Say what? Not according to Stephen Hawking. Who should I believe, him or you? http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6151 -ds

“Inflation itself takes a very small universe and produces from it a very big universe. But inflation by itself does not explain where that very small universe came from. Eternal inflation is eternal into the future, not the past. Those bubble universes may keep inflating eternally into the future, but we’re still left without an explanation for what caused the first bubble. ” –Alan Guth

Yes, there is. An infinite number of infinite universes is infinity-squared more complex than saying God created the universe. And, please tell, how does this infinity-squared complexity compare to simply projecting out from the boundaries of our galaxies? This is a simple projection of the “known” into farther realms, whereas the infinity-squared silliness says that there are an infinite number of universes that are different from the one we live in. The former is like extending the x,y, and z-axes, while the latter is that there is an infinite number of x,y, and z-axes. So, in terms of predicting other galaxies, the multiverse is only ‘infinitely’ more, and not infinity-squared more, complex.

I assume you understood that my citation of Borges was in jest; your response is a bit ambiguous on that point.

As for the multiverse hypothesis, it’s not obvious to me how it stretches logic “to the breaking point.” Could you elaborate?

Occam’s Razor would suggest that we avoid invoking multiple universes without justification, but if a multiverse model ends up fitting the data better than any single-universe model, and furthermore makes predictions which are testable within our own universe, I see nothing that logically requires us to reject it out of hand.

If there’s something inherently illogical about positing a multiverse, was it illogical for Curtis to propose that there were many galaxies beyond our own before telescopes were powerful enough to show this?

Answer: from the Conservatory of Babel, which is next to, but infinitely far from, the Library of Babel.

See Jorge Luis Borges’ famous story “The Library of Babel,” which describes a library containing all possible books of a certain size written with a fixed character set. Borges’ narrator suspects that the library is unlimited but periodic.

It can be difficult to find what you’re looking for:
“For every rational line or forthright statement there are leagues of senseless cacophony, verbal nonsense, and incoherency.”

But it also contains
“all that is able to be expressed, in every language. All — the detailed history of the future, the autobiographies of the archangels, the faithful catalog of the Library, thousands and thousands of false catalogs, a proof of the falsity of the true catalog, the gnostic gospel of Basilides, the commentary upon that gospel, the commentary on the commentary on that gospel, the true story of your death, the translation of every book into every language, the interpolations of every book into all books, the treatise Bede could have written (but did not) on the mythology of the Saxon people, the lost books of Tacitus.”

To that I would add

1) the complete text of the upcoming Dover decision,
2) a book entitled “Icons of Intelligent Design: Mt. Rushmore Was NOT Designed!”,
3) “Across the Great Divide”, an account of the tumultuous but ultimately triumphant love affair of Phillip Johnson and Eugenie Scott,
4) biographical sketches describing Ken Miller’s militant atheism and Richard Dawkins’ devotion to the Catholic Church, culminating in his martyrdom and sainthood,
5) a book review in which Bill Dembski is described as “the Wayne Newton of information theory”, and
6) a musical comedy based on the Dover trial, entitled “That’s Not What You Said in Your Deposition!”

Borges also wrote (elsewhere):
“I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library,” though he probably did not have the Library of Babel in mind.

Borges was appointed director of Argentina’s National Library in 1955, the same year in which he went blind.

He wrote:

No one should read self-pity or reproach
Into this statement of the majesty of God, who with such splendid irony
Granted me books and blindness in one touch

DS: It’s the same distinction that exists between a blister and a flame. What’s your point?

That’s an inept reply. The point is obvious: stringed instruments produce “music”: that is, the physical expression of music; but the music, itself, is the product of the human mind. Beethoven’s Fifth didn’t exist before Beethoven. Therefore, the question is: where did this information come from?

At one point you gave this definition:

“Subjective meaning is what Dembski refers to in CSI as conformance to an independently given pattern.”

Is the independently given pattern physical? If so, what is the independently given physical pattern that conforms to the subjective meaning “2+2=4″?

Dave T.

Graceful as always I see.

You keep using the words “objective information” and “subjective meaning” without defining them, as I’ve asked you to. Saying the words over and over with different insults appended doesn’t tell me anything.

If you are going to spoonfeed, then spoonfeed me this:

What is the definition of “meaning”? Please don’t use the word “information” in the definition, because you use the word “meaning” to define “information” and your definitions would be circular.

And – this is very important – is “meaning” physical or non-physical?

Cheers,
Dave T.