Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Privileged Planet and Rare Earth evidence

Expand Messages
  • Dr. Robert A. Herrmann
    To CreationTalk: It seems foolish to me for any atheistic scientist when considering a cosmology NOT to accept evidence such as the notions of the Privileged
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      To CreationTalk:

      It seems foolish to me for any atheistic scientist when considering a cosmology NOT to accept evidence such as the notions of the "Privileged Planet," "Rare Earth," fine-tuned physical constants, and claimed cosmological age as being inconsistent with the investigated probabilistic evolutionary development or origin of life. The subjective probability of the occurrence of these event is exceedingly low. Is it possible that they have such a rigid mind-set that anything associated with any positive theological notion clouds they comprehension? Indeed, they can dispel any but the weakest theological inference by simply using their acceptance of indirect evidence. Even indirect evidence is not necessary when one considers those that still accept the Everett-Wheeler-Graham many-worlds interpretation that states that for our universe there does not even exist indirect evidence for the existence of these other "many-worlds." I know how members of these networks Scripturally view the notions of multiple-universes. That is not the point. I'm addressing the foolish of those who do not, as yet, believe that the God of the Scriptures exists, the very first step in their salvation. After all, for 42 years, I was one of them. However, as I now disclose, even if one does accept a multiple-universe notion in the hopes of escaping from "creation by a higher intelligence" they cannot do so. Since this higher intelligence is as it is described in the Bible, then, if they are made aware of the following, maybe some might consider the oldest document that describes this higher intelligence - the Bible.

      Prior to 7 April 1977, I would have accepted from this evidence a multiple-universe cosmology, where the collection of universes had no beginning and no ending in observer time, but each of the infinitely many universes is formed from the same types of fundamental "quantum fluctuation." I would have accepted that these universes do not interact physically. This cosmology has no affect upon observations within a standard (Big Bang) model. Since a so-called "random" process would produce each of the cosmology's universes and each develops under the same fundamental physical laws, this cosmology would turn the low subjective probability for occurrence into a rather "high" objective probability. The quasi-steady state model is a no-beginning and no-ending multiple-universe model with interaction, such as the predicted gravity wave interaction, which has not, of course, been verified. But, again the objective probability for occurrence of these events is rather high. Then we have others such as the 10^157 multiple-universe "brane" (membrane) structures of "string theory." Again the objective probability of the occurrence of these events though not as high as the infinite case still leads to an "almost" certainty that they will all occur within, at least, one formed universe. The point is that such an acceptance would eliminate most but the weakest theological uses for this indirect evidence. Atheistic or weak theologically orientated scientists may finely decide to concede the point and accept the indirect evidence if they believe that the creationary science movement has become more then a minor inconvenience. I might live long enough to see this occur, but I doubt it. However, let's suppose that it does happen. Although not Scripturally sound, using multiple-universes, individuals still cannot escape from a higher intelligence as being the "creator."

      Each multiple-universe notion can be represented by a GGU-model event sequence. Although I have stated this fact, I have not, until very recently, provided the actual mathematical constructions that do so. Indeed, other conclusions I state below appear here for the first time. (One often does not really know what is self-evident.) This is probably the last GGU-model material that I will establish formally. There are three no-beginning or no-ending cases. I discuss here only the no-beginning AND no-ending observer time scenario. For this GGU-model application the "developmental paradigm" (i.e. as an event sequence) in primitive (time) is a "sequence" based upon the integers and the integer order. (i.e.{ . . . -100 < . . . < -10 < . . . < -1 < 0 < 1 < . . . < 10 < . . . 100 < . . .}) (The actual sequence is a little more complex than this, but this is the basic idea.) Now consider an event sequence that describes a no-beginning and no-ending cosmology. Each member of this sequence contains identifying notation associated with the integers and natural numbers that identifies its position within the sequence. Let d denote this sequence with the individual identifiers. I mention that "integer" identified sequences are used within mathematics for various purposes. Recall my postings on the "hyperfinite." If you don't recall these, I can e-mail you a copy of the material. Recall that in nonstandard analysis three languages are used, the standard S-language, the internal IN-language and the all-inclusive H-language. Let A be the H-language name for a set. Suppose that A is also the S-language name and A is a finite set. Thus, A has all of the standard properties associated with the finite concept. However, A can be hyperfinite and not have a name in the S-language, but A is its name in the IN-language. That is, the A notation is only the IN-language notation. The set A is a pure nonstandard object. But, in this case, A is an object that behaves, using the IN-language, in the exact same manner as an S-language finite object behaves. Now there are pure nonstandard hyperfinite objects that are actually infinite when compared with standard finite objects using the H-language. This "infinite" notion is the one defined in the same manner as the S-language definition. Since such sets have no name in the S-language, humans who only employ the S-language such as a pure secular scientist cannot describe their properties. Relative to the higher intelligence notion, if one considers it as rather "easy" to deal with standard finite sets, then the higher intelligence can just as easily deal with the standard finite AND the hyperfinite sets.

      In my recently revised math. archives paper, "The GGU-model and Generation of Developmental Paradigms," it is shown that for d there exists a pure nonstandard hyperfinite d' an *event sequence that contains d and that has all of the S-language properties as interpreted in the IN-language including the above "order." With respect to this order as expressed in the IN-language, there are two members of d', call them B' and E', such that any member x of the original d has the following property: B' *< x *< E'. Although when restricted to the d event sequence the order *< is essentially the same as <, the order *< does have some H-language properties that are somewhat unusual. I won't state these differences since I would need to use the H-language and additional mathematical terminology. But, anyway, the B' and E' have all of the same general S-language but IN-language interpreted characteristics as do members of the original d. There is another rather significant pure nonstandard hyperfinite event sequence d_1 that contains, in a general manner, the event sequence d, where the above integer styled order is not considered. There are various ways to get a hyperfinite subset of d_1 that includes the order notion. I present one way in the above paper but here is another one that may be more easily understood. Consider two finite sets, say A = {a,b,c,d} and B = {e,f,g,d,I,c,k}, under our ordinary (S-language) counting definition. Then the set of all objects that are common to these two sets, {c,d} in this example, forms a finite set. This fact can be formally stated in the S-language (it's the set-theoretic intersection) and holds for the IN-language. Thus, the members that are in common for the two hyperfinite sets d' and d_1 form a pure nonstandard hyperfinite set d'' and d'' includes the original d event sequence. (I note that d is not hyperfinite.) Thus, we again have a B and E such that B *< x *< E where the x are members of d and each y such that B *< or = y *< or = E carries all the additional properties associated with the d_1 hyperfinite sequence. How is this applied theologically using the GGU-model and GID (the general intelligent design interpretation)?
      The universe generating ultralogic *S generates the d_1 along all members of d and other extraneous material.

      The material in my book "The Theory of Ultralogics" applies to the "no-beginning" and "no-ending" scenario in a more complex manner than I'm presenting here. Using this present method, H has more control over descriptions for the members of the set d''. One can be much more specific as to the primitive time location of various "ultranatural" events that must exist and tend to "hold" everything together, so to speak. All such B are called the initial members (or initial events) and all such E the final members (or final events). These are all ultranatural events and are produced by *S that has a higher intelligence signature. Further, as discussed in my "Science Declare . . ) book a measure of human intelligence is the "finite choice" process where such a choice is placed into a comprehensible order. The < order is such an order. By a simple induction proof, it is shown that there is a mathematical model for the process of placing a finite set into a specifically defined order. This is called the "finite ordered choice operator." This operator extends to the nonstandard and becomes a "hyperfinite ordered choice operator." Now the result of applying *S followed by the hyperfinite ordered choice operator to the hyperfinite d'' yields everything from B to E in the exact primitive time order. Further, these composed processes yield the original event sequence d with its original order. This hyperfinite ordered choice operator has a very strong high intelligence signature when GID interpreted.

      What does this mean for such multiple-universe cosmologies? It means that one cannot escape from the rational statement that such cosmologies are the product of a higher intelligence, an intelligence that has the same characteristics as the Biblically described God. The problem is that individuals who purpose such cosmological notions need to be made aware of this fact. Since they cannot escape from this scientifically rational result and its indirect evidence, maybe, just maybe, some might consider the oldest documentation that describes such an intelligence. They might be more open to considering the Bible as a more reliable resource since the processes that lead to the no-beginning or no-ending physical scenarios have ultra(super?)natural beginnings and endings that reveal intelligent design signatures consistent with the behavior of the Scripturally described God.

      Dr. Bob
      Professor of Mathematics (Ret.)
      U. S. Naval Academy
      Ashburn, VA
      "Science Declares Our Universe
      IS Intelligently Designed"

      "Trust in the Lord with all your heart
      and lean not on your own understanding"
      Prov. 3:5

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.