From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Sun Jul 06 2003 - 19:12:24 EDT
Richard and Don wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Don Winterstein
>Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 3:24 AM
>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.
I can tell you in part what he will say. It is in the article. His
calculation is based upon the max number of protons which can appear in a
Hubble volume. That is where the
2^(10^118) comes from. He says:
"One way to do the calculation is to ask how many protons could be packed
into a Hubble volume at that temperature. The answer is 10^118) protons.
Each of those particles may or may not, in fact be present, which makes for
2^(10^118)," Tegmark, Parallel Universes, Scientific American, May 2003, p.
42
Given that if two universes, have carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc. nucleii
arranged in a similar pattern to our universe, to our planet, to my body,
from a macroscopic viewpoint, it will look very, very much like our
universe, indeed, from a macroscopic viewpoint it would look identical.
Agreed the two would not be in the identical quantum state because of all
the other particles spin states etc.
I am glad that Richard is going to send a letter to SciAm as that is the way
to handle the situation. I am puzzled, thoough why none of the other
critics of Tegmark, like Paul Davies, bothers to raise this objection. Guys
like Davies, are not stupid. see
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/Multiverse_StanfordUniv_March2003.pdf
Richard wrote in another note:
>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?
Since I am just back on this list after quite a vacation, my answer says
nothing about why others might or might not want to discuss the Biblewheel.
I spent some time today perusing your site. The reason I am willing to
discuss the multiverse, indeed the reason I raised it, is that top-level
physicists are seriously entertaining the idea. And the fact that there has
been since 1985 a proposed observable test of the MWH. Not all physicists
believe MWH, not even a majority yet, but, enough to make me want to
understand the implications of such a view BEFORE that view becomes
consensus, or more importantly, before the test is conducted. I will post
the test in another note.
Also, even if you are absolutely correct about Tegmark's level 1 calculation
being wrong, it doesn't change the fact that there are still other path's to
the MWH. Hugh Everett's is probably the most discussed. and it is the one
for which an experimental test has been proposed. Thus, while your critique
of Tegmark may or may not be correct, it doesn't kill the MWH viewpoint.
Thus, I would still want to discuss this.
As to your stuff, for my part, my lack of interest in such matters falls
into three buckets. First, I have seen all sorts of these things come along.
Vernon is good at doing math on the Bible, then there are the Bible codes,
and now your BibleWheel. The problem I have is that I strongly suspect (and
indeed have seen examples) that one can take any book and find SOME
coincidences, some statistical fluke. To use such things as 'proof' of
God's involvement seems weak because there has not be a control. A control
in science is an experiment run to rule out other possibilities. I have
never seen anyone rule out the very likely possiblitity in my mind that any
book could be thoroughly searched and come up with some wierd oddity which
seems miraculous. Until that control is done, I will continue to be very,
very sceptical of such things.
My second concern concerns bibliolatry (something I have been accused of as
well). It is not the Bible that we should worship. It is the One who
inspired it. Biblecodes, wheels and numerical wonders shown by Vernon
borders on bilbiolatry to me.
Thirdly, our salvation is based on faith, not proof. These are misguided
efforts to provide proof for christianity, something I think the Bible makes
clear is not what we are to have. I think the search for proof is where the
YECs go wrong.
Those are my views of the type of work you are pursuing. Maybe I am badly
wrong, maybe others are as well. Remember one thing. If you choose a path
in life which is too different from those you interact with, you can't
expect everyone to see the world your way. I have been involved in proposing
some rather different ideas in my time. One of the kindest things they have
been called is 'quirky' (PSCF June 2003). I accept that most won't like what
I am doing and that is just the way it is. Recognition doesn't come to
those who are too different. Neither you nor I will change that. If you
believe your position, fight for it, but don't have any expectations. And
don't complain that no one will discuss your views. That still won't make
them discuss them.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 06 2003 - 19:12:43 EDT