Robert J. Marks on why there cannot be an infinite number of universes

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. JVL

I am sorry I honestly couldn’t help that one AaronS1978

To infinity and beyond!!!!!!! AaronS1978

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. :-D FourFaces

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. JVL

Get thee hence, Satan! :-D FourFaces

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. JVL

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. :-D 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. :-D FourFaces

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

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

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

JVL: So what is the numerical solution to the algebraic expression: x^2 – 2 = 0 There 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

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

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

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. FourFaces

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? JVL

DaveS: Where did you hear that? I'm not telling you. You are unworthy. :-D FourFaces

JVL, I consider any number to be finite. KF: PS: Athanasian creed, God is immensus, beyond measure, infinite. Satan's creed. Mindless babble. :-D FourFaces

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. kairosfocus

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? JVL

FF,

Every number is finite by definition. Otherwise, you could not write it down.

Where did you hear that? daveS

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. :-D FourFaces

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. FourFaces

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 kairosfocus

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. daveS

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 kairosfocus

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 AaronS1978

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.

In a TED Talk, (the Question You May Not Ask,,, Where did the information come from?) – November 29, 2017 Excerpt: Sabatini is charming.,,, he deploys some memorable images. He points out that 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. Later he wheels out the entire genome, in printed form, of a human being,,,,: [F]or the first time in history, this is the genome of a specific human, printed page-by-page, letter-by-letter: 262,000 pages of information, 450 kilograms.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/in-a-ted-talk-heres-the-question-you-may-not-ask/

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.

Design Beyond DNA: A Conversation with Dr. Jonathan Wells – video (41:00 minute mark) – January 2017 https://youtu.be/ASAaANVBoiE?t=2484

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.

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

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,”

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “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,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php

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.

Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Psalm 139:13-16 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

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

Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html

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.”

Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.disclose.tv/leading-scientists-say-consciousness-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe-315604

Verse:

Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

Supplemental note:

How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f0hL3Nrdas

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.

Romans 8:19-21 The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.…

bornagain77

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.”

Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011 Excerpt: Recent research by a team of physicists,,, describe,,, how the deletion of data, under certain conditions, can create a cooling effect instead of generating heat. The cooling effect appears when the strange quantum phenomenon of entanglement is invoked.,,, The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They 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. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,, No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm

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.”,,,

The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017 Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.” In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply. They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,, Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. 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.”,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

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,,,,

Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy.,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/

,,, 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.”

Romans 8:20-21 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. “We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’…. Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’” Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics. Psalm 102:25-27 Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

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,,,

Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures. http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/~angel/tsb/molecular.htm

,,, 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.”

“a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong – The Creation-evolution Controversy ‘The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.” Carl Sagan, “Life” in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894

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

Darwinism vs Biological Form https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

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.”

“There is also a presumption, typically when we talk about our genome, (that the genome) is a blueprint for making us. And that is actually not a proven fact in biology. That is an assumption. And (one) that I question because I don’t think that 4 billion bases, which would be 8 billion bits of information, that you would actually have enough information to specify a human being. If you consider for example that 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.” Doug Axe – Intelligent Design 3.0 – Stephen C. Meyer – video https://youtu.be/lgs6J4LqeqI?t=4575

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.

Size Comparisons of Bacteria, Amoeba, Animal & Plant Cells Excerpt: Bacterial cells are very small – about 10 times smaller than most plant and animal cells. https://education.seattlepi.com/size-comparisons-bacteria-amoeba-animal-plant-cells-4966.html

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

Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body – 2016 Abstract: Reported values in the literature on the number of cells in the body differ by orders of magnitude and are very seldom supported by any measurements or calculations. Here, we integrate the most up-to-date information on the number of human and bacterial cells in the body. We estimate the total number of bacteria in the 70 kg “reference man” to be 3.8·10^13. For human cells, we identify the dominant role of the hematopoietic lineage to the total count (?90%) and revise past estimates to 3.0·10^13 human cells. Our analysis also updates the widely-cited 10:1 ratio, showing that the number of bacteria in the body is actually of the same order as the number of human cells, and their total mass is about 0.2 kg. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533

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. bornagain77

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

How many universes are in the multiverse? Andrei Linde, Vitaly Vanchurin We argue that the total number of distinguishable locally Friedmann universes generated by eternal inflation is proportional to the exponent of the entropy of inflationary perturbations and is limited by e^(e^(3 N)),,,, https://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1589

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.”

“This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.” Roger Penrose – How special was the big bang? – (from the Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose, pp 339-345 – 1989) “The time-asymmetry is fundamentally connected to with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: indeed, the extraordinarily special nature (to a greater precision than about 1 in 10^10^123, in terms of phase-space volume) can be identified as the “source” of the Second Law (Entropy).” Roger Penrose – The Physics of the Small and Large: What is the Bridge Between Them?

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.”

“An explosion you think of as kind of a messy event. And this is the point about entropy. The explosion in which our universe began was not a messy event. And if you talk about how messy it could have been, this is what the Penrose calculation is all about essentially. It looks at the observed statistical entropy in our universe. The entropy per baryon. And he calculates that out and he arrives at a certain figure. And then he calculates using the Bekenstein-Hawking formula for Black-Hole entropy what the,,, (what sort of entropy could have been associated with,,, the singularity that would have constituted the beginning of the universe). So you’ve got the numerator, the observed entropy, and the denominator, how big it (the entropy) could have been. And that fraction turns out to be,, 1 over 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. Let me just emphasize how big that denominator is so you can gain a real appreciation for how small that probability is. So there are 10^80th baryons in the universe. Protons and neutrons. No suppose we put a zero on every one of those. OK, how many zeros is that? That is 10^80th zeros. This number has 10^123rd zeros. OK, so you would need a hundred million, trillion, trillion, trillion, universes our size, with 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. And if there were a pre-Big Bang state and you had some bounces, then that fine tuning (for entropy) gets even finer as you go backwards if you can even imagine such a thing. ” Dr Bruce Gordon – Contemporary Physics and God Part 2 – video – 1:50 minute mark – video https://youtu.be/ff_sNyGNSko?t=110

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,

Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument The Fine Tuning of the Universe – drcraigvideos – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

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.”

Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018 The quantum Zeno effect is,, an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf

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”

Quantum Zeno effect Excerpt: Sometimes this effect is interpreted as “a system can’t change while you are watching it” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

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.

Perspectives on the quantum Zeno paradox – 2018 Excerpt: The references to observations and to wavefunction collapse tend to raise unnecessary questions related to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Actually, all that is required is that some interaction with an external system disturb the unitary evolution of the quantum system in a way that is effectively like a projection operator. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/196/1/012018/pdf

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.

Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015 Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150414/ncomms7811/full/ncomms7811.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20150415

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. bornagain77

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

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? Dick

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. FourFaces

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

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. :-D FourFaces

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 kairosfocus

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.

Sheldon: While I subscribe to the Many Worlds theory, which posits the existence of an infinite number of Sheldons in an infinite number of universes, I assure you that in none of them I am dancing.

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.

Parallel Universes - Max Tegmark - 2003 Excerpt: Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on. The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 1028 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelgänger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices.,,, https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf

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:

How many universes are in the multiverse? Andrei Linde, Vitaly Vanchurin We argue that the total number of distinguishable locally Friedmann universes generated by eternal inflation is proportional to the exponent of the entropy of inflationary perturbations and is limited by e^(e^(3 N)),,,, https://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1589

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!),?"

Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God - Michael Egnor - August 2, 2017 Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic. The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less. Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,, What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/ Too many worlds - Philip Ball - Feb. 17, 2015 Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way. That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,, http://aeon.co/magazine/science/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-a-fantasy/

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:

Multiverse Mania vs Reality - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo Paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K1zhcd3ElF-3G_DYlMYBR4qaZrvU09lg0MqmhvN2Sw8/edit

Also of note:

May 2020 - (unlike all these various multiverse scenarios for which atheists have no physical evidence), the evidence from Special Relativity, (which is currently one of our most powerful theories in science), strongly supports the physical reality of a timeless eternity and of a heavenly dimension that exists above this temporal dimension. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-neuroscientists-cant-dismiss-near-death-experiences/#comment-702863 Matthew 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

bornagain77

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

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? JVL

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 AaronS1978

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. MatSpirit

Hmm. It looks like he argues that a countably infinite 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. daveS

There cannot be an infinite number of anything. FourFaces