Quoted in the article to which News refers below:

The origin of life is one of the hardest problems in all of science…Origin of Life research has evolved into a lively, interdisciplinary field, but other scientists often view it with skepticism and even derision. This attitude is understandable and, in a sense, perhaps justified, given the “dirty” rarely mentioned secret: Despite many interesting results to its credit, when judged by the straightforward criterion of reaching (or even approaching) the ultimate goal, the origin of life field is a failure – we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. Certainly, this is due not to a lack of experimental and theoretical effort, but to the extraordinary intrinsic difficulty and complexity of the problem. A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life…these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle.

Dr. Eugene Koonin, a highly respected microbiologist and veteran researcher in the OOL field, from his 2011 book, *The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution*

And how does Dr. Koonin get his miracle:

The Many Worlds in One version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation might suggest a way out of the origin of life conundrum because, in an infinite multiverse with a finite number of macroscopic histories (each repeated an infinite number of times), the emergence of even highly complex systems by chance is not just possible, but inevitable.

Notice that when Dr. Koonin resorts to Many Worlds (or “multiverse” if you prefer) theory he is not doing science if by science one means proposing a theory that is “falsifiable.”

“Falsifiable” does not mean “false.” It means that in principle it is possible to perform an empirical test to determine whether it is false.

The universe we have is, by definition, the only universe we can test empirically. Therefore, there is no empirical test that can be performed to determine whether another universe exists. Therefore, positing many universes does not qualify as science if one uses the “falsification” criterion as the dividing line between science and metaphysics.

Conclusion: The origin of life is a miracle. Theists attribute the miracle to God. Materialists do not rebut the “God claim” by resorting to calm dispassionate reason. Instead, they either wallow around in absurd materialist OOL theories, each more wildly implausible than the last, or they resort to an absurd ad hoc metaphysical solution. The former is failed science; the latter is failed metaphysics.

Materialist life by “poof.” Let’s just say that life

emerged, that sounds better, sort of.I think the headline should be

Don’t they know that the multiverse hypothesis logically leads to God.

Materialists love infinity, a pseudoscientific concept.

OT: here are some cool video clips from ‘FLIGHT’:

FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Hummingbird tongue – video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMw3RO7p9yg

FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Feathers – video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2yeNoDCcBg

FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Flight muscles – video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFdvkopOmw0

FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds – Skeletal system – video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11fZS_B6UW4

Flight: The Genius of Birds – Embryonic Development – video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ah-gT0hTto

Is the materialist argument for an infinite number of parallel universes (in which everything that is possible already exists) really different from that of the Creationist argument for an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable creator God that can create anything?

I am asking because I have reasons to believe that believe that infinity is a purely religious concept based on faith.

I thought it was based on the calculus.

Nope. Believe me when I tell you it’s a lie that infinity is used in calculus. Regardless of what you may have heard, calculus is as discrete and finite as can be. This is the reason that we can do calculus on a digital computer. And, as you know, nothing is more discrete and finite than a digital computer.

The big problem with infinity that everyone seems to miss is that any finite number is infinitely smaller than the infinitely big and infinitely larger than the infinitely small. It’s a contradiction because a number cannot be both finite and infinite at the same time.

Mapou you say

“The big problem with infinity that everyone seems to miss is that any finite number is infinitely smaller than the infinitely big and infinitely larger than the infinitely small.

It’s a contradiction because a number cannot be both finite and infinite at the same time.”Admission: I am NO KIND of mathemetician.

Care to flesh that statement out a little?

johnp @8:

Here’s another stab at it. If infinity exists, then any finite quantity is infinitely smaller than an infinitely large quantity. This is the same as saying that an infinitely large quantity is infinitely bigger than any finite quantity.

Thus an infinitely large quantity cannot be compared to a finite quantity because the comparison creates a situation whereby a finite quantity is both finite and infinitely small at the same time.

This is just something to ponder, not a case for or against infinity. (I believe the universe could be finite.)

If the universe is indeed, finite, what is on the other side?

From the little bit of math I have had infinity happens when a number is divided by zero. I was told that is what is called a singularity.

mjazzguitar @10,

Good question. It’s a big problem but once you realize that space (distance) is an illusion or perception, the problem just vanishes.

Infinity is a ruse, a lie. Believing in infinity is like wearing blinders.

On behalf of YEC everywhere I humbly, which always means not that humble, insist origin of life IS NOT the hardest problem in science.

they have done NOTHING and know nothing about nature.

Rubes and rogues are they still.

Nevermind origin of life. tHEY have nOT settles the origin of biological complexity and diversity and reproductive relatedness that is called living nature.

Evolution is NOT a scientific theory and is a false hypothesis I insist.!!!

They ain’t done nothing yet.

first things first.

Prove evolution can claim to be a biological theory and a right one.

Mapou:

Sorry, but you are mistaken. In fact, you’ve made a couple mistakes.

One is that you appear to want to create an apparent contradiction by seeming to show that the finite number is supposedly infinite as well as being finite. However, even within your own argument, you do so by comparing it with infinite quantities in a way that forms a type of difference between them and the finite number. But — even within that reasoning — the “infinity” you try to attribute to the finite number is actually a property of the “difference” you form between it and the infinite quantity. It was never a property of the finite number itself, even within your argument’s perspective. So the finite number has no infinite property even by your reasoning, and so your argument unravels internally.

Another main mistake is in posing the idea of “an infinitely large quantity”, as if that were a number that you could use to form a difference with some other finite number. The contradiction between finite and infinite enters into your argument by adding the self-contradictory concept of “an infinitely large quantity”. The resulting difference comparison is also ill defined as a consequence.

There are many simple ways for anyone to see that the concept of infinity is meaningful as a mathematical concept and does not depend on religious faith. For example, just ask,

For any supposed answer, you can always just add one more to show that it wasn’t the largest. There is no end to that process. (The set of positive integers is one type of infinity, i.e. countably infinite.)

One other comment is that when computers work on calculus problems, they can do so symbolically or numerically.

If they do it symbolically, they are manipulating symbols and concepts just as the mathematician would who works with paper and pencil. The fact that the computer is digital and finite doesn’t prevent it from operating symbolically to solve math problems. In this respect the situation for the computer is no different than for a human who doesn’t have to be able to write infinitely long sequences to work math problems that depend on infinity.

If computers use numerical methods to calculate values (rather than manipulating the problem symbolically), then their work is a finite approximation that includes errors. Part of the task of designing numerical methods is the analysis of how to minimize the errors that result in the approximation. So the fact that the computer is digital and finite (and approximates results with some amount of error) is not in any way evidence against the concept of infinity.

I don’t mean to discourage you from posting. I just hope that on the question of infinity, you will ponder this and find it persuasive. I don’t intend to debate the subject or divert the thread, so I hope these points are sufficient to help you reevaluate.

What incenses me, since it is ABSOLUTELY SURREAL and something of which a person with the most diseased and cynical imagination could not conceive, is that, while, almost a century after the discovery of quantum mechanics, the ultimate paradigm, than which it has been mathematically established that no more consummate paradigm can ever be can conceived, proved, yes, with INELUCTABLE CERTAINTY that the MOST PRIMORDIAL TRUTH is PERSONAL (Observer-dependent), ergo THERE MUST BE A PERSONAL GOD and nothing coudl be more certain than that MATERIALISM is UTTERLY FALSE, the Academy, itself, is staffed almost entirely by LITERALLY dummies, mannequins, at least wooden-headed dolts, who DENY IT!!!!!!!

It’s not as if philosophers of science had not established that truth is, as they put it, INTER-SUBJECTIVE – since there is evidently more than one of us potential Observers/potential Observers of this terrestrial and cosmic scenario.

And I mean those philosophers of science defined the perception of empirical truth as ‘intersubjective’, almost a century ago!!!!!!!!!!

A few things:

First, I taught calculus a fair time ago and was a Ph.D student in math and my emphasis before I moved on to something else was Analysis of which Calculus is part. But in truth I have forgotten most of it.

Second, I was being facetious because you said infinity was a religious concept only. And while for some, math is a religion, and for others it is hell, most would not associate it with religion.

Third, the term “infinity” is definitely part of calculus as EricB has pointed out. “Infinity” as used in math is probably not the same concept as used to describe God or even multiverses. The word is the same, that is all.

Fourth, It is definitely part of Christian religion and other religions as the following common phrase in religion is used “As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

Fifth, in terms of religion (and this is due to a recent lecture which I heard) in the book of Job, we are reminded that God is infinite and we are mere finite creatures so it is impossible for us to understand just what infinity really means in this context. So to declare there is no infinity when it is impossible for us to understand the concept, may also be an internal contradiction or arrogance as we define just what God is from our limited definitely finite self.

Sisth, I really hope this doesn’t start a religious discussion on infinity or anything else religious because it will probably end up nowhere and just provides a forum for personal rants. So please let this be the end of infinity if there is such a possibility.

EricB

THANK YOU for clearing that up. I knew there had to be a logical error in there somewhere but being mathematically challenged I just couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

Nicely done.

EricB @14:

No, I haven’t. In fact, you are agreeing with me without realizing it.

Of course, a finite number has no infinite property. That is precisely the point. The very concept of an infinite quantity is illogical. If a quantity exists, it should be possible to compare it with another quantity and I have shown that it’s impossible to do that without introducing a contradiction.

Jerry @17:

Well, you sure have a lot to say about something that you don’t understand. The concept of infinity cannot be understood simply because it is illogical. That’s all.

Wow. You’re some kind of dictator, aren’t you? But you’re right in a way, this discussion will lead nowhere since everybody has his or her mind made up on the subject.

I will conclude by saying that stating that something is eternal (without end in time) is not the same as stating that it is infinite. Eternal and infinite are two different things. Also, an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot have regrets and the God of the old testament certainly did. Note also that the Christian God never said he had infinite characteristics. These are attributions given to him by humans. This is my last post on this topic. Thank you all for your comments.

I detect the beginning of an infinitely long and infinitely boring thread.

Darwinists, known for moving the goalposts, have now just completely

removedthem….and they call it “science”Should I laugh or cry?

Why must it be possible to compare infinity with another quantity, mapou? The former is transcendental, as befits ‘the one without a second’, as Hindus designate Brahman; the latter a finite, quantified amount. Space-time is a construct, a divine artifact.

Is it not an article of mainstream Christianity that God’s Spirit permeates everything, including the entirety of his physical creation? He lived outside of a part of it existed autonomously, then you would surely be correct.

That they don’t belong in the same realm of reality doesn’t mean that one of them must be non-existent.

‘Also, an omnipotent and omniscient God cannot have regrets and the God of the old testament certainly did.’

No mapou. That was a figure of speech, as is explained in biblical annotations.

Somehow, God’s Providence, which is never derailed, co-exists with our free will, the latter, as BA77 states, being confirmed by a finding of quantum mechanics. However, this freedom, nevertheless, seems to be dependent on God’s gift of supernatural grace, at his own discretion! Strange to reflect that we have learned so much from the bible, even though it is so full of mystery, with the Holy Spirit playing the key role in drafting it and enlightening the devout reader always in some worthwhile measure.

All very confusing, and puzzling, but theology, as they are increasingly finding with physics, often entails an endeavour to arrive at the optimal management of paradoxes of a given set of facts.

‘Note also that the Christian God never said he had infinite characteristics. These are attributions given to him by humans.’

God may not have used your own words, mapou, but the bible is full of references to his eternity and his infinite power. Indeed, he is called, the Eternal’ in one Psalm. In any case, even if he had remained silent on the topic, surely it does not require an enormous leap of the imagination to envisage an entity with the power to create this universe with its trillions of galaxies, never mind, planets, as having infinite power and an eternal life.

Then again, did not max Planck state that matter, as such, does not exist, and that it ‘is derivative from consciousness’.

This latter view seems to have been shared by Niels Bohr, who asserted: ‘Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems.’ (Just noticed my contention regarding the future of theoretical physics lying increasingly in the management of paradoxes’ echoes it somewhat).

He also remarked: ‘We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.’

Unfortunately, rather than take that insight ‘on board’, our brightest and best atheists/materialists evidently long ago dismissed Bohr’s and Planck’s own assertions as poetry, i.e. in the sense of euphonious flights of verbal fancy, nay, whimsy. No-one is going improve on their understanding of the essential nature of matter and its efflux from mind, least of all any atheist.

Axel, I am a Christian but I refuse to park my brain in a closet when I read the Bible. In my opinion, you’re just engaging in story telling, not unlike the Darwinists/materialists. Sorry. I tell it like I see it. Thank you for your input.

As to infinity: It is through studying the ‘logic of infinity’ that Godel, via Cantor, was able to bring the incompleteness theorem to fruition:

Cantor’s part is highlighted in this short video:

Kurt Godel’s part in bringing the incompleteness theorem to fruition can be picked up here

Another interesting place we find infinity raising its head is in that the quantum wave state of a photon is mathematically defined as an infinite dimensional function space.

Moreover this infinite dimensional function space can, theoretically, be encoded with an infinite amount of information,

Moreover the quantum wave state has, in fact, now been encoded with information, and thus blowing out of the water the contention that the infinite dimensional function space of the quantum wave state was merely abstract and not really real,,,

Here are few more notes that confirm that the infinite dimensional function space of the quantum wave state is not merely abstract but is real,,

The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiments and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities, in quantum mechanics, particularly incongruities with quantum entanglement, that arose from a purely statistical interpretation of the wave function.

Moreover geometric considerations of conscious observation in the universe give us evidence that consciousness precedes the collapse of the infinite dimensional quantum wave state to its single bit state.

Thus every time we see (observe) a single photon of ‘material’ reality we are actually seeing just a single bit of information that was originally created from a very specific set of infinite information that was known by the infinite consciousness that preceded material reality. i.e. information known only by the infinite Mind of omniscient God!

Another place that infinity pops up is in the zero-infinity conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. i.e. 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 problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

Yet the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite Theistic world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite Materialistic world of the space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:

And if we allow that God can ‘play the role of a person’ as even Godel allowed when he chided Einstein’s notion of an abstract god,,,

if we allow that , then we find a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (a reconciliation that happens to take Godel’s incompleteness into consideration).

Verses

Music:

bornagain77,

You are arguing from authority. That is the form of argument that I dislike the most. I am a rebel at heart and I am deeply suspicious of authority, especially when it comes to religious and scientific matters. My independent analysis of infinity has fully convinced me that it is a pseudoscientific concept at best and total hogwash at worst. In the words of Wolfgang Pauli, it’s not even wrong. But I’ll leave it there. This is not the proper forum for this topic, in my opinion.

Whatever Mapou, accept it or reject it. I don’t really care. The evidence, as I’ve laid out in short outline form, is what it is and speaks for itself.

bornagain77 @28,

I reject it and I dismiss your evidence. How about that? And yes, bornagain77, you do care. You’re on a mission. But aren’t we all?

OT: Stephen Meyer interviewed about where new biological information comes from on Breakpoint

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwTl5oZhopk

as to:

A ‘mission’ that involves simply dismissing contrary evidence (methodological naturalism for prime example) is called being an Ideologue and as such why should I care what you say or think?

‘Axel, I am a Christian but I refuse to park my brain in a closet when I read the Bible. In my opinion, you’re just engaging in story telling, not unlike the Darwinists/materialists. Sorry. I tell it like I see it. Thank you for your input.’

That’s all right, mapou. I like people to respond in a non-maliciously-inspired, but forthright, way.

Well, of course, if you wish to look upon the bible as merely a human artifact and that it is not impossible for you to understand God completely, it’s your prerogative.

To me, it smacks of the materialist’s ‘promissory note’, being the antithesis of the mindset promoted by every mainstream religion, so you are setting yourself against the wisdom of mankind from the earliest recorded times to the present day. I think the Hindu Upanishads may have been the earliest religious writings.

It is true that this controversy can go nowhere, isn’t it? Let’s call it a day, at least, after you’ve responded – if you wish to, that is.

It’s just that you seem to be a ‘spiritual relativist’ – another parallel with ‘our friends’ – with your own, highly idiosyncratic version of Christianity, rendering the terms of reference for argumentation impossible; our assumptions, widely divergent and, mutually, either mysterious or plum wrong.

Still anyone who can describe ‘our friends’ across the aisle as pungently as you have, can’t be all wrong, foreshore.