A Scientific Theory for Creation

[Eugene Shubert]

Creation can be established on current quantum theory where everything happens for no reason whatsoever. As all physicists believe, in conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled by a supervising probability amplitude. I merely postulate that out of the infinity of time, matter can permanently pop into existence finitely many times. Conceivably therefore, there is a probability amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a single big bang. Subsequently, there could have been a finite series of creation processes in the neighborhood of a warm watery planet for six days and then none on the seventh day. You get the idea. Furthermore, this scientific theory satisfies very precise definitions of physics.

Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of man, but this is science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/physics/Hilbert.htm

[Eugene Shubert]

Creation can be established on current quantum theory where everything happens for no reason whatsoever.

That's not even remotely true. The same laws of physics apply to QM as they do to the classical world, but they need to be expressed in a slightly different language.

I have no idea what you mean. There is no isomorphism between the classical world and a quantum universe.

As all physicists believe, in conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled by a supervising probability amplitude.

Again, not true. The laws of physics are still independent of the observer.

But of course. I surely believe that.

I merely postulate that out of the infinity of time, matter can permanently pop into existence finitely many times. Conceivably therefore, there is a probability amplitude that allowed for the initial creation of the universe in a single big bang.

Well, we're here, so the probability of that event must have been 100% at some instance. Apparently, you've never heard of collapse of the wavefunction.

I believe I hear it too often. Every child mathematician knows that the probability of an event happening after it happens is 1. Just leave it to child physicists to give a grandiose name to such a childish fact.

Subsequently, there could have been a finite series of creation processes in the neighborhood of a warm watery planet for six days and then none on the seventh day. You get the idea.

Yeah, I get the idea. Where's yours?

My idea is a challenging yes or no physics question for professional physicists, which requires courage to answer directly and truthfully:

Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

Genesis 2:7
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Exodus 14:21
"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided."

Furthermore, this scientific theory satisfies very precise definitions of physics.

Calling that untestable nonsense a scientific theory is sort of like describing Mr Ed as an aquatic reptile.

Why is my theory untestable? I define a creation event in spacetime as the possibility of matter coming permanently into existence out of nothingness. I conjecture that this can only happen in our universe a bounded number of times. I use this axiom to prove that the probability of a creation event happening is zero. I offer no physical evidence in support of creation events happening. I merely state the principle as an axiom and let respectable physicists affirm its reasonableness. For example, Steven Hawking, in his book, A Brief History of Time, has written that the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." I also interpret "the beginning of the universe" as a creation event.

Isn't it customary to make hypotheses in physics based on empirical observations?

Now, as for your accusation of nonsense, simply familiarize yourself with David Hilbert's philosophy of physics and discover that my proposed mathematical universe satisfies the definition of physics.

Admittedly, I believe that events of ridiculously small probabilities can occur and have occurred, such as the instantaneous creation of man, but this is science according to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

But at actualization, any particular event will have 100% probability. Collapse of the wave function again.

[Eugene Shubert]

Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

Although, as in qm, when events are governed by probability, it may be technically possible to find a non-zero probability for extremely unlikely events, there must be some doubt about the meaning of the mathematics. Probabilities this low are generally taken to mean the event could not have happened.

I started off thinking that a creation event should have zero probability. If that is true, then there could be no limit to the number of special creation events in the universe, provided that the average time between such events is infinite. I finally settled on being as conservative as my instincts will permit and thus conjectured, as per David Hilbert, that there will be no more than a fixed number of creation events in the eternity of time and not infinitely many.

I have no idea why you doubt the interpretation of the mathematics. I created a simple model universe to clarify the meaning of the math for those who have physical intuition. I have decreed by axiom, via Hilbert's philosophy of physics, that events of zero probability can happen. There is therefore no doubt that events of fantastically small probability can happen.

Why is my theory untestable? I define a creation event in spacetime as the possibility of matter coming permanently into existence out of nothingness. I conjecture that this can only happen in our universe a bounded number of times. I use this axiom to prove that the probability of a creation event happening is zero. I offer no physical evidence in support of creation events happening. I merely state the principle as an axiom and let respectable physicists affirm its reasonableness. For example, Steven Hawking, in his book, A Brief History of Time, has written that the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." I also interpret "the beginning of the universe" as a creation event.

There is a big difference between creation events within our universe, which are prevented by conservation of energy, and creation at the beginning of the universe when conservation of energy becomes meaningless.

Real analysis swarms with many mathematical statements that are almost always true--the exceptional points being a set of measure zero. If measure zero exceptions arise frequently in mathematics, why can't measure zero exceptions exist in physics? That's the beauty of David Hilbert's philosophy of physics. Everyone is free to favor any cosmology they like, just so long as it exists in the atlas of all conceivable universes. I maintain that my physical axioms are logically consistent and empirically relevant.

The most orthodox understanding of quantum physics is that no hidden variable theory could possibly exist that produces the results of quantum mechanics. And there are mathematical proofs of that result. Therefore, and in that sense, quantum events happen for no reason whatsoever. That is my first axiom. Note that I distinguish my universe from others by adding to axiom 1 the conjecture that the laws of physics allow for a bounded number of creation events to occur in the infinity of spacetime.

My second axiom is that the universe can appear deterministic even though all the laws of light and matter are ultimately statistical. My justification for this belief is in a very interesting theorem that I recall hearing ages ago. I believe it was in Ergodic theory. My recollection is that the theorem proved that every chaotic system exhibits predicable behavior.

My third axiom is that of a spacetime structure. I select Minkowski spacetime with all physical forces being ultimately quantum mechanical but certainly Lorentz invariant.

My fourth axiom is the Law of large numbers.

Shubert

[Eugene Shubert]

As all physicists believe, in conventional quantum mechanics, all the laws of physics are controlled by a supervising probability amplitude.

Again, not true.

I see nothing much wrong with the statement, though the word "controlled" seems inappropriate for probabilistic events.

My purpose in using the word controlled was not to suggest that a probability density in any way determines, guides or sets the direction of a physical process but that a probability function is the closest thing in quantum theory that fits that description.

Shubert

[Eugene Shubert]

Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

Although, as in qm, when events are governed by probability, it may be technically possible to find a non-zero probability for extremely unlikely events, there must be some doubt about the meaning of the mathematics. Probabilities this low are generally taken to mean the event could not have happened.

I have no idea why you doubt the interpretation of the mathematics.

Because a probability is a human construct, and not a real object. What it actually means when applied in the real world is an issue which raises extremely subtle problems.

Mainstream mathematicians have no problem with it.

I created a simple model universe to clarify the meaning of the math for those who have physical intuition. I have decreed by axiom, via Hilbert's philosophy of physics, that events of zero probability can happen.

You can't do that.

But of course I can. I'm a mathematician.

Zero probability means that an event cannot happen.

In finite probability spaces, you are correct. In general, all that is needed for a "Probability space" is a measure on a sigma-algebra of events that assigns to each event a number between 0 and 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_%28mathematics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space

If you change that, you are no longer talking about probability but about something else, and whatever you say becomes incomprehensible.

No. It's all standard mathematics called measure theory, which is required of all first year graduate students in math when they take real analysis. In probability theory, it is true that the empty set represents events that do not occur and has measure zero. However, in a general probability space, there are plenty of non-empty events that have measure zero.

There is therefore no doubt that events of fantastically small probability can happen.

While events of very low probability can happen, the mere calculation of a non-zero probability does not enable you to say that that event can happen unless you have an absolutely perfect mathematical model of physics and have taken absolutely everything into account. That is never the case.

In Hilbert's philosophy of physics, reality is only the model universe under consideration. If the axioms are consistent and physically relevant, then you do have an absolutely perfect mathematical model of physics.

Real analysis swarms with many mathematical statements that are almost always true--the exceptional points being a set of measure zero. If measure zero exceptions arise frequently in mathematics, why can't measure zero exceptions exist in physics?

Because mathematics is the product of thought, not of reality. Many things can happen in thought and not in reality.

Again, in Hilbert's philosophy of physics, the only reality is in the proposed axioms for a model universe and whatever mathematical results follow from those axioms.

The most orthodox understanding of quantum physics is that no hidden variable theory could possibly exist that produces the results of quantum mechanics. And there are mathematical proofs of that result. Therefore, and in that sense, quantum events happen for no reason whatsoever. That is my first axiom. Note that I distinguish my universe from others by adding to axiom 1 the conjecture that the laws of physics allow for a bounded number of creation events to occur in the infinity of spacetime.

Then you have already contradicted empirical and scientific evidence. The only creation event in our universe permitted by known law is the big bang, which is not in the infinity of spacetime, but at the finite beginning of time.

There is no empirical or mathematical proof that spacetime is curved. What we know conclusively about the big bang could have occurred in flat spacetime.

My second axiom is that the universe can appear deterministic even though all the laws of light and matter are ultimately statistical. My justification for this belief is in a very interesting theorem that I recall hearing ages ago. I believe it was in Ergodic theory. My recollection is that the theorem proved that every chaotic system exhibits predicable behavior.

I believe this is right, and would like to track down this theorem, if you have any clues.

I asked if that theorem has a name in a thread titled, "Which theorem proves that every chaotic system exhibits predicable behavior?" at sci.math and sci.physics.research.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/84b64d071a258559
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_frm/thread/e3597438af1a74c3

If a relevant response is posted, I will post it here also.

My third axiom is that of a spacetime structure. I select Minkowski spacetime with all physical forces being ultimately quantum mechanical but certainly Lorentz invariant.

Again you contradict known physical law. This kind of discussion applies to general relativity, not to Minkowski spacetime.

The standard subject indexes to the scientific literature has for gravity a huge category titled, "Theories of gravity other than Einstein's." Many papers in the direction of, "Relativistic non-instantaneous action-at-a-distance interactions" are listed.

Shubert

[Eugene Shubert]

Recently, I had a debate with a physicist on the physical meaning of probability theory. My view is that mathematical models of toy universes do exist that are logically consistent where measure zero events can happen.

His expressed position was that "Zero probability means that an event cannot happen." He also stated that "If you change that, you are no longer talking about probability but about something else, and whatever you say becomes incomprehensible."

I responded by saying:

In finite probability spaces, you are correct. In general, all that is needed for a 'Probability space' is a measure on a sigma-algebra of events that assigns to each event a number between 0 and 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_%28mathematics%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space

I believe that my learned opponent is wrong for three reasons, two of which are purely mathematical. First, it seems that he is unable to detach himself from his own emotional feelings about the universe to even consider the meaning of zero probability from a measure-theoretic point of view. Second, he thinks that the occurrence of a measure-zero probability event is incomprehensible.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/browse_frm/thread/c4de9ae9a364fc79

Who is right?
Excerpted from Can Events of Zero Probability Happen?

[Eugene Shubert]

Recently, I had a debate with a physicist on the physical meaning of probability theory. My view is that mathematical models of toy universes do exist that are logically consistent where measure zero events can happen.

Absolutely.

His expressed position was that "Zero probability means that an event cannot happen." He also stated that "If you change that, you are no longer talking about probability but about something else, and whatever you say becomes incomprehensible."

He's incorrect. In the measure-theoretic development of probability theory (and it's not surprising that a physics professor wouldn't have seen this theory -- why would he need it?), events can occur which have measure 0.

I believe that my learned opponent is wrong for three reasons, two of which are purely mathematical. First, it seems that he is unable to detach himself from his own emotional feelings about the universe to even consider the meaning of zero probability from a measure-theoretic point of view. Second, he thinks that the occurrence of a measure-zero probability event is incomprehensible.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/browse_frm/thread/c4de9ae9a364fc79

Who is right?

You're wrong to ascribe dark motives to him.

I have not ascribed dark motives to any physicist that can't reason like a mathematician because he or she is emotionally wed to their own pet theories about the universe.

This would be one of those areas of mathematics where the physicist can correctly dismiss it as arcane and of no practical importance to most questions in physics,

The dispute was in the context of a specific category of toy universes where physicists do pretend to speak authoritatively.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/browse_frm/thread/c4de9ae9a364fc79/

The other mathematical misconception by the physicist in question, which is a shame to mention, is that he believes that events described by fantastically small probabilities can't happen. His argument:

... the mere calculation of a non-zero probability does not enable you to say that that event can happen unless you have an absolutely perfect mathematical model of physics and have taken absolutely everything into account. That is never the case.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/msg/ca3eb017d60ca734

Excerpted from Can Events of Zero Probability Happen?

[Eugene Shubert]

Whether or not something can "really" "happen" is not a mathematical question.

Ah, but that's not true in the context of my assertions. All physics is mathematics in David Hilbert's philosophy of physics.

Excerpted from Can Events of Zero Probability Happen?

[Eugene Shubert]

_If_ you're interested in resolving the difference between you and the physicist you'd ask what I suggested you ask and see what he says. Because it's possible that he'd have no problem with "choose a real between 0 and 1 at random", and in that case you could explain why he's simply _wrong_ about the impossibility of events of probability zero happening.

Sure, on the face of it, it seems possible to reason with a physicist that believes that conceptualizing events that occur with zero probability is unfathomable. The problem is, he explicitly said that even an event of incredibly small probability can't happen. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/msg/3d5630f2762edce6

Excerpted from Can Events of Zero Probability Happen?

[Eugene Shubert]

Sure, on the face of it, it seems possible to reason with a physicist that believes that conceptualizing events that occur with zero probability is unfathomable. The problem is, he explicitly said that even an event of incredibly small probability can't happen.

First, if he said that why didn't you say so?

If events of zero probability can happen, then events of fantastically small probability can happen. Didn't Oh No assert that "Zero probability means that an event cannot happen"?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/msg/ca3eb017d60ca734

There's a big difference between that and saying that events of zero probability can't happen.

That is correct. If I titled this thread, "Can Events of Fantastically Small Probability Happen?" I probably wouldn't get a serious mathematical answer and I might even be told that asking such a fantastically stupid question doesn't belong at sci.math.

Second, again you should simply ask him a question. First ask him for an epsilon > 0 such that an event of probability < epsilon can't happen. Second, calculate an N such that 2^(-N) < epsilon. Third, ask him to flip a coin N times and tell you what sequences of heads and tails resulted. Then point out that the probability of that sequence of heads and tails is < epsilon.

David, going that route presupposes that the physicist respects precise and elegantly stated mathematical reasoning. The way I look at it, I have already arrived at an apparently insolvable impasse. Didn't Oh No make it clear that his philosophical perspective supercedes all established mathematical understanding?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.foundations/browse_frm/thread/c4de9ae9a364fc79/

Third, no he _didn't_ say that! He said "Probabilities this low are generally taken to mean the event could not have happened." That's _true_.

More precisely, those are weasel words in the context of the discussion. Definition: "A weasel word is used to avoid making a straightforward statement. Weasel words are also used to deceive, distract, or manipulate an audience." Weasel wording "conceals the full picture. In this way, one may evade responsibility for what may be inferred." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words

Please note the meaning of the physicist's whole paragraph in response to my question:

Quantum mechanically, is there a nonzero probability for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7).

Although, as in qm, when events are governed by probability, it may be technically possible to find a non-zero probability for extremely unlikely events, there must be some doubt about the meaning of the mathematics. Probabilities this low are generally taken to mean the event could not have happened.

I interpret that answer as "Yes, but." The key line is "there must be some doubt about the meaning of the mathematics." Do you really believe that an expert physicist can rationally justify having doubt about the meaning of the mathematics?

Oh No's answer "Yes, but," when you mod out all the weasel words in the whole paragraph, clearly affirms my claim that Oh No "explicitly said that even an event of incredibly small probability can't happen."

Yes it is. Suppose I tell you that I was watching a glass of water the other day, and with no outside energy applied it just happened that half of it froze solid while the other half boiled away. Would you believe me?

David, thank you for bringing up this very familiar illustration in quantum physics. You have proven my point. The accepted and widely acknowledged answer by the experts in quantum physics is that the event that you described can happen, although with fantastically small, non-zero probability.

Now, please consider the meaning of this amusing curiosity. When mainstream physicists interpret quantum physics and assert that miraculous events can happen in a glass of water, the meaning of fantastically small probability is not disputed. When I ask about the quantum mechanical chances for the Red Sea to part (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day (Genesis 2:7), then suddenly those events call into question the meaning of fantastically small probabilities.

Excerpted from Can Events of Zero Probability Happen?

[Eugene Shubert]

Sir Roger Penrose believes in Countably Many Creation Events

It seems to me that great minds think alike. In January of this year, I wrote on the possibility of the big bang happening in an already existing Minkowski spacetime. I have now stumbled upon a youtube video of Sir Roger Penrose explaining his new idea that another big bang will happen in this universe after all the matter in it decays into radiation and this universe eventually dies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEIj9zcLzp0

I believe that Penrose and I agree on the principal assumptions and conclusions. I strongly believe in quantum creation and in the eventual death of this universe and a later creation to take its place. Are there any other mathematicians or physicists out there that respect this type of creation theory?

[Eugene Shubert]

Sir Roger Penrose is essentially saying that a time will come when the whole fabric of spacetime will become unstable and because of an inevitable quantum mechanical need of a hard reboot, the whole universe will restart all over again from the point of the initial big bang. But given the fact that spacetime structure doesn’t decay and that the end of an ever-expanding spacetime has no mathematical meaning, it’s logical to infer from the Penrose paradigm that we have a preexisting spacetime structure in which a creation miracle occurs.

[Eugene Shubert]

Stephen Hawking: Asking big questions about the universe

Here is a lecture by Stephen Hawking where the professor says, "The universe can spontaneously create itself out of nothing."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjBIsp8mS-c

[Eugene Shubert]

Here is a book that I recommend for all my critics and detractors that don't even have a high school level understanding in relativity theory and quantum physics:

Mr Tompkins in Paperback By George Gamow, Roger Penrose

Mr Tompkins has become known and loved by many thousands of readers (since his first appearance over fifty years ago) as the bank clerk whose fantastic dreams and adventures lead him into a world inside the atom. George Gamow's classic provides a delightful explanation of the central concepts in modern physics, from atomic structure to relativity, and quantum theory to fusion and fission. Roger Penrose's new foreword introduces Mr Tompkins to a new generation of readers, and reviews his adventures in the light of current developments in physics today.

More details
Mr Tompkins in Paperback: Comprising 'Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland' and 'Mr. Tompkins Explores the Atom'
By George Gamow, Roger Penrose
Contributor Roger Penrose
Published by Cambridge University Press, 1993
ISBN 0521447712, 9780521447713
185 pages

Here is a brief excerpt from George Gamow's original 1945 classic, Mr Tompkins Explores The Atom:

When the clouds cleared, Maud found herself sitting in the same chair she was sitting in before she went into the dining room.

'Holy entropy!' her father shouted, staring bewildered at Mr. Tompkins' highball. 'It's boiling!'

The liquid in the glass was covered with violently bursting bubbles, and a thin cloud of steam was rising slowly toward the ceiling. It was particularly odd, however, that the drink was boiling only in a comparatively small area around the ice cube. The rest of the drink was still quite cold.

‘Think of it!' went on the professor in an awed, trembling voice. ‘Here I was telling you about statistical fluctuations in the law of entropy when we actually see one! By some incredible chance, possibly for the first time since the earth began, the faster molecules have all grouped themselves accidentally on one part of the surface of the water and the water has begun to boil by itself!

In the billions of years to come, we will still, probably, be the only people who ever had the chance to observe this extraordinary phenomenon.' He watched the drink, which was now slowly cooling down. 'What a stroke of luck!' he breathed happily. Maud smiled but said nothing. She did not care to argue with father, but this time she felt sure she knew better than he.