The *Big Bang Theory* sitcom’s Sheldon Cooper insists that in no universe would he dance with Penny. That mighrt be true, says Marks but there still isn’t an infinite number of universes:

But, some claim, there is an infinite number of universes in the multiverse. That is ludicrous because there are no infinities in the physical world. Even if there were, Cantor’s theory of the infinite shows that, if there were an infinite number of contingencies, not all contingency combinations could be accounted for by an infinite number of universes.

Therefore, even if there is an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of contingencies, then—among an infinite number of Sheldons—it’s possible that none of the Sheldons dance.

Robert J. Marks, “Is Big Bang Theory’s Nerd Right About the Multiverse?” atMind Matters News

There cannot be an infinite number of anything.

Hmm. It looks like he argues that a

countablyinfinite collection of universes would not satisfy the assumptions he makes about how many contradistinctions exist between different universes. But it’s not clear that his assumptions must hold or that there could not be an uncountably infinite collection of universes in the multiverse.Marks: “That is ludicrous because there are no infinities in the physical world.”

“The physical world” means THIS universe. If there are OTHER universes, then you don’t know what exists in them or how many there are. If Big Bangs are constantly creating new universes and this has been happening forever, then there may well be an infinate number of universes.

It is Impossible to believe that if you have an infinite number of universes, That they would not interact with one another at some point

That actually is impossible, there’s no way to guarantee that universes won’t interact with one another eventually

And if you have an infinite number of them spanning infinitely, eventually and definitely, our universe will interact with, not just one, but all of these possibilities

Constantly

Because that is the power of infinite, if it is even remotely possible it will happen indefinitely and constantly

That means that the universe will inevitably destroy itself if that’s remotely possible, and i do not see how it is not

So if an infinite number of big bangs can create an infinite number of universes, then what’s stopping the opposite from happening, absolutely nothing

It shoots itself in the foot and there is legitimately no way around that unless you invoke intelligent design and something places rules to prevent those events from happening

FourFaces: There cannot be an infinite number of anything.Not speaking of the abstract of course!

Why Four Faces by the way? A reference to Brahma?

Aarons1978: So what you believe is the measure of all things. Perhaps Marks will take you on as a grad student.

Not that it matters, because they are all epistemologically self-defeating, but Dr. Marks is conflating his multiverses.

In the first part of his article, Dr. Marks references ‘many worlds’, which is a multiverse that arises in quantum mechanics when atheists refuse to accept the reality of quantum wave collapse.

Then, directly after that, Dr, Marks references the very first part of Max Tegmark’s article “Parallel Universes” in which Max Tegmark is referencing what he refers to as the “Level I multiverse”, which is a multiverse which Tegmark claims arises within this universe “IF” the space of this one universe is granted to be infinitely large.

Then after that, Dr Marks then, in trying to find some kind of mathematical limit for the number of possible multiverses that there can possibly be, references Linde’s 10^1000 multiverse limit that pops up in entropic considerations about the inflationary multiverse:

While it certainly would be nice to try to find some kind of mathematical limit for the number of possible multiverses that there can possibly be, it simply does not follow that the entropic constraint that Linde tries to impose on the inflationary multiverse should also apply to any of the other multiverses. For instance, in the many worlds of quantum mechanics, it is held that, instead of the quantum wave simply collapsing, that the universe is instead continuously splitting into a virtual infinity of other parallel universes where all the ‘infinite’ possibilities of quantum wave collapse are playing out.

While I certainly think that entropic considerations, among many other considerations, render many worlds absurd, it simply does not follow Linde’s 10^1000 entropic constraint that he found for the inflationary multiverse should also apply to the many worlds multiverse. They are two entirely different theoretical creatures.

After all, if entropic considerations played any role whatsoever when many world’s was first formulated, then that theory should have been dead out of the gate. Can there even be a greater violation of entropy than the belief in “the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!),?”

Of supplemental note, in the following video I go over all of Max Tegmark’s various multiverse scenarios and show some of the more obvious major, and fatal, flaws within each of the various multiverse models that he posits:

Also of note:

MS,

it is hard to discuss this as it strains our concepts and vocab. There is a view that there is a wider, grand quasi-physical gamut in which particular sub-cosmi such as our observed cosmos exist. Quantum foam with fluctuations and expanding sub-verses is one way. The claim of a quasi- or even actually infinite array of such, is highly speculative and dubious. I think there are those who conceive of wholly independent, non-interacting domains.

All of this, at best, is speculation of philosophical character with Mathematical apparatus done while wearing lab coats. There being no credible empirical, observational check points of fact, we should be wary indeed about entertaining such.

It is clear that traversal of an actually infinite causal-temporal succession of stages in finite stage steps is an infeasible supertask. On that alone, for cause I find the notion of a wider quasi-physical, infinite past domain as root of reality utterly implausible.

The entirely speculative metaphysical character opens up alternatives, per comparative difficulties.

That leads to an empirically readily observable constraint on the roots of reality: just to argue, we inescapably imply that we are under built-in first duties of reason antecedent to science, Math, phil etc. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so, inter alia, to warrant for claimed knowledge], to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness & justice, etc etc. In turn that points to the issue of genuine freedom [without which we cannot be truly rational] and the IS-OUGHT gap central to moral government. That gap can only be bridged in the reality root.

Such requires the inherently good and utterly wise with power to be source of worlds and of necessary being — causally independent, world framing — character as root of being.

If that sounds familiar, it should. Ethical theism is a reasonable plausibility framework for our worldview. Indeed, arguably the only one that answers adequately to significant, rational, responsible freedom. Where also, God as serious candidate necessary being world root, means, either impossible of being (as with a square circle) or else actual.

Where, there is no reasonably plausible argument that God is impossible of being.

KF

JVL @5,

Not speaking of the abstract of course!Not even in the abstract (the spiritual realm) can there be an infinite number of entities.

Why Four Faces by the way? A reference to Brahma?It could be related. Many ancient traditions share a similar symbolism, the true meaning of which has been lost in time. In this case, FourFaces (man, lion, eagle, bull) is a reference to the writings of Yahweh’s mystical prophet, Ezekiel. According to my interpretation of the metaphors, the four faces represent the four “spin” states of the electron or the four types of photons. The electron itself is a composite particle comprising 4 sub-particles (creatures). Cheers. 😀

FourFaces: Not even in the abstract (the spiritual realm) can there be an infinite number of entities.Are there an infinite number of whole numbers?

According to my interpretation of the metaphors, the four faces represent the four “spin” states of the electron or the four types of photons. The electron itself is a composite particle comprising 4 sub-particles (creatures). Cheers. ????Very interesting! What is the matching between faces and spin states?

JVL,

Are there an infinite number of whole numbers?No. It’s easy to disprove infinity. It is self-contradictory. If infinity existed, a number would be both finite and infinitesimal compared to infinity.

Very interesting! What is the matching between faces and spin states?Faces represent the four absolute dimensions of reality. A particle with only one face (e.g., the photon) has two “spin” states. That is, it can face in either of two directions, forward or backward. A particle with four faces can have up to eight states. There really is no such thing as particle spin. It was an early brain-dead interpretation of particle physics experiments. Somehow, they decided to retain the term for grins and giggles, I guess.

How can an atheist posit an infinite number of worlds in which everything that has a logical probability greater than zero happens somewhere, and then in the next breath assert that a man rising from the dead is an impossibility?

If every nomologically possible world exists then there must be a world in which the proposition “God exists” is true. But if so, as modern versions of the ontological argument affirm, such a being must necessarily exist in every possible world, including ours.

Thus, I don’t see how one can believe in a multiverse and also be an atheistic materialist. What am I missing?

The multiverse is to physics what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to theology: The Argument from Ignorance masquerading as a serious idea.

Since Dr. Marks referenced Linde’s 10^1000 multiverse limit that pops up in entropic considerations about the inflationary multiverse,,,,

Since that was brought up, I would like to focus on entropic considerations in order to establish that it was indeed God Who created this universe.

First off, Entropy is, by a wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated that, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”

In the following video, Dr, Bruce Gordon touches upon just how enormous that number truly is. Dr. Gordon states, “you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with a zero on every proton and neutron in all of those universes just to write out this number. That is how fine tuned the initial entropy of our universe is.”

This extreme fine-tuning of the initial entropy of the universe creates some fairly embarrassing problems for atheistic naturalists.

As Dr. William Lane Craig explains,

On top of the fact that Boltzmann Brains, via the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe, drive atheistic naturalism into catastrophic epistemological failure as a coherent explanation for the initial entropy of our universe, entropy and how it relates to quantum mechanics, also empirically refutes naturalism as a rational explanation for the initial 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of our universe.

One line of empirical evidence is from the Quantum Zeno effect.

An old entry in wikipedia described the Quantum Zeno effect as such “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay.”

Likewise, the present day entry on wikipedia about the Quantum Zeno effect also provocatively states that “a system can’t change while you are watching it”

Atheistic materialists have tried to get around the Quantum Zeno effect by postulating that interactions with the environment are sufficient to explain the Quantum Zeno effect.

Yet, the following interaction-free measurement of the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrated that the presence of the Quantum Zeno effect can be detected without interacting with a single atom.

In short, the quantum zeno effect, regardless of how atheistic materialists may feel about it, is experimentally shown to be a real effect that is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation.

Moreover, on top of the Quantum Zeno effect demonstrating that an ‘observer’ must somehow have a intimate relationship with the entropy of the universe in that “an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay’,,, on top of that astonishing fact, in 2011 researchers “show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,

In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”

And as the following 2017 article states: James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,

quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,

Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

Again to repeat that last sentence, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

This statement is just fascinating! Why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe, entropic actions which also happen to explain time itself,,,,

,,, why in blue blazes should the finely tuned entropic actions of the universe even care if I am consciously observing them or not unless ‘conscious observation’ really is more foundational to reality than the finely tuned 1 in 10^10^123 entropy of the universe is? To state the blatantly obvious, this finding of entropy being “a property of an observer who describes a system.” is very friendly to a Mind First, and/or to a Theistic view of reality which holds that it is the Mind of God who is “describing the universe” and is thus “The Mind” behind the initial 1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy of the universe.

Moreover, Christianity predicted God to be behind the initial entropy of the universe long before entropy was even establish as one of the, if not THE most, foundational laws of science. For instance, Romans chapter 8: verses 20 and 21 itself states, “For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.”

Thus atheistic naturalism is refuted as an explanation for the creation of the universe by mathematics, via the reductio absurdum of Boltzmann Brains, and is also refuted by quantum mechanics, via the Quantum Zeno Effect, Quantum Information theory, and the experimental realization of the Maxwell Demon thought experiment.

As well, this line of evidence from thermodynamics, i.e. quantum information theory, also plays out in the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate in molecular biology.

The positional information that is found to be in a simple one cell bacterium, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be on the order 10 to the 12 bits,,,

,,, Which is the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘In comparison,,, the largest libraries in the world,, have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.”

In is important to note that the information to build a human, atom by atom, cannot possibly be contained within the embryonic cell. In fact, Darwinists have no clue how multicellular creatures, (nor even bacterial cells), achieve their basic biological form

As Dr. Doug Axe states in the following video at the 1 hour 16 minute mark, “there are a quadrillion neural connections in the human brain, that’s vastly more neural connections in the human brain than there are bits (of information) in the human genome. So,,, there’s got to be something else going on that makes us what we are.”

To give us a rough estimate as to how much ‘positional information’ is in a human body, since Bacterial cells are about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells.

And since there are conservatively estimated to be around 30 trillion cells in the average human body,

Then that gives us a rough ballpark estimate, (via the 10^12 bits calculated to be in bacterial cells from the thermodynamic prespective), of around 300 trillion times 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Or about 300 trillion times the information content contained within the books of the largest libraries in the world. Needless to say, that is a massive amount of positional information that is somehow coming into a developing embryo from the outside by some non-material method.

And as the following article states, the information to build a human infant, atom by atom, would take up the equivalent of enough thumb drives to fill the Titanic, multiplied by 2,000.

So just where is this massive amount of ‘positional’ information coming from in a developing embryo if it cannot possibly be contained within the DNA of the fertilized egg of a human?

At about the 41:00 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Wells, using a branch of mathematics called category theory, demonstrates that, during embryological development, ‘positional information’ must somehow be added to the developing embryo, ‘from the outside’, by some ‘non-material’ method, in order to explain the transdifferentiation of cells into multiple different states during embryological development.

Moreover, as the following video highlights, there is now found to be a massive amount of non-local, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement and/or quantum information within the molecular biology of living organisms.

The thing about quantum entanglement and/or quantum information that is so interesting is that it requires a ‘non-local’ cause that is beyond space and time. As the following article states, ““Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

In other words, Intelligent Design, and a direct inference to God as the Intelligence behind life, (via the non-locality of quantum information and/or the non-locality of quantum entanglement ), has, for all intents and purposes, finally achieved experimental confirmation.

Darwinists simply have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to in order to be able to explain where this massive amount of positional and/or quantum information could possibly be coming from in a developing embryo. Whereas, on the other hand, Christians have postulated a beyond space and time cause all along.

On top of all that, quantum information is physically conserved and therefore cannot be created nor destroyed,,,

The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious. That pleasant implication is, of course, the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

Verse:

Supplemental note:

Thus in conclusion, entropy, which Linde himself appealed to to try to find some kind of upper limit for inflationary multiverses, is actually, when examining the scientific evidence itself, (instead of just looking at theoretical mathematics as Linde did), found to be one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, scientific evidences that we have for Intelligent Design of both the universe and of life in the universe via God.

Matspirit

Aarons1978: So what you believe is the measure of all things. Perhaps Marks will take you on as a grad student.

Oh please explain this intelligent comment to me

I will ATTEMPT to be polite in my next response

FF, the infinitude of numbers — both countable and continuum — is a case of actual abstracta that are framework for any world. Hence, much of the utility of Mathematics. KF

KF,

I think what FF is missing is that “finite” and “infinitesimal” are properties of single numbers rather than relationships between pairs of numbers. A number is either finite or infinitesimal, period. It’s not finite or infinitesimal compared to some other number.

DS, maybe. I think there is lack of awareness of the panoply of numbers and need to expose to the transfinites and tamed infinitesimals. The hyperreals, surreals [as a structure per Ehrlich et al, not the elaborate game to get there, in detail] and complex domains. KF

I wrote:

It’s easy to disprove infinity. It is self-contradictory. If infinity existed, a number would be both finite and infinitesimal compared to infinity.KF replies:

the infinitude of numbers — both countable and continuum — is a case of actual abstracta that are framework for any world.I bow before your infinite wisdom. Not. Anyone who uses the word ‘actual’ together with ‘abstracta’ is not to be taken seriously, IMO.

DaveS,

A number is either finite or infinitesimal, period.LOL. The cognitive dissonance is intense with this one. Every number is finite by definition. Otherwise, you could not write it down. But maybe I should have said that any number is infinitely small compared to infinity. Nothing can be both finite and infinitely small at the same time.

I think I’m wasting my time. Believers in infinity are a religious cult. Only God can make them see the light. 😀

FF,

Where did you hear that?

FourFaces: Every number is finite by definition.You’re talking about value not expression clearly; i.e. the value of root 2 is finite, it’s expression in our base 10 decimal system is infinite.

So, I take it you don’t consider all cardinal numbers numbers?

FF, omega, order type of natural counting numbers is transfinite and succeeded to w^w^ . . . just for one. At pivot of distinct identity, foundation of communication etc, is duality. The number 2 is part of framework for any possible world and the logic of structure and quantity constrains all of reality. We can go on to H so 1/H is h LT 1/n for any n in N. And much more. There is no good reason to deny reality to abstracta, reality is not equal to embodiment. KF

PS: Athanasian creed, God is immensus, beyond measure, infinite.

JVL,

I consider any number to be finite.

KF:

PS: Athanasian creed, God is immensus, beyond measure, infinite.Satan’s creed. Mindless babble. 😀

DaveS:

Where did you hear that?I’m not telling you. You are unworthy. 😀

FourFaces: I consider any number to be finite.Okay . . . so when you consider the set of whole numbers and, say, the set of even whole numbers, how do you determine which of those sets is larger?

As Immanuel Kant would say, if it exists, where is it? If a number (or anything) is infinite, show it to me. The value of root 2 is neither finite nor infinite. It doesn’t exist, abstractly or not. But a finite approximation is good enough for most purposes.

JVL,

Okay . . . so when you consider the set of whole numbers and, say, the set of even whole numbers, how do you determine which of those sets is larger?I don’t. Neither exists. They’re fictitious inventions. Comparing infinities is the occupation of lunatics.

FourFaces: The value of root 2 is neither finite nor infinite. It doesn’t exist, abstractly or not.So what is the numerical solution to the algebraic expression: x^2 – 2 = 0

I don’t. Neither exists. They’re fictitious inventions. Comparing infinities is the occupation of lunatics.Does that mean you think the number of whole numbers is finite? Does that mean you think there is a largest number?

JVL:

So what is the numerical solution to the algebraic expression: x^2 – 2 = 0There is no numerical solution.

Does that mean you think the number of whole numbers is finite? Does that mean you think there is a largest number?There is no number of whole numbers. There is no largest number. Numbers are abstract. A number exists only if it’s in use by a conscious entity. All we can say is that one can keep incrementing a number forever but that is not a mathematical statement since math is timeless. It’s part of the definition of the number system.

FourFaces: There is no numerical solution.So, we’re back to pre-Greecian mathematics then?

There is no number of whole numbers. There is no largest number. Numbers are abstract. A number exists only if it’s in use by a conscious entity.I can use aleph-nought, the cardinal value of the natural numbers; I can do arithmetic with it. So, it must exist then yes?

All we can say is that one can keep incrementing a number forever but that is not a mathematical statement since math is timeless. It’s part of the definition of the number system.Whose definition is that? You do realise that using your standards means you would not have a computer (which depends on quantum mechanics) to use to reply?

JVL,

So, we’re back to pre-Greecian mathematics then?Why? If you got a solution, let’s see it.

I can use aleph-nought, the cardinal value of the natural numbers; I can do arithmetic with it. So, it must exist then yes?No, you cannot do arithmetic with it. Try adding 1 to it and give me the result. Why are you guys so allergic to simple logic?

Whose definition is that? You do realise that using your standards means you would not have a computer (which depends on quantum mechanics) to use to reply?This is all crackpottery. There’s nothing infinite in a computer. The universe has been around for eons before “quantum mechanics”, a human invention, showed up.

FourFaces: No, you cannot do arithmetic with it. Try adding 1 to it and give me the result. Why are you guys so allergic to simple logic?aleph-nought + 1 = aleph-nought. Easy.

This is all crackpottery. There’s nothing infinite in a computer. The universe has been around for eons before “quantum mechanics”, a human invention, showed up.Quantum mechanics has been verified over and over again. As has general relativity. What about Calculus (based on limits); is that all just crackpottery as well?

How about this: can you derive the formula for the area or circumference of a circle?

JVL,

aleph-nought + 1 = aleph-nought. Easy.LOL. It must be a Satan thing. Arithmetic uses numbers. I only see one number above. Remember, Satan is the father of lies. Resist the devil and he shall flee from you. He hates truth. 😀

Quantum mechanics has been verified over and over again. As has general relativity. What about Calculus (based on limits); is that all just crackpottery as well?How about this: can you derive the formula for the area or circumference of a circle?1. Calculus uses infinities only in the minds of lunatics. My computer is finite and I have not trouble performing calculus equations on it.

2. Nature doesn’t use infinities regardless of your wishful thinking.

3. GR fails many tests. For examples, it requires deterministic reality and it forbids nonlocality. It even forbids motion since spacetime is a block universe. Even Gottfried Leibniz understood centuries ago that locality (space) was nonsense.

4. A perfect circle doesn’t exist since it would require infinity,

5. I’m done here. I’m arguing with Satan. 😀

FourFaces: LOL. It must be a Satan thing. Arithmetic uses numbers. I only see one number above. Remember, Satan is the father of lies. Resist the devil and he shall flee from you. He hates truth. ????Oh, so you’re not really interested in mathematics then. At least no mathematics that happened in the last few hundred years.

1. Calculus uses infinities only in the minds of lunatics. My computer is finite and I have not trouble performing calculus equations on it.The underlying mathematics is based on limits.

2. Nature doesn’t use infinities regardless of your wishful thinking.I didn’t say it did. But Fourier analysis does.

3. GR fails many tests. For examples, it requires deterministic reality and it forbids nonlocality. It even forbids motion since spacetime is a block universe. Even Gottfried Leibniz understood centuries ago that locality (space) was nonsense.I’m sure we’ve met here before. But you were using a different ‘name’ then.

4. A perfect circle doesn’t exist since it would require infinity,So, you cannot compute the are or circumference?

5. I’m done here. I’m arguing with Satan. ????Actually, I’m just one of his regional franchisees. I got this gig from the previous owner whose soul got taken away for some reason. I didn’t want the job but it sounded like a good temporary thing until something else came along. But now I keep getting these weird calls about what temperature gradient I want in the afterlife.

Get thee hence, Satan! 😀

FourFaces: Get thee hence, Satan! ????Ooo, he may already be here, he may have already download himself to your machine. His evil powers and nefarious ways may have leapt across the digital void and entwined his will with your motherboard. You’d best stay alert ’cause you may find yourself dealing with forces you cannot possibly control.

Satan used to know arithmetic but, after the Archangel Michael slapped him around silly, he forgot it was about numbers. So now he goes around screaming “infinity” to his hapless followers. 😀

To infinity and beyond!!!!!!!

I am sorry I honestly couldn’t help that one

FourFaces: Satan used to know arithmetic but, after the Archangel Michael slapped him around silly, he forgot it was about numbers. So now he goes around screaming “infinity” to his hapless followers. ????Oh dear, the devil’s fiendish plot has been revealed! His legions of followers will have to fall back and regroup and look for another way into the Christian citadel.