Big Tent chronicles … oh, and about my new blog …

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 21, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Every single intelligent design opponent I have encountered eventually starts mumbling about the sinister “Big Tent” of ID.

Big Tent = what you rent when you are entertaining 1800 of your closest friends in a shattering rainstorm

The argument goes something like this: If the ID guys were sincere in thinking that the universe and life forms show evidence of intelligent design, they would trim their numbers by driving out all those who think that:

– NASA’s dating methods are wrong

– The Bible is a source of useful information

– ID may not necessarily be correct (though Darwinists are obviously the downscale detritus of a bygone materialist age)

– global warming is caused mainly by the heat generated by hysteria over the issue

“Get rid of them all, and then – and only then – we will take you seriously … ” promises the establishment pay wallah.

Yeah really.

The problem is, of course, that once you know that Darwinism isn’t true, you don’t immediately know what is true. You just know where not to look for answers.

(And whether Americans are better off with the risks of al Gore or of al Quaeda is, in my opinion, moot.)

But one thing the ID guys sure won’t need if they take the pay wallah’s advice is … a big tent.

Also: Yes, another new blog. I have further enraged a number of people (who don’t have enough to do) by starting a new blog: Welcome to Colliding Universes.

Why?: Because I hope to write a book with a Canadian physicist about “God vs. the multiverse”: Is our universe fine-tuned for life or are there zillions of flopped universes out there, so that our universe is an accidentally tolerable place?

At the blog, I will just make notes about things that may (or may not) find their way into the book. For example:

A friend fondly recalls physicist John Wheeler

Life on Mars?: Yes, when the Mars Hilton Convention Centre finally opens

Sure as the law of gravity, you say? Okay then, better check the refund policy …

Stuff I have already written on the bleeping multiverse, for which the multiverse (Inc.) is suing me for defamation … But not to worry, the writ went to zillions of wrong universes and won’t be back here for vermillion years.

Comments

No, it's only spam if it's unrelated and is nothing but a link. I posted a comment as well. And your post includes the same link and only one extra line of text.The A-Team_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

Hi, Denyse O'Leary. Regarding your new blog Colliding Universes, the premise of it, that of "God vs. the multiverse," is in error. Some misguided people may invoke the existence of the multiverse in order to get around the many physical parameters which have to be finely tuned in order for life to exist, but there's nothing about the existence of the multiverse which is inconstistent with God's existence (indeed, far from it: see Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3). Moreover, your blog is in error because the multiverse is true (if one accepts the known laws of physics, and hence empirical science). As Prof. Frank J. Tipler points out on pg. 95 of The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), "if the other universes and the multiverse do not exist, then quantum mechanics is objectively false. This is not a question of physics. It is a question of mathematics. I give a mathematical proof of [this] in my earlier book ..." For that, see Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Appendix I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," pp. 483-488. As well, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the existence of the multiverse: see Frank J. Tipler, "Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds Interpretation," arXiv:quant-ph/0003146, March 30, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003146 See also David Deutsch, "Comment on Lockwood," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 47, No 2 (June 1996), pp. 222-228; also released as "Comment on '"Many Minds" Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics by Michael Lockwood,'" 1996. http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/CommentOnLockwood.html And as Dr. David Deutsch writes in The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), Chapter 9: "Quantum Computers," pg. 217. "" The argument of Chapter 2, applied to *any* interference phenomenon destroys the classical idea that there is only one universe. Logically, the possibility of complex quantum computations adds nothing to a case that is already unanswerable. But it does add psychological impact. With Shor's algorithm, the argument has been writ very large. To those who still cling to a single-universe world view, I issue this challenge: *explain how Shor's algorithm works*. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor's algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources that can be seen to be present, where was that number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed? "" ----- On a related matter, God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God): F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 ) Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.) See also the below resources for further information on the Omega Point Theory: Theophysics http://geocities.com/theophysics/ "Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=206077125 "Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=205920802 Tipler is Professor of Mathematics and Physics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters B, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc. Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on pg. viii in the "Foreword" to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler's Omega Point Theory was described. The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality (1997). For that, see: David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), ISBN: 0713990619; with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. http://geocities.com/theophysics/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to invent tenuous physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependant on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171 That is, Hawking's paper is based upon proposed, unconfirmed physics. It's an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing. Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse. There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as B - L is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe. Prof. Tipler's above Reports on Progress in Physics paper also demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (pp. 49 and 279), "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity." When combined with the Standard Model, the result is a Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.James Redford_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

"Connecting Al Gore and al Quaeda–real classy. http://www.expelledexposed.com.....th/crocker I don't mean to be callous but is this spam?F2XL_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

Re: making money from the multiverse (or many worlds, many charlatans) The universe having a point of creation and bursting forth with of a set of precise variables and events that allow us to have life must be very awkward for those seeking to attain the goal of becoming an "intellectually satisfied atheist". Dawkins says: "We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology." Indeed! Cue the promotion of the equivalent crane for physics and where's the harm in trying to make a few bucks along the way? I would expect the hucksters to ramp up with the popular books, magazine articles, and television programs - all promoting the virtues of the multiverse over its irrational "rival doctrines". I think they might have a hard sell though. It has already made for some good sci-fi/fantasy and indeed we'd be missing a few good plot twists without it. But it might well be overdone. From Stargate to Star Trek they've all had the parallel universes story. Nowadays it amounts to a somewhat predictable fiction.steveO_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

The ‘Big Tent’ accusation is a defensive misnomer based on their (correct) perception that ID proponents are a very diverse group. However, (to me) the primary demand of ID is this: Each of us (crazies and all) demand the right to apply the same principles of Design Inference to biology and other aspects of the observable universe that are allowed in just about every other area of scientific endeavor. (Archeology, forensics, etc.) And this is why we are so despised, because we actually look at evidence, and are not distracted by 18th century social and politically philosophies. It seems like we should be going on the offensive, demanding that actual Scientific Method, Design Inference, and Empirical observation be applied to THEIR crazies. Insist (as many are) that only observable, verifiable phenomena be called science. Until you can do a repeatable, empirical experiment with abiogenesis, dark matter, and MW, don’t bother calling it science. When you think about it, who REALLY has the Big Tent?Graceout_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Bill maybe you should ask George Lucas and Steve Spielberg. After all they really know how to sell out after watching that new Indy flick last night. What a waste to wait 19 years for a script that I could have written in 2 weeks. Global Warming and Darwinian Evolution are profitable because they are falsely linked with everything. If a bug dies in the Amazon it is because of global warming and if a life form develops or changes in any way it is automatically attributed to Darwinian evolution. It's ALL about the money of course because, especially with global warming, there is little or no evidence to support the outrageous claims being made- which lead to movies like The Day After Tomorrow and Al Gore's An incontinent Lie. Next they will have us all praying to a crystal skull perhaps in a church of scientology.Frost122585_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Do many worlds present a business opportunity? Would it be possible, for a modest fee, for people to have worlds named after them? Are worlds, like genes, patentable? Or am I just dreaming? Would it be fair to say that a science is not a science unless there is money to be made off of it? Darwinists and global warming people seem to have learned that lesson.William Dembski_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, I own three Blogger blogs, each of which supports a book, present or proposed. I am paid to blog at several sites and volunteer blog or guest blog at others. It is a congenial way of life for a freelance writer.O'Leary_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

I doubt this will make it past your spam filter, but assuming it does, I wanted to point out a potential misunderstanding on the colliding universes blog (no one can post there right now). [quote] The presentation will also review exciting recent theoretical developments and forthcoming observational tests which could distinguish between the rival inflationary and cyclical hypotheses. What mainstreams the multiverse is the prospect of getting tested. [/quote] http://collidinguniverses.blogspot.com/2008/05/hello-and-welcome-to-colliding.html I don't think he understands what's going on. It seems that the assumption here is that the multiverse is true, the question they're asking is which version of the multiverse is true. That's what they're testing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation [quote] Alan Guth has described the inflationary universe as the "ultimate free lunch":[63] new universes, similar to our own, are continually produced in a vast inflating background. [/quote] If the evidence shows that A is true, then version A of the multiverse is true. If the evidence shows that B is true, then version B of the multiverse is true. No matter what the evidence shows, it's the multiverse in one way or another. That's what it seems like they're arguing.Bettawrekonize_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

I'm just curious, Denyse. How many blogs do you have (or write for) now?Bob O'H_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

Connecting Al Gore and al Quaeda--real classy. http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/crockerThe A-Team_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Rude, you may yet prove a prophet ... For now, this much we know: There are more universes than there are leprechauns at the bottom of my garden. Only one more, I suspect, but that's enough.O'Leary_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Yes, you better hurry up because any day now here in the USA the big guns of the UCLA will be suing saying that you cannot challenge Many Worlds in the science classroom because, well, just because challenging MW is not science---and some judge will define science as affirming MW and elite society will genuflect and declare MW deniers to be foolish fundies.Rude_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT}

Awesome! And yes, we could sure use a lot more ID-based books on the fine tuning of physics. It seems like Design literature falls short in that area in terms of how much writing has actually been done on the topic.F2XL_{May 21, 2008
May
05
May
21
21
2008
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply