RE: Van Till's Ultimate Gap

From: Glenn Morton (
Date: Sat Sep 06 2003 - 21:26:59 EDT

  • Next message: Debbie Mann: "RE: Time"

    Hi Blake, you wrote:

    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: Dr. Blake Nelson []
    >Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 7:16 PM

    >I do not understand then, 1) what you mean by the
    >quantum states are indistinguishable. The whole point
    >of MWH is that there are other quantum outcomes, so
    >the states are distinguishable -- note, that you have
    >not explained, because I believe it impossible to do
    >so -- how salvation or damnation is a quantum

    Everett MWH says that a whole universe splits into two copies when a
    decision is made. In one universe one decision occurs in the other another.
    You are correct that those two are distinguishable. But with Tegmark's Level
    I multiverses, the situation is different. This view is based upon the idea
    that our universe is much, much larger than what we can see. It is so big in
    fact that all possible arrangements of protons and electrons is exhausted,
    meaning that they must repeat. This is the same thing I showed to Debbie


    constitute all arrangments of those three letters. If you add a sequence
    say, bca, it is indistinguishable from the first bca. Now it takes 10^118
    or so universes before repeat arrangements begin. That means that any
    reagion repeating our earth must be far, far away. And you might say that
    that has nothing to do with you and me. One of the most interesting aspects
    of quantum is that an electron going through two slits in a diffraction
    grating, is both here and there--i.e. in both slits at the same time. The
    electron is both places at once. Given the lack of knowledge we have of
    consciousness, how can we be sure that we can't be in both places at once as

    2) just because they are mathematically
    >indistinguishable to us, does that mean they are
    >indistinguishable to God?

    this would be the hidden variables approach to Quantum. My understanding is
    that it won't work. If they are indistinguishable, they are
    indistinguishable to everyone, including God.

    3) and even assuming
    >everything you suggest is true -- and all your selves
    >despite some being Wiccan, some being christian, etc.
    >are indistinguishable in a quantum sense (and I think
    >to the extent the point has any validity, you mean
    >that the mathematics currently used to posit the
    >different versions are indistinguishable, which seems
    >to me just another mathematical artefact like the
    >block universe concept, which by your analysis would
    >also be a religion killer -- if you want I will
    >explain why later), why isn't this akin to the
    >lifelong atheist who repents later in life?

    You are mixing different MWH's. In Everett's version, the MWH's become
    immediately distinguishable, being in different quantum states. In Inflation
    and in Tegmark's level one, they are indistinguishable until something
    happens in their histories which differentiates them.

    Who is to
    >say that the salvific action of God vis-a-vis one of
    >you, when all the infinite "yous" are reconciled are
    >not saved by the saving action of Jesus in this
    >universe and your response to it? As I said, you
    >could just as easily, under the Everett MWH, say that
    >everyone is saved, because someone gets it right in
    >some universe.

    Then all the atheists in this world are saved by their counter selves in
    other universes and thus it really doesn't matter what we believe because we
    are all going to be saved. Sarcastic mode on: Yup that sounds like classic
    Christianity! Sarcastic mode off.

    >Now, this certainly does not make anything willy-nilly
    >or random -- it seems to me that it even makes the
    >idea of all the universe being redeemed through Jesus
    >even more accurate, because, inter alia, it eliminates
    >the old chestnut that atheists and agnostics like to
    >throw out about being able to convert to christianity
    >being an accident of birth that has been denied most
    >people in history, since everyone does theoretically
    >have the opportunity and indeed does become saved
    >under the extremely extravagant claims of a maximal
    >Everett MWH hypothesis.

    Yes, it does that at the expense of any need to believe anything. If I am an
    evil cruel rapist, I am still saved in your view above. Your view sounds out
    of whack with traditional christianity.

    >Please explain to me how your being a Wiccan and your
    >being a Christian can be identical quantum states.

    They are not in identical quantum states. Once again you are mixing your

    >Please also explain to me how God cannot distinguish
    >between the different yous.

    Quantum indeterminancy! If an inflationary pocket universe has an identical
    history as ours, then there will be two identical me's. But at some point in
    history lets assume that that fellow decides to kill a cop on the street
    corner and I, in this universe don't. At that point we are distinguishable.
    Up until that point we weren't.

    >Please also explain if all of you are really you and
    >consciousness just makes you think there is one you
    >why all of you, in that sense, are not saved if one of
    >you are saved? I think christian dogma is pretty
    >clear that just becuase you continue to sin after you
    >have been saved doesn't mean you are no longer saved
    >-- so if other yous that are really you continue to
    >sin, are you positing a new doctrine of double limited
    >atonement that atonement doesn't apply to you if you
    >are not elect in all possible universes? This is
    >theologically (and scientifically) rather absurd given
    >the piling of what ifs and what seem to me logically
    >inconsistent conditions on the hypothesis.

    I am dealing with the formerly indistinguishable me's who chose not to
    accept attonement. At that point we become distinguishable, but up to that
    point, we were indistinguishable.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 06 2003 - 21:29:29 EDT