Re: Predeterminism and parallel universes

From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 13:50:14 EDT

  • Next message: Debbie Mann: "RE: Predeterminism and parallel universes"

    Debbie wrote:

    >It's not like one could spend an hour and understand or review your web site. You have twenty two sections covering the whole Bible. One would need to at least analyze three or four to even have an opinion. This is not the work of an afternoon.

    You are absolutely correct. I'm certainly not asking for a complete analysis of everything I wrote! :-)

    There are dozens of places to start. The best seems to be the "high level" super-obvious pattern seen in the sevenfold symmetry of the Canon Wheel.

    http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/CanonWheel_FullSize.asp

    For those who need mathematical proof that this pattern is too rare to be reasonably considered a random occurrence, we could discuss my calculation of the probababilities, which result in one chance in 688,324.

    http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp

    This could be augmented with a more detailed view of symmetries that lie below the level of the Canon Wheel (similar to the idea of broken symmetry in physics, where some symmetry remains):

    http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/symmetries.asp

    Also, those familar with the relation between symmetry principles and the laws of physics might find the derivation of the Canon Wheel from first principles of interest:

    http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/Derivation.asp

    And this article reviewing A. Zee's book Fearful Symmetry:

    http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/AZ_Fearful.asp

    Alternately, for those more inclined towards beauty, art, and theology, we could discuss how this pattern relates to ancient Christian icons of Christ, as in these articles:

    http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/Art_Wheel.asp

    http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/BibleArt.asp

    Or this one relating to Blake's Tyger Tyger:

    http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/WB_Tyger.asp

    Another really good starting place is my overview of the whole Wheel called "A Great Cloud of Witnesses"

    http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/CloudOfWitnesses.asp

    Well, that should be enough to get the discussion going.

    In service of the Lamb of God,

    Richard Amiel McGough
    Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com

    ----- Original Message -----
      From: Debbie Mann
      To: richard@biblewheel.com
      Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 10:26 AM
      Subject: RE: Predeterminism and parallel universes

      It's not like one could spend an hour and understand or review your web site. You have twenty two sections covering the whole Bible. One would need to at least analyze three or four to even have an opinion. This is not the work of an afternoon.
        -----Original Message-----
        From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of richard@biblewheel.com
        Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 11:17 AM
        To: asa@calvin.edu
        Subject: Re: Predeterminism and parallel universes

        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 - 13:47:19 EDT