mathematical theory of everything is the problem of mathematically unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
Seversky responded thusly,
We don’t know that it is unresolvable
Well actually we do know that it is irresolvable,,, see post 13. Seversky continues,
and we don’t know that a theory which unifies quantum and relativity theories would also be a Theory of Everything.
Well actually I agree with you that simply mathematically unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity into a "Theory of Everything' would leave many very important things about what it means to be human on the cutting floor,,,,, but be that as it may be, none-the-less, the search for the “Theory of Everything” today takes the form of theoretical physicists trying to mathematically unify gravity, as it is described by General Relativity, with quantum mechanics into a single overarching mathematical framework that, in principle, would be capable of describing all phenomena in the universe.
Theory of everything A theory of everything (TOE[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[2]:6 Finding a TOE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.[3] String theory and M-theory have been proposed as theories of everything. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, together, most closely resemble a TOE. These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, quantum mechanics is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. Quantum mechanics successfully implemented the Standard Model that describes the three non-gravitational forces – strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic force – as well as all observed elementary particles.[4]:122 General relativity and quantum mechanics have been thoroughly proven in their separate fields of relevance. Since the usual domains of applicability of general relativity and quantum mechanics are so different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be used.[5][6]:842–844 However, the two theories are considered incompatible in regions of extremely small scale – the Planck scale – such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). To resolve the incompatibility, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of general relativity and quantum mechanics into a seamless whole: the TOE is a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena in the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
To put it mildly, describing all phenomena in the universe is a rather ambitious goal for any single mathematical theory of science to ever hope to achieve. For instance, will this hypothetical mathematical theory of everything be able explain why Seversky dedicates a large part of his life fighting against the God that he inevitably will have to face one day? Or will this theory explain why I prefer Ice Cream to Sherbert? Or will it be able to describe, etc.. etc.., ad infinitum? Anyways, Seversky continues,
People are far to willing to leap to premature conclusions about things which are beyond our knowledge at this time.
Hmm, such as you, and other atheists, prematurely concluding that methodological naturalism must be true prior to any examination of the evidence, and despite the fact the conclusions of methodological naturalism are patently absurd, (R. Lewontin, billions of demons), and despite the fact that science itself is inextricably wedded to Theistic presuppositions about the rationality of the universe, (S. Meyer, The Return of the God Hypothesis)? Seversky then goes on,
I understand that people find unsatisfactory the simple – but more accurate – answer of “We don’t know” but the reality is that we don’t know.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and be a little more circumspect and humble in your dogmatic claims about God's non-existence, and/or His character, and admit that you yourself "don't know'? Or would you find that honest admittance of your ignorance about God existence and character "unsatisfactory?" Seversky, after quoting me,,,
Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “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.
,,, after quoting me, Seversky goes on,
Very poetic and no doubt emotionally satisfying to believers but scientifically vacuous. Mathematicians and scientists are uncomfortable with infinities – except when it’s their God. Then it’s fine.
Seversky is correct in saying "Mathematicians and scientists are uncomfortable with infinities"
“Here is the problem (with black holes), right there, when ‘r’ (radius) is equal to zero, The point at which physics itself breaks down. So 1 over ‘r’ equals 1 over 0 equals infinity. To a mathematician infinity is simply a number without limit. To a physicist it is a monstrosity. It means first of all that gravity is infinite at the center of a black hole. That time stops. And what does that mean? Space makes no sense. It means the collapse of everything we know about the physical universe. In the real world there is no such thing as infinity. Therefore there is a fundamental flaw in the formulation of Einstein’s theory.” (And when you try to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics) “In fact, you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).” Quantum Mechanics & Relativity – Michio Kaku - The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It ? - video Science vs God Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - video https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x
But Seversky is incorrect to imply that it is only Christians who are comfortable postulating an infinity "when it’s their God. Then it’s fine." Atheists have no problem whatsoever postulating a epistemologically self-defeating 'random infinity' when it will help them avoid the 'rational infinity' that is only to be found in God. For instance, Atheists have had no problem whatsoever postulating an infinity of other universes, (via a multiverse, and the veritable infinity of hypothetical 'bubble universes continually being generated in inflationary cosmology), to 'explain away' the fine-tuning of the universe. Nor do Atheists have any problem whatsoever postulating a veritable infinity of parallel universes, i.e. Many Worlds", to 'explain away' quantum wave collapse, just so as to avoid any implication of God. Small problem for Seversky and other atheists, all these 'random infinities', that Atheists have postulated so as to try to avoid any implication of God, are all epistemologically self-defeating and therefore scientifically 'worse than useless' (Penrose).
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 GORDON: Hawking irrational arguments Theoretical physicist takes leave of his senses By Bruce L. Gordon - October 1, 2010 Excerpt: 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. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation - 25 September 2014 Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous,,, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation's other problems. Meet the multiverse Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true. "The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn't end the way these simplistic calculations suggest," he says. "Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn't make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-long-live-cosmic-inflation.html?page=1#.VCajrGl0y00 Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems - Philip Ball - October 18, 2018 Excerpt: It, (The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics), says that our unique experience as individuals is not simply a bit imperfect, a bit unreliable and fuzzy, but is a complete illusion. If we really pursue that idea, rather than pretending that it gives us quantum siblings, we find ourselves unable to say anything about anything that can be considered a meaningful truth. We are not just suspended in language; we have denied language any agency. The MWI — if taken seriously — is unthinkable. Its implications undermine a scientific description of the world far more seriously than do those of any of its rivals. The MWI tells you not to trust empiricism at all: Rather than imposing the observer on the scene, it destroys any credible account of what an observer can possibly be. Some Everettians insist that this is not a problem and that you should not be troubled by it. Perhaps you are not, but I am. https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-has-many-problems-20181018/
In other words, contrary to what Seversky claimed, it is not only Christians who are 'comfortable' with infinity, atheists apparently are also very comfortable postulating infinities whenever it will help them avoid any implication of God. ,,, "small' problem for atheists though, all their 'random infinities' are epistemologically self-defeating. Which is a nice way of saying that they are all insane. I will try to address the rest of Seversky's post later on today if time permitsbornagain77_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee tried to distance Godel's incompleteness from theoretical physics. Yet, as was already referenced in post 1, ,,,it is not as if Godel’s Incompleteness has been sitting on the sidelines as far as theoretical physics is concerned. In fact, Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics has now been extended into quantum physics itself, in that it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.” http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
In short, it is now mathematically proven that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity. In fact, the preceding proof was made even more robust in 2020,
Undecidability of the Spectral Gap – June 16, 2020 Toby Cubitt, David Perez-Garcia, and Michael M. Wolf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04573.pdf
bornagain77_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

I really hate to reappear, but here is a point I have made before that I think BA doesn't get. BA writes,
And for quite a few years I myself have been mystified that leading mathematicians who work in theoretical physics, such as Peter Woit, have basically completely ignored Godel’s incompleteness theorem, and the insurmountable problem that it presents as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem's are about purely mathematical axiomatic systems. Theoretical physicists are not trying to create a purely axiomatic system: they are trying to crate a descriptive system which maps completely to real-world phenomena, especially one which unifies general relativity and the quantum mechanics. These are two different things. Godel's Theorems says that there are undecidable propositions, and establishes this in an esoteric way. Here is a fairly good layman's explanation: Link However a theory about the physical world would be complete if it could explain and predict every possible real-world phenomena. However, if one were to consider the theory as a pure axiomatic system (which is not what the theoretical physicists is trying to do) the undecidable propositions that Godel's theorem says must exist might not in fact map to any real-world phenomena, and thus be irrelevant. The key idea here is between an purely abstract mathematical system, which is self contained and only looks to itself for its content, and a physical theory which maps mathematical content to real-world phenomena, and then looks to its fit with real-world phenomena for its validity. Godel's Theorem does not rule out the possibility of a theory of everything in the sense of a mathematical model which accurately describes, in an unifying way, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Over and out. Take it away, BA, but keep it under 5000 words. Others may also have something to say about whether they think I'm right or not.Viola Lee_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

In response to the fact that Theoretical Physicists, for the most part, completely ignore just how devastating Godel's incompleteness is to finding a purely mathematical theory of everything, (and/or a “unified fundamental theory” as Peter Woit calls it), Seversky responds thusly,
My impression is a that scientists are well aware of the implications of the Incompleteness Theorem for constructing an entirely self-contained Theory of Everything but it is no reason not to continue to improve the theories we already have or to look for better ones.
Well that is not my impression, and if you can find any quotes other than the quote from Hawking that I already provided, that shows that theoretical physicists "are well aware of the implications of the Incompleteness Theorem for constructing an entirely self-contained Theory of Everything", I would certainly appreciate it. My impression is that Godel's incompleteness is the proverbial 'elephant in the living room' that theoretical physicists would much rather ignore than acknowledge the presence of. Personally, I have rarely seen Godel's incompleteness discussed, and if it is discussed, it is discussed only in passing as Hawking discussed it only in passing in his book "The Grand Design". Although I have to admit that, earlier in his career, Hawking did take Godel's incompleteness much more seriously than he did in his 2010 book 'The Grand Design".
The nature and significance of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems - Princeton - 2006 Excerpt: ,,Stephen Hawking (2002) and Freeman Dyson (2004), 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
Seversky you also stated that,
"it (Godel's incompleteness) is no reason not to continue to improve the theories we already have or to look for better ones."
I agree whole heartedly. In fact, I personally was very happy when Nima Arkani-Hamed discovered the amplituhedron which is "as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman (diagrams) was better than Heisenberg's S-matrices.
Bohemian Gravity - Rob Sheldon - September 19, 2013 Excerpt: Quanta magazine carried an article about a hypergeometric object that is as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman was better than Heisenberg's S-matrices. But the discoverers are candid about it, "The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity. “Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and the lead author of the new work, which he is presenting in talks and in a forthcoming paper. “Both are suspect.”" What are these suspect principles? None other than two of the founding principles of materialism--that there do not exist "spooky-action-at-a-distance" forces, and that material causes are the only ones in the universe.,,, http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/?
But no matter how much we 'improve' the mathematics that describe this universe, we will still be left with the burning question of "why do such 'perfect mathematical descriptions' even describe the universe in the first place?". As Nima Arkani-Hamed himself put it, “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation. But what might such an explanation look like?”
“It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation. But what might such an explanation look like?” Nima Arkani-Hamed - discovered the amplituhedron https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-its-not-the-answers-we-lack-its-the-question/
Of course the explanation for 'perfect mathematical descriptions' is that, as Edward Feser explains, "Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world."
Keep it Simple – Edward Feser Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
But hey, you don't have to take Edward Feser's word for it, both Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein are on record as the regarding it as a 'miracle' that mathematics should even be applicable the the universe in the first place. Eugene Wigner even went so far as to disparage Darwinian evolution when he called it a 'miracle'.
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
And Albert Einstein himself even went so far as to castigate 'professional atheists' when he called it a 'miracle'.
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine - Albert Einstein - March 30, 1952 Excerpt: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles." -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
So there you have it. From two of the biggest giants in modern physics, it should be considered 'miraculous' that the universe is describable by mathematics. Seversky went on to claim,
We already have ontologies that dispense with the concept of God, certainly the incoherent version of Christianity.
Well actually, as Godel, Wigner, and Einstein all made clear, no you do not have an ontology that can dispense with God. , (at least you do not have, and cannot have, a 'mathematically scientific' ontology that dispenses with God), Seversky went on,
Perhaps there is a dimension of reality which transcends the one in which we find ourselves. All that would mean is that there is more to reality than we were previously aware.
:) Hmmm, You don't say?!? Seems to me that Christians have been claiming that very thing for a couple of thousand years now.
– 2 Corinthians 12: 2-4 “I know a man in Christ who, fourteen years ago, was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body, I do not know – God knows. And I know that this man – whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows – was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.”
Seversky finishes with,
"Does it occur to him (Gordon) to ask about the nature of such an intelligent agent or its origins?"
It might interest you know that Christians have grappled with questions of this sort for centuries, (successfully grappled with them I might add).
Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser - June 2012 Excerpt: A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,, ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/06/not-understanding-nothing
Seversky went to say some other things in another post. Perhaps I will address some of them tomorrow if time permits. But suffice it for now to note that Godel, Einstein, and Wigner, all disagree with Seversky in his claim that we can have a mathematically 'scientific' ontology that 'dispenses with God'. This failing of his atheistic worldbview to be able to ground 'mathematical science' in the first place should be no small burr in the saddle of Seversky, who considers 'science' to be his safe haven away from God. (at least a safe haven away from God as Seversky has falsely envisioned him to be, i.e. an evil tyrant who is out to 'get him', rather than Seversky envisioning God as God truly is, i.e. a loving father who only wants the best for him.) Quote and verse
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers Psalm 68:5 A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling.
bornagain77_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

What will happen if science accepts creationism / intelligent design 1. The culture in academics will improve dramatically. Harvard will be Harvard again, and Cambridge university, will be Cambridge university again. Meaning they would get the good feeling again associated to their name, instead of as now, that they have the feel of a mental institution. You cannot do emotions, good judgement, with materialism, materialism is solely about facts. You require creationism for good judgement. 2. More advancement in knowledge about decisionmaking processes, because choice is the mechanism of intelligent design.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

BA77... I would love to connect, but I saw your post about being burned in the past, and understand. I just so appreciate your resources, your packaging of the information, and your well informed faith. This world pushes hard on those who desire to follow Christ and hold to the eternal truth of scripture, but your light shines bright.zweston_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Zweston, Thanks and yes I do have fairly large files of notes. I'm sorry, they are not loaded up on the web for other people to see, and I really wouldn't want to load them up anyway since, although I know where to find specific citations within my notes, they most likely would not make much sense to anyone else. My notes, are very much like a messy office in which only the person who made the mess in the office actually knows where everything is.. :)bornagain77_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/2
The main, irresolvable, problem for theoretical physicists in finding a purely mathematical theory of everything is the problem of mathematically unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
We don't know that it is unresolvable and we don't know that a theory which unifies quantum and relativity theories would also be a Theory of Everything. People are far to willing to leap to premature conclusions about things which are beyond our knowledge at this time. I understand that people find unsatisfactory the simple - but more accurate - answer of "We don't know" but the reality is that we don't know.
Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “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.
Very poetic and no doubt emotionally satisfying to believers but scientifically vacuous. Mathematicians and scientists are uncomfortable with infinities - except when it's their God. Then it's fine.
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,
As you were told before, Zeilinger's work technically narrows the free-will loophole, It doesn't close it. As for allowing the "Agent Causality of God" back into physics, that would be a science killer. For those who remember it, Arthur C Clarke's novel Childhood's End explored the devastating impact an immeasurably more advanced culture - even if their intentions were entirely peaceful - could have on human culture, creativity and scientific curiosity. Why bother with years of grinding research to solve a problem when you could just go an ask the Overlords for the answer? As the novel illustrates, the obvious problem, if you allow the existence of an all-knowing and all-powerful Creator who can account for everything, then what is the point of us doing anything, what is the point of us at all?. We cannot be some sort of experiment because we only run experiments when we aren't sure of the answer. This Creator is presumed to already know the answer to any possible experiment that could be run. Are we there to provide companionship, like pets? But this Creator is assumed to be a necessary being, in direct contradiction of the Incompleteness Theorem, not dependent on anything outside of Himself. "What does God need with a starship?" In other words, allowing an incoherent concept such as the "Agent Causality of God" into science would be crippling. It would almost inevitably lead to a form of religious Lysenkoism wherein any form of scientific exploration or explanation would be judged by whether it was consonant with the prevailing religious orthodoxy. Now, that might not be so bad if we could ask this Creator for guidance on what specific tweaks we would to need to apply to modify our genome in order to eradicate cancers or degenerative neurological disorders, for example. But that option is apparently not available. So how does allowing the "Agent Causality of God" back into science help us at all?Seversky_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

We already have ontologies that dispense with the concept of God
: )
Perhaps there is a dimension of reality which transcends the one in which we find ourselves.
:))
Does it occur to him to ask about the nature of such an intelligent agent or its origins?
:))) PS: You can't make this thing up: Definition of God: Immaterial Uncreated Being. Atheists: How was created that material god?Lieutenant Commander Data_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Sev, I notice you didn't address anything regarding "convergent evolution."zweston_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/1
And for quite a few years I myself have been mystified that leading mathematicians who work in theoretical physics, such as Peter Woit, have basically completely ignored Godel’s incompleteness theorem, and the insurmountable problem that it presents as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything, (and/or a “unified fundamental theory” as Peter Woit calls it).
My impression is a that scientists are well aware of the implications of the Incompleteness Theorem for constructing an entirely self-contained Theory of Everything but it is no reason not to continue to improve the theories we already have or to look for better ones.
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.
We already have ontologies that dispense with the concept of God, certainly the incoherent version of Christianity.
In short, it is now mathematically proven that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity.

Of course the correct solution to the question of ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’ is, as Bruce Gordon succinctly explained, “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.””
Perhaps there is a dimension of reality which transcends the one in which we find ourselves. All that would mean is that there is more to reality than we were previously aware. Gordon's response, however, perfectly illustrates the vacuous nature of the religious account. He acknowledges that there are mysteries about the nature of observable reality which may only be explicable by postulating a transcendent realm inhabited by some intelligent causal agency - meaning God. And that is as far as his curiosity takes him, apparently. He is content with that speculation. Does it occur to him to ask about the nature of such an intelligent agent or its origins? How does he grapple with problem of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which should also apply to the theories or explanations of this being? The whole thing raises just as many questions as it answers.Seversky_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

BA77, Really enjoy reading your stuff. Do you have a massive document ready for all of these posts with all the evidence lined out? Would love to take a peek at a version of it!zweston_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

The main, irresolvable, problem for theoretical physicists in finding a purely mathematical theory of everything is the problem of mathematically unifying General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Mathematically speaking, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are separated by an unbridgeable 'infinite mathematical divide'. Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite. The theory is not renormalizable.”
Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018 Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ?, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite. The theory is not renormalizable. https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.
And as the following theoretical physicist noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers. Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,, In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy. The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,, Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/
So the burning question becomes, "how can we possibly bridge this 'infinite mathematical divide' that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?" Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “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.”
The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology 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 Philippians 2:8-9 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
,, then that VERY reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of physics originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. In short, the Shroud of Turin, (which is THE most scientifically scrutinized artifact ever from ancient history), provides evidence that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt with in Christ's resurrection from the dead. Here are a few notes to that effect: Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”
Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples – Kevin E. Moran – 1999 Discussion Pia’s negative photograph, from 1898, showed what looked to be a body that was glowing, but slightly submerged in a bath of cloudy water. This condition is more properly described as an image that is visible, at a distance, but by locally attenuated radiation. The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity and, if moving at light speed, only lasted about 100 picoseconds. It is particulate in nature, colliding only with some of the fibers. It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,, Theoretical model It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. Discussion The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.” https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/moran.pdf
Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://www.predatormastersforums.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3014106
So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, of finding a reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were successfully dealt, (and the 'infinite mathematical divide' between the two theories was bridged), with Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me," Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Supplemental notes:
Jesus Christ as the correct "Theory of Everything" - video https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8--eE Keep it Simple - Edward Feser Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
bornagain77_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

Peter Woit starts out his article with this,
For quite a few years now, I’ve been mystified about what is going on in string theory, as the subject has become dominated by AdS/CFT inspired work which has nothing to do with either strings or any visible idea about a possible route to a unified fundamental theory.
And for quite a few years I myself have been mystified that leading mathematicians who work in theoretical physics, such as Peter Woit, have basically completely ignored Godel's incompleteness theorem, and the insurmountable problem that it presents as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything, (and/or a "unified fundamental theory" as Peter Woit calls it). I googled "Peter Woit, Godel's incompleteness" and came up with zilch as to him acknowledging just how devastating Godel's incompleteness actually is to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything. I did find this though,
"Peter Woit's review of Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" (Books, Jan. 18) emphasizes the role of math in physics but leaves out the work of 1930s mathematician Kurt Gödel and his "Incompleteness Theorem." This theorem basically proves mathematically that the answer to the origin of anything, even the physical universe, always lies outside of the thing itself. Therefore the origin of this universe that is incredibly fine-tuned in over 100 parameters, must have a supernatural agent outside of itself. A natural agent would have to be included in the encircled physical universe.",,, - James Kraft
In other words, and as the following article succinctly states, "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."
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/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
The only hint that I have ever seen, from any leading theoretical Physicist, as to just how devastating Godel's incompleteness 'might' be, (as to ever finding a purely mathematical theory of everything), has been from Hawking himself. And it reads as such,
"Gödel's incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “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”. Thus, based on the position that an equation cannot prove itself, the constructs are based on assumptions some of which will be unprovable." Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)
And it is not as if Godel's Incompleteness has been sitting on the sidelines as far as theoretical physics is concerned. In fact, Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics has now been extended into quantum physics itself, in that it is now proven that “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
In short, it is now mathematically proven that the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics will never be successfully extended to the account for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity. One leading mathematician, (not theoretical physicist), who understands just how devastating Godel's incompleteness actually is, is Gregory Chaitin. Gregory Chaitin has found that "an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms."
The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf
This presents an insurmountable problem for atheists since, as Steven Weinberg himself pointed out, “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that."
Quote: “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video - Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495
Of course the correct solution to the question of ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’ is, as Bruce Gordon succinctly explained, "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.”"
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. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
bornagain77_{July 24, 2021
July
07
Jul
24
24
2021
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply