Cosmology of Multiverses and the Emergence of Life (2)

Cosmology of Multiverses and the Emergence of Life (2) *Note: This article is from the book (Signature in the Cell: DNA and Intelligent Design Guides) for more please check out the book. Do the inflation fields exist? First, there are good reasons to doubt the existence of inflation fields in the first place, since they are essentially useful to explain the problems of homogeneity and flatness of the universe, but as a number of distinguished physicists have shown, these fields may not explain these two features of the universe at all, so that physicists explain the homogeneity of the universe by the concept of inflation fields, so they have to adopt large unjustified assumptions about the singularity from which everything came. Spacetime. In addition, Stephen Hawking and Don Page have stated that it is difficult to explain why the cosmological and gravitational fields (as described by the theory of general relativity, which we have good reasons to accept) should work together to produce homogeneity in cosmic background radiation and to explain the flatness in space-time in our observable universe. Causal sufficiency considerations There is another reason why the science of cosmic inflation cannot provide an acceptable explanation or better than the intelligent design of the creation of biological information. The explanatory ability of inflationary cosmology depends on the supposed causal abilities of a completely unknown entity (an entity only proposed to explain a set of mysterious effects) and has causal abilities that have not been explained or observed, we do not know whether inflationary fields really exist or not, and we do not know if they do (from the direct consciousness of man himself and we know nothing else). And yet, the physicist Robin Collins has argued that if the fossil remains of the dinosaurs are equally well-defined, we should prefer hypotheses that are "a natural extrapolation of what we already know" about the causal abilities of different entities.8 In a slightly different context, he has argued that the multiverse hypothesis fails to account for the exact tuning of the universe as directed in favor of the human principle, while the design hypothesis goes beyond this test. Sediments and sedimentary rocks, so most scientists prefer the real dinosaur hypothesis to the virtual dinosaur hypothesis (i.e., the "producing field of dinosaur bones") as an explanation for fossils. By the same token, we have no prior experience of anything resembling the universe's inflationary field, which is generated by many finite universes (or, in this context, any experience of any machine or mechanism capable of producing anything with fine tuning such as ours without being itself designed), but we have extensive experience of producing intelligent actors, fine tuning machines or information-rich systems from numerical or alphabetic codes. An inflationary entity simply has not seen its causal powers or proven. Return of displacement problem There is an additional problem in using inflationary fields to explain the emergence of information necessary for the first life, to explain the emergence of specific features of our observable universe, and to explain (as an unintended additional gain) the emergence of life-friendly universes that are innumerable and resemble our universe, on the premise of the inflationary universe to resort to a number of unexplained sources or sources of pumping information, for example, inflationary fields and the fields with which they are conjugate must be precisely controlled. Our universe, according to the calculations of Roger Penrose (who considers inflationary cosmology to be a very dubious scientific activity) the initial entropy of our universe was originally fine-tuned to a fraction of a tenth to a force of 10 to a force of 123.9 and inflation explains nothing of this fine-tuning but rather multiplies the problem. Some cosmologists argue, of course, that a number of universe bubbles produced by the original inflation field can overcome the obstacle, but besides the weakness of this explanatory strategy and its lack of simplicity and scientific economy, the generation of a larger inflationary field to give the right results (i.e. universes that have the characteristics of our observable universe) itself depends on a number of exaggerated assumptions and finely tuned initial conditions. As noted above, physicists make a number of unjustified assumptions about the first singularity to be able to reconcile the inflationary field with general relativity theory. For example, to make cosmic inflation consistent with general relativity, cosmologists should assume a special method for measuring distance in spacetime (a so-called metric) and reject all other methods, in addition to having several possible models of inflation. In order to ensure that inflationary fields create cosmic bubbles, physicists must select some inflationary models and exclude others in their theoretical assumptions. Each of these options constitutes conscious intervention by the modeler, an intervention that reflects the existence of unexplained information that must be present in the initial conditions associated With cosmic singularity. In fact, the need to make such assumptions and restrict theoretical hypotheses suggests that the initial singularity itself had to be fine-tuned so that any inflationary field could produce a universe like our own, but we know that our universe exists, and we have good reasons to believe that general relativity is true, and therefore, if a cosmic inflationary field exists, it would only work in the way that inflationary cosmologists envisioned it if the same singularity from which the inflationary field emerged was fine-tuned. Thus, relying on inflationary cosmology to explain the information necessary to produce the first life, Konin created an information problem in his claim to try to solve another information problem (see Chapter XIII), and even assuming the existence of inflationary fields and the possibility of an infinite number of universes (this is an entirely unsecured bet), Konin solves the problem of biological information genesis by creating a new problem of cosmic information, which is also necessary in his model to explain the genesis of life. The Optimistic Cost In inflationary cosmology also another weakness, once we allow this science as a random interpretation of anything, will destroy the scientific and practical logic of everything, the science of inflationary cosmology is able to explain the genesis of all occurrences no matter how improbable to return to chance, because the probabilistic resources that it is supposed to generate are infinite, and therefore all events that we interpret with known causes in the created field means that the probability of both events may be explained in inflationary cosmology as accidents without any prior cause. Or the usual phenomena such as the condensation of steam are equally likely to occur as a result of a ripple shell in a quantum vacuum with the possibility that they will occur as a result of a sequence of specific physical causes, in short, if the inflationary cosmology is correct anything can happen for no reason at all, starting from random quantum ripples of the inflationary field. What's more, inflationary cosmology implies that some explanations that we consider to be infinitely improbable or infinitely different are more likely to be true than we usually accept. Consider, for example, the "Boltzmann brain" phenomenon, which quantum cosmologists have studied so much. Within inflationary cosmology, a fully functional human brain could, in theory, emerge spontaneously as a result of heat waves in a quantum vacuum. Like us.10 The epistemological imperatives of this possibility have raised issues that cosmologists can't ignore. If our universes are created by quantum inflation, we're much more likely to be Boltzmann's brains than we are to be real people with a history of life in this 13.7 billion-year-old universe. In short, the hypothesis adopted by Konin to solve the problem of the origin of life has made all scientific thinking and explanation unreliable, and therefore threatens any basis for his interpretation of Konin himself of how life originated. 6. Penrose, “Difficulties with Inflationary Cosmology,” 249–64. Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 746–57. 7. Hawking, Stephen, and Donald Page. “How Probable Is Inflation?” Nuclear Physics B 298 (1988): 789–809. 8. Collins, “The Fine-tuning Design Argument,” esp. 61. 9. Penrose, “Difficulties with Inflationary Cosmology,” 249–64. Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 746–57, esp. 730, 755. 10. Dyson, Lisa, Matthew Kleban, and Leonard Susskind. “Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant.” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2002): 11. 6. Penrose, “Difficulties with Inflationary Cosmology,” 249–64. Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 746–57. 7. Hawking, Stephen, and Donald Page. “How Probable Is Inflation?” Nuclear Physics B 298 (1988): 789–809. 8. Collins, “The Fine-tuning Design Argument,” esp. 61. 9. Penrose, “Difficulties with Inflationary Cosmology,” 249–64. Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, 746–57, esp. 730, 755. 10. Dyson, Lisa, Matthew Kleban, and Leonard Susskind. “Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant.” Journal of High Energy Physics 10 (2002): 11. - Dr. Steven Meyer. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2018-06-05 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/physics-cosmology/كوزمولوجيا-الأكوان-المتعددة-ونشأة-الحياة-2