From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 12:17:00 EDT
In post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0100.html Don WInterstein wrote:
>Richard McGough wrote in part:
>>Let me make my point again. Consider a single free proton with energy less than 10^8k. That's one of Tegmark's possible universes. Its Hamiltonian has an infinite number of continuous eigenvalues. The eigenfunctions are plane waves, e^-iEt. Therefore, there are an infinite number of _distinguishable_ states for just this one single-proton universe, i.e. every possible wave packet. Now add the interaction with 10^50 particles and all their states, spins, etc, and you have an infinity of infinities of possibilities.
>>The number 2^10^118 as the count of all possible physical configurations in a hubble volume is absurd. Q.E.D.
>I see no problem with this argument. Tegmark considers only particle location and not momentum, etc. A universe where the momentum of a single particle differed from that of the corresponding particle in an otherwise identical universe would be a different universe, would it not? If this is a relevant consideration, then, using Tegmark's line of reasoning as I understand it, the nearest Level I universe identical to ours would be infinitely farther away than Tegmark indicates. While this would not eliminate the possibility of identical universes, it would make them less relevant than ever.
>So I think we really need to hear what Tegmark has to say in his defense. So, Richard, how about writing a letter to Scientific American? There's at least a chance he would answer in print.
>Don
I agree with Don and will compose the letter today.
I think it is extremely important that we note again the complete lack of physical reality in Tegmark's binary proton model. A Hubble volume of naked protons in fixed locations is a strange model indeed. It shoud not be accepted as the basis for any serious speculation. And this is what really baffles me. I have presented rock-solid calculations, involving no assumptions whatsoever, concerning the probability that 66 objects grouped into seven arbitrary divisions would exhibit the radial and bilateral symmetry of the 66 Book Canon when displayed on the Wheel. The result is one chance in 688,324. Here is the link:
http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp
Thus we know that the large-scale structure of Scripture yields an extremely rare and very beautiful pattern. But the pattern is not just any pattern. It matches the threefold cruciform halos used in icons of Christ in ancient Christian art. This links the geometric structure of Scripture to an icon of the faith that includes trinitarian overtones. Yet all of this is nothing but the tip of ten thousand wonders seen when the Bible is viewed in the form of the Wheel.
Would it be possible to discuss my work in this forum? I just can not understand how people can be perfectly willing to speculate about the salvation of copies of Glen in alternate universes while refusing to discuss the serious and solid study of the geometric structure of the traditional 66 Book Christian Canon. It seems that many have some hidden a priori reason for rejecting it out of hand, regardless of evidence. I have yearned for years for nothing but a simple discussion. I have published nearly a thousand pages on my site. I would like to know what problems or errors there are in my presentation. I would like to know what know what others think is most impressive and powerful about the Wheel. I would like to know what is obvious to others and what is not. I would like intelligent, informed, and thoughtful criticism. Would this be possible in this forum?
In service of the Lamb of God,
Richard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 05 2003 - 12:13:46 EDT