Why Multiverse?

[YoursTrue]

The living Earth happens to be in a sphere with N lifeless planets.
The probability of this event to happen was P=Q*V, where Q<1 is the probability of life to emerge on an Earth-like planet, V=(1-Q)^N is the probability that life has not emerged on N planets. Hence, by increasing the size of the sphere, the N grows, and so P turns to zero. Therefore, the idea of a Multiverse with all kinds of possibilities and physical constants does not help the idea of Abiogenesis.

If we take the totality of an infinite number of lifeless planets (which are suitable for life), then this does not help the idea that life appeared on Earth. The general rule of sterility does not allow this. The exception to the law of sterility is a real (God's) miracle.
NASA tries not to violate the sterility of space by sterilizing its probes before launch.

[0801.0246] Does God So Love the Multiverse? (arxiv.org)

DISCUSSION:

I have mind-vision, not eye-vision. What about my logic? I know textbooks, but I have a new results. Science is only then Science if it can be falsified by a genius.

Opinion: "I do not agree. The probability that I will win the lottery is almost nil, while the probability that someone wins the lottery is very high. Now, should that someone wonder why he, and not somebody else, won the lottery?"

I reply: "There is no lower limit for life emerging probability on Earth-like planet. It ranges from total zero to some Q. Therefore, my theory has the right to exist. The probability of life emerging in perfect conditions on a planet can be zero, to win lottery is not zero. But even if probability Q is not zero, then my theory proves, that the Multiverse idea has not helped the chances for life to emerge on Earth, prior it has emerged. You are talking about 100 % probability of life on Earth after life has emerged on Earth. That all information you gave here. The probability, that you won the lottery if you have won it, is 100%. But the probability, that you will win lottery is less than 100%. The same way the probability of life emerging on Earth, before it has happened is near zero.

Opinion: " The Q is not small:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

Me:
"Mind is being used only for justification of Emotion" (Albert Einstein). If one wants God to be
non-active in life, he will find evidence for it.

Even the extremely improbable is still possible. But the probability of more than 5 sigma in Science is presumed impossible. That was used for the discovery of the Higgs boson.

Opinion: "You really started another thread on probability? Really? You must have a need for people to tell you your thoughts and concepts are nonsensical. You must revel in it."
Me:
You sound like those voices in my head.

I like your first statement there -- "The living Earth happens to be in a sphere with N lifeless planets."

 

[YoursTrue]

It does not. It is not even a theory. Pauli would say you are not even wrong.

If you win the lottery, then it is absurd to wonder why you won the lottery, and not someone else.

Same with earth.

Ciao

- viole

In that case, one might wonder why you and I and others are here.

 

[questfortruth]

I like your first statement there -- "The living Earth happens to be in a sphere with N lifeless planets."

Thanks, Christian.

Yet, somehow, you accept that first life was a fully functional omni-all entity.

God did it. But my thread is of use both for Evolutionists and Creationists.

The probability of life on Earth is 1.0.

After it has emerged.
But prior to it - near zero.

But having multi-universes is no closer to answer the ultimate question than
having a single universe. Why and how?

1. I have presented my argument in the thread, namely the rule of sterility of all cosmos does not allow life on Earth. If it is on Earth, then it is scientific miracle.

2. Yes, there are talks now of non-local laws of nature. Namely, quantum entanglement.
But I have unpublished yet argument, that even entanglement is just a local law.
Thus, all that matters are the things on Earth. There is no connection with the Multiverse, hence it can not alter the processes on Earth. The probability, that life will emerge on Earth if we were some billions of years ago on Earth, is small Q<1. But the probability, that this Earth will be surrounded by N lifeless planets, is P=Q*V=Q*(1-Q)^N<Q. Both these events have happened. One has happened with probability Q and the other with probability P. Both events must happen for Earth to get alive.
Thus, the real probability of life on Earth is dependent on the number of lifeless planets out there.
Hereby the Q is being calculated from the local laws of physics. The P is non-locality.
Well, there is non-locality in nature.

 

[blü 2]

After it has emerged.
But prior to it - near zero.

Obviously not near enough to zero.

But we'll have a better understanding of the actual likelihood of life arising here after we've got a satisfactory description of abiogenesis. Until then, it's all guesses.

 

[questfortruth]

But we'll have a better understanding of the actual likelihood of life arising here after we've got a satisfactory description of abiogenesis. Until then, it's all guesses.

I have mind-vision. I have presented a logical theory, which is not debunked yet by you. Thus, according to Presumption of Innocence, the theory adequately describes reality.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure, breaking man's laws are considered as 'crimes', but breaking God's laws are considered as 'sins'.

Only to those who believe in your version of a god

So, to me ' sin ' is Not a recent religious concept but often goes hand in hand with men's laws.

Humanity has only been around for 2 or 3 million years to make these laws and proclaim there god belief to the universe. The universe has been around for close on 14 billion years and says, "la, la, la, I can't hear you".

 

[blü 2]

I have mind-vision.

So have I. The more common word for it is imagination.

I have presented a logical theory, which is not debunked yet by you.

What, of how life began on earth? With respect, you've resented nothing remotely resembling a "logical theory".

Thus, according to Presumption of Innocence, the theory adequately describes reality.

There is no presumption of innocence in science. So unless you're actually talking about the principles of criminal law, I suggest you find something else to stand on.

 

[questfortruth]

There is no presumption of innocence in science. So unless you're actually talking about the principles of criminal law, I suggest you find something else to stand on.

Then there is the Presumption of Guilt in Science.

 

[questfortruth]

Only to those who believe in your version of a god

You are not above the gods. All humans have a god. Including atheists.

 

[ChristineM]

You are not above the gods. All humans have a god. Including atheists.

Prove it

 

[questfortruth]

Prove it

There are two spirits only: God and satan. No third god.

 

[ChristineM]

There are two spirits only: God and satan. No third god.

Prove it

 

[questfortruth]

Prove it

\subsection{Truth as God of Science}
Science is not going to change just because you want it so badly.
Because Science is like a proud beautiful lady, like the one in the
clip ``Roxy Music -- Avalon'' YouTube. Established proud beings are
of eternal value, they cannot be changing against their will:
``Sophie Ellis Bextor -- Won't change you'' on YouTube.

Editor: ``Has it ever occurred to you to look at the basis of
your logic, reasoning, and understanding? Since your ideas run
into opposition with journal reviewers, perhaps it is you that
needs to change and not the rest of the world.''

I have accepted Lord Jesus as my healer. The outside population
dislikes Him and thinks that His words are crazy: ``And when His
friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on Him: for they said,
He is beside Himself.'' Mark 3:21. It is not necessarily true in my
case because I am not running amok. Please recall that I have
publications in some top journals. Do I have to give you the
references? So, I suggest you enjoy my unusual brain pattern.
Nobody involved has expressed regret for murdering my Lord. The
world needs some positive change, in my opinion, not so much me.

Humans can hardly survive without the basis of personality, it
is their god. We can freely choose a god. Material gods are a
statue of Zeus, Shiva, Perun, in absence of my God the functions
of god can take human leaders like Buddha, Stalin, Putin, Trump,
Elvis Presley; leading atheists like Dr. Richard Dawkins and
Dr. Steven Hawking; bands like Beatles and Queens. Because I am
a truth seeker by profession (I am a scientist) I know that my God
is Spirit; it means, He is not material. His holy name is
Absolute/Objective Truth because He is the Spirit of Truth. And the
Truth says: ``If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words in this
adulterous and sinful generation, I will be ashamed of them.''
Mark 8:38.

Why then Adolf Hitler is an Absolute Monster and mother Theresa is
an Absolute Saint, if according to the amazing genetical research,
the total difference between their organisms should be less than 0.1 \%?
Hereby the genetic difference between chimps and the well-educated
Mother Theresa is less than 2 \%. It is because immortal souls exist.
The souls of Hitler and Theresa are perfectly 100 percent different
from each other. Therefore, God exists, He is the Spirit of Saints.
And satan exists, he is the spirit of sinners and disbelievers (because
there is no ``neutral'' god).

 

[ChristineM]

\subsection{Truth as God of Science}
Science is not going to change just because you want it so badly.
Because Science is like a proud beautiful lady, like the one in the
clip ``Roxy Music -- Avalon'' YouTube. Established proud beings are
of eternal value, they cannot be changing against their will:
``Sophie Ellis Bextor -- Won't change you'' on YouTube.

Editor: ``Has it ever occurred to you to look at the basis of
your logic, reasoning, and understanding? Since your ideas run
into opposition with journal reviewers, perhaps it is you that
needs to change and not the rest of the world.''

I have accepted Lord Jesus as my healer. The outside population
dislikes Him and thinks that His words are crazy: ``And when His
friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on Him: for they said,
He is beside Himself.'' Mark 3:21. It is not necessarily true in my
case because I am not running amok. Please recall that I have
publications in some top journals. Do I have to give you the
references? So, I suggest you enjoy my unusual brain pattern.
Nobody involved has expressed regret for murdering my Lord. The
world needs some positive change, in my opinion, not so much me.

Humans can hardly survive without the basis of personality, it
is their god. We can freely choose a god. Material gods are a
statue of Zeus, Shiva, Perun, in absence of my God the functions
of god can take human leaders like Buddha, Stalin, Putin, Trump,
Elvis Presley; leading atheists like Dr. Richard Dawkins and
Dr. Steven Hawking; bands like Beatles and Queens. Because I am
a truth seeker by profession (I am a scientist) I know that my God
is Spirit; it means, He is not material. His holy name is
Absolute/Objective Truth because He is the Spirit of Truth. And the
Truth says: ``If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words in this
adulterous and sinful generation, I will be ashamed of them.''
Mark 8:38.

Why then Adolf Hitler is an Absolute Monster and mother Theresa is
an Absolute Saint, if according to the amazing genetical research,
the total difference between their organisms should be less than 0.1 \%?
Hereby the genetic difference between chimps and the well-educated
Mother Theresa is less than 2 \%. It is because immortal souls exist.
The souls of Hitler and Theresa are perfectly 100 percent different
from each other. Therefore, God exists, He is the Spirit of Saints.
And satan exists, he is the spirit of sinners and disbelievers (because
there is no ``neutral'' god).

That is not proof, that is your opinion and considering you said in post #30

You sound like those voices in my head.

I really don't think you are a good judge of reality

 

[ElishaElijah]

Psalms 130:7 Let Israel hope in the LORD (YHWH)
In the days of the psalmist it was fleshly national Israel, but God abandoned that 'house of worship' -

“Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭11:25-32‬ ‭ESV‬‬

 

[blü 2]

Then there is the Presumption of Guilt in Science.

While it's true that scientific method demands high standards of ethics amongst its practitioners, it's not true that enquiring into the subject matter of science ─ ie nature ─ involves matters of guilt and innocence

Which is why you don't find presumptions of guilt or of innocence as part of those enquiries.

But one thing we know about the origin of life on earth is that it happened billions of years before there were any gods.

 

[questfortruth]

That is not proof, that is your opinion and considering you said in post #30

I really don't think you are a good judge of reality

There are two options only:
1. God is existent,
2. god is not existent.
Because the basis of a person is god, then there are two gods.

 

[ChristineM]

There are two options only:
1. God is existent,
2. god is not existent.
Because the basis of a person is god, then there are two gods.

Or maybe you are are just talking nonsense... And 3. god is a made up figment of some people's imagination.

 

[questfortruth]

Or maybe you are are just talking nonsense.

I have used logic.. Do you hate the Laws of Aristotle's logic?

 

[ChristineM]

I have used logic.. Do you hate the Laws of Aristotle's logic?

Nope you have used guesswork and confirmation bias. There is a difference.