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

_{News
June 4, 2020

Intelligent Design, Mathematics, Multiverse

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Mathematics
Multiverse}

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

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?” at Mind Matters News

Comments

The multiverse is to physics what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to theology: The Argument from Ignorance masquerading as a serious idea.EvilSnack_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

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_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

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_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

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_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

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. :-DFourFaces_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

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_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

Aarons1978: So what you believe is the measure of all things. Perhaps Marks will take you on as a grad student.MatSpirit_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

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_{June 5, 2020
June
06
Jun
5
05
2020
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

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 happeningAaronS1978_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT}

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_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

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_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

There cannot be an infinite number of anything.FourFaces_{June 4, 2020
June
06
Jun
4
04
2020
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply