Conservation of Information and God
Dmitri Martila
Institute of Theoretical Physics, Tartu University,
4 Tähe Street, 51010 Tartu, Estonia∗
(Dated: April 17, 2020)
Abstract
This short note is written for the forum “ReligionForums”. It is argumented, that the Science
must co-operate with religion. Yes, there are many religions, but they share at least one truth, which is: “God’s Name is God.”
∗Electronic address:
[email protected]
1
Common human got to know about conservation of information first hand from the problem. The problem was found by Dr. Steven Hawking. The problem was called “information loss paradox in Black Holes”. Yes, to my calculations, the Black Hole is really a hole in spacetime, so the event horizon is the edge of our reality, and falling matter [which carries information] simply vanishes into Absolute Nothing.
In Quantum Mechanics, the Law of Conservation of Information is known. The amount
of information that is recorded in the [wave function of the] nature does not change over time.
This means that all of Shakespeare’s poems could be read before the poet’s birth, if we were there with the necessary devices “readers of information”.
But if we had read his poems before Shakespeare’s birth, then we would have destroyed the poet by this act of reading, there would never have been such a Shakespeare with his poems. But then we would not be able to read this information about Shakespeare. Way out of this contradiction: we cannot read information about poems before the birth of the poet. So, the poet is the source of poems.
The amount of information that is available on the Internet and libraries exponentially
increases. Therefore, in addition to the purely natural law of conservation of information, there must be observers who are the source of information. Therefore, life with its DNA helix [the genetic code] could not have arisen without the participation of the Highest Observer– God. This means that the probability of Abiogenesis (it is the occurrence of life from inanimate matter without the participation of God or aliens) is exactly zero. This is stated by the established laws of our world.
And think for yourself, if you take 50 canned goods and pass a current of 1000 volts
through them for a second, you can be sure that no living biological cell is born in any
can [during one minute of experiment]. Therefore, the probability of abiogenesis (inside a tin can for a minute) is less than 1 out of 50. The same must be seen from Miller’s type experiments, where under the most favourable conditions during the century-long course of the experiments, the protein life did not arise; and the 120 year long experiments on colonies of rapidly replicating bacteria did not give any transition from one kind (bacteria) to another kind (hare, monkey, man, etc.) even under radiation. Therefore, the probability of Darwin’s Evolution Theory is exactly zero, judging by the laws and experiments.
Same tells us the absolute sterile cosmos: it is the Fermi Paradox. It is called a paradox,
2
because observed fact [no sign of life in cosmos] contradicts the Darwin’s magic. If Darwin’s Theory were in fact a theory and not a magic, then there would be no talk of miraculous luck to produce life [and no talk of Multiverse either], but there were be straightforward mechanism to produce life: we would be able to get a child from disordered mud by applying high voltage any time we need one.
Because the Abiogenesis is thought to be outside the Theory of Evolution, and the latter is no longer associated with Charles Darwin [the biologists do not say “Darwinian Theory of Evolution” but simply “Theory of Evolution”], then to describe difference between two competing worldviews: Darwinism and Creationism [Creationists do not reject Evolution, but they reject Darwinism], I am using new term “non-Creationism” below.
One can say, that the non-Creationism is not the local theory. It means, that because it
so heavily rely on luck, a given planet will never be the place of Abiogenesis. Only if you consider the infinite number of planets together, the chances are, that some of these planets are with happened Abiogenesis. The problem with non-local theory, is what it is out of the scope of definition of inertial physical system: ”physics in the small free-falling laboratory is invariant”; so non-Creationism is not within the definition of nature, because latter uses the inertial systems to describe the physical processes.
From the point of view of modern biochemistry, on any planet suitable for the origin of
life, life must be born (thus, with the perfect 100 % probability). Yes, the experiments could produce different “blocks of life”, but they have not produced an actual cell or organism from life-less stuff by a non-moderated process. Thus, the biochemistry is wrong.
And last, not least – there is inconsistency in Theory of Darwin: evolution complicates
organisms, hereby evolution increases ability to survive. As example, a micro-organism is less complex than human, and is more survivable.
