From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Sun Jul 06 2003 - 22:19:10 EDT
In post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0115.html Glen Morton offers a few ideas about how Max Tegmark might respond to my criticism of his numerical argument:
>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 believe Glen is correct. This is a very good take on how Tegmark and other modern cosmologists would probably look at things. It is the assumption that a given configuration of protons is all that would be necessary to specify a physical configuration that would be "very much like our universe" that "from a macroscopic viewpoint ... would look identical."
But is this a reasonable assumption? I don't think so for a number of reasons.
1) Lets assume the validity of the assumption and look at all possible states from a macroscopic viewpoint as suggested. Now lets connect this with reality. Pick up an object - any object. How many rotational orientations relative to you are possible for that one object? The answer is infinity - you can rotate it through any angle you choose. Each one of these orientations must correspond to at least one distinct quantum state which means that the number of posible quantum states for just the room I'm sitting in must be infinite. I think this argument is conclusive.
2) Returning again to my original argument, consider a single free proton in a Hubble volume. This is one of Tegmark's possible universes. There is an infinity of possible distinct states for this particle, whether considered classically or quantum mechanically. I think this is argument is also conclusive.
3) Now lets look at the assumption more closely. The only thing being counted is whether or not a proton is at spacetime point (t,x,y,z). Each of these protons could be in any state that gives an arbitrary direction to the expection value of the momentum vector. The direction of this vector is not quantized, so it has an infinity of posible orientations, each of which must correspond to a physically distinct quantum state. I think this argument is also conclusive.
4) There are two kinds of infinity involved in the analysis of a real system. The infinity of the dimension of the Hilbert space and the infinity of states formed from superposions of the eigenstates. Tegmark assumes that the limite of engery < 10^8K reduces the dimension of the Hilbert space to 2^10^118. This can't be true, becuase the representation of non-commuting variables like x and p requires ALL energy eigenvectors to be represented. I think this argument is also conclusive.
I could go on, but I would like to address the other points in your very interesting post, Glen.
>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.
Correct. My criticism of Tegmark is not (yet) aimed at the general idea of MWH. My argument has been aim solely at his calculations, specifically the derivation of the number 2^10^118 as the number of all possible physical configurations in a Hubble volume.
>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
I glanced at the article. It seems to be just concerned the general MWH - not Tegmark's numerical argument. I never suggested that only "stupid" people believed the MWH - but I think we all would agree that the validity of my criticism would make those who worked in the field for years look a little foolish. But that is NOT my intent. I just wanted to get down to the truth of it all.
>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.
Lots of good points.
1) Yes, "all sorts of these things" certainly do come along, many to my dismay. But the fact that the world is also filled with false prophets and fake Scriptures doesn't stop you or me from digging in deep into the Bible. But it certainly does dampen our "enthusiasm" for new ideas. Religion seems intrinscally conservative for a good reason. But this position fails on one fundamental point (IMHO) - nothing like the Bible Wheel has been seen in the history of the World. It is a unified geometric view of the entire Bible which reveals a sevenfold symmetric pattern of the Canon, integrates with the Hebrew Alphabet, is as simple as Circle, etc, etc, etc. The similar
2) I am the first to admit that every link between books on the Spokes does not necessarily imply divine intent. It is much more interesting than that, e.g. there are places where themes are notably _missing_ that adds to the overall pattern. Its like a tapestry. As mentioned in a previous post, the Bible Wheel is as much Art as Science. But I also will adamantly assert that there are highly significant incontrovertible connections that go well beyond chance. But that is something that would need to be demonstrated. That is why I did the calculations concerning the Canon Wheel:
http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp
While this might not be considered "proof," it certainly should give one pause before dismissing the whole thing like just another wacked out bible code.
3) Re Scientific control: That's an interesting challenge. I have contmeplated doing a full computer analysis that would examine all possible configurations of the Bible on the Wheel to see if there is one that maximized the correlation of word distributions on each Spoke. That would be proof, but its also a big project, and the validity of the wheel does not stand or fall on such an analysis. Of course, I have found a number of correlated word distributions, but they were all discovered by prayerfully reading the Book, rather than writing a program. Besides, the emphasis should be on the fact that the Bible is alive - animated by the Sprit of God. I prefer to approach it with the respect due the Word of God. While it is true that much of the wonder can be mathematically measured and proven to be of God, there is no reason to assume that there is some singular hard and fast scientific method that we should apply in all cases. The whole thing is really a matter of direct perception - that's where the power is. I see it, marvel, and worship God.
>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.
This makes perfect sense to me. Nechushtan had to be destroyed. But the real question, as with Vernon's numerical research (which I discovered independently for the most part), is the reality of these patterns. What do you think? Did the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Canon Wheel just happen? By chance? In God's Holy Word? When answering this question, it is important to remember the pattern's rarity (1 in 688,324), its beauty (seven divisions, three lines of symmetry), its integration with ancient icons of Christ with trinitarian overtones, its integration with the Hebrew alphabet, along with a thousand other compelling facts.
>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.
Absolutely one hundred percent correct. I doubt an unsaved soul could appreciate the Wheel any more than they could see the revelation of God's glory in the plain text off Scripture.
Let me assure you of ONE FACT that I pray every person reading will fully understand. I discovered the Wheel as a result of God's Work in my life, not as proof of anything. The Bible was given that we might know God, His Ways, His Will, His Thoughts. It should not surprise any believer that God could or would do such a thing in His Holy Word.
Let me give you an analogy that should clarify:
The existence of a Car proves that it was designed, but the Car was not designed with that purpose in mind.
Likewise, the Bible was designed in the form of the Wheel to reveal the glory of God and guide us into ever deeper understanding of His Glory. Like the Car, it had to be designed to be what it is, but it is not designed simply to prove the Bible was designed.
In other words, the fact that the Wheel proves the Bible is a necessary consequence of understanding what it is, not its purpose.
>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.
I agree completely. Its really refreshing to be talking with you. Believe it or not, we may well see many things eye to eye, with enough difference to make the conversation interesting.
Excellent post Glen.
God bless!
Richard A. McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 06 2003 - 22:15:50 EDT