God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
James Redford
known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J.
Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the
known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general
relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle
physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final
cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity
identified as being God):
F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports
on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964.
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as
"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a
Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of
12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles
published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68].
Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding
reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our
international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal
Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005,"
Reports on Progress in Physics.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )
Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute
of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further,
Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according
to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is
the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which
Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact
factor reflects the importance the science community places in that
journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own
papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in
Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters
since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as
defined by the latter journal.)
See also the below resources for further information on the Omega
Point Theory:
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist
http://theophysics.110mb.com , http://geocities.com/theophysics/
"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=206077125
"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=269587875
Tipler is Professor of Mathematics and Physics (joint appointment) at
Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general
relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and
Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle
physics and computer science. His Omega Point Theory has been
published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science
journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's
leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters B, the International
Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.
Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the
U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts
and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on pg.
viii in the "Foreword" to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow
and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler's Omega Point
Theory was described. On pg. ix of said book, Prof. Wheeler wrote that
Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals
in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]."
The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch
(inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to
mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of
the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his
work), endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory in his book The
Fabric of Reality (1997). For that, see:
David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of
The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its
Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with
additional comments by Frank J. Tipler.
http://theophysics.110mb.com/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html
The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to
physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate
the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper
on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the
conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field
theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking,
"Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8,
084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed
physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive
testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking
implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the
universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black
hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity,
yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid
unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.
Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its
expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the
Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner
point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and
Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at
arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of
cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will
expand forever or eventually collapse.
There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the
actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the
mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard
Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by
baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily
forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its
absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological
constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by
the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling
(which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton
number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field
toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological
constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this
process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket
propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.
Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper also
demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since
1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and
independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among
others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a
finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second
order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity
theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an
arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that
this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a
certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial
Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The
equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite,
but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be
finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities
that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing
it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby
preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into
nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his book The Physics of Christianity
(New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 49 and 279, "It is a fundamental
mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can
do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex
analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants
have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of
coordinates or at infinity."
When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of
Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in
physics.
##########
Regarding the equivalence of God and the Omega Point, Prof. Tipler has
published on this equivalence in a peer-reviewed academic science
journal. See Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to
Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion &
Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253;
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x.
http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf ,
http://www.gazup.com/FLQT0-tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf-download-mirrors
The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of
information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it
is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it
is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. As well, as Stephen
Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the
boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The
Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University
Press, 1973], pp. 217-221). So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet
immanent in, space and time.
Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-part
structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the
all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the
multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the
Big Bang). These three distinct parts which perform different physical
functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one
singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.
And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the
Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present
universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number
which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for
every different quantum configuration of the universe logically
possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in
universal history). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us
using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational
resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between
10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as
the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great
enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total
computational resources.
So to recapitulate:
1.) The Omega Point (or, for that matter, the society near the Omega
Point) can trivially perform the universal resurrection of the dead,
upon which the people resurrected can live eternally in literal
heaven, i.e., paradise.
2.) The Omega Point is omniscient.
3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent.
4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent.
5.) The cosmological singularity is a triune structure, of which the
Omega Point is one component.
6.) The cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in,
space and time.
7.) The cosmological singularity is the only achieved (actually
existing) infinity.
8.) The Omega Point creates the universe and all of existence.
Those are all the physical properties that have been claimed for God
in traditional Christian theology. There are many other congruities
between the Omega Point cosmology and Christianity. Below are listed
just some of them:
1.) We are gods: John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6).
2.) We are God and God is us: Matthew 25:31-46.
3.) We live inside of God: Acts 17:24-28.
4.) God is everything and inside of everything: Colossians 3:11;
Jeremiah 23:24.
5.) We are members in the body of Christ: Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians
6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25.
6.) We are one in Christ: Galatians 3:28.
7.) God is all: Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6.
8.) God is light: 1 John 1:5; John 8:12.
9.) We have existed before the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34;
Luke 1:70; 11:50; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Isaiah 40:21.
10.) Jesus has existed before the foundation of the world: John 17:24;
Revelation 13:8.
11.) The reality of multiple worlds: Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3.
12.) God is the son of man: Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:18;
12:32; 12:40; 13:37; 13:41; 16:13; 16:27,28; 17:9; 17:12; 17:22;
18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 20:28; 24:27; 24:30; 24:37; 24:39; 24:44; 25:13;
25:31; 26:2; 26:24; 26:45; 26:64. (This is just listing how many times
Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man in the Gospel of Matthew,
althought he refers to himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was
the favorite phrase that he used to refer to himself.)
How item Nos. 9 and 10 relate is that within Prof. Tipler's Omega
Point Theory the universe is brought into being by the Omega Point, as
the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning
state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity (since in physics it's just as
accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz.,
the principle of least action; and unitarity). Another way of stating
it is that in the Omega Point cosmology, the Omega Point is the
fundamental existential and mathematical entity, from which all of
reality derives. Indeed, within the Omega Point Theory, the Big Bang
singularity and the Omega Point singularity are actually just
different functions of the same singularity. Further, anything which
at any time will exist will simply be a subset of what is rendered in
the Omega Point.
##########
Nor does the fact that God has been proven to exist according to the
known laws of physics leave no room for faith. Recall that Jesus
Christ in part defined Himself as the truth (John 14:6). Hence, truth,
particularly scientific truth, confirms the existence of God and Jesus
Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.
Faith in the Christian sense is trust in the truth (i.e.,
equivalently, trust in Jesus Christ), even when things seem hopeless.
It does not mean a lack of rationality in coming to belief in Jesus
Christ. Indeed, Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans
1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge
of God:
""
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has
shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
excuse, ...
""
After all, some form of reason must be used in order for a person to
convert in belief from one religion to another; or from any belief to
another belief, for that matter. It can either be veridical reason, or
false reason--but some process of reasoning must be involved.
Having faith in God is having trust in the truth, since the Godhead in
all its fullness is the highest obtainment of truth: said state is the
perfection of all knowledge.
Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to
abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're
uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the
antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which
greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years),
due to said scientific community regarding it as lending credence to
the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also
because no laws of physics can apply to a singularity itself. The
originator of the Big Bang theory, circa 1930, was Roman Catholic
priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lema�tre; and it was
enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the
scientific community finally came to accept it. As regards physicists
abandoning physical law due to their theological discomfort with the
Big Bang, in an article by Prof. Frank J. Tipler he gives the
following example involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven
Weinberg:
""
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support
religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student
at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the
physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the
theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because
"it *least* resembled the account in Genesis" (my emphasis). In his
book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his
earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: "Our mistake is not that we
take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them
seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and
equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real
world. [b]Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that
certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable
theoretical and experimental effort.[/b]" [My emphasis--J. R.]
... But as [Weinberg] himself points out in his book, the Big Bang
Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics,
standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the
basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established
in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out.
Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn't take the
equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the
religious implications of the laws of physics. ...
""
For that and a number of other such examples, see:
Frank J. Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce
Orthodoxy?," Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID),
Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003).
http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf Also
published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find
Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, "Foreword" by
John Wilson (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004).
Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Weinberg and Tipler wrote about
concerning the antagonism of the scientific community for religion,
resulting in them abandoning good physics. In his book The Illustrated
A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), pg. 62,
Hawking wrote:
""
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably
because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the
other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially
pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were
therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had
been a big bang.
""
On pg. 179 of the same book, Hawking wrote "In real time, the universe
has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to
spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."
Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the
Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), pg. 113:
""
This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause]
is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under
conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a
product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that
happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the
implications, he would be traumatized.
""
For more quotes by Robert Jastrow on this, see:
John Ross Schroeder and Bill Bradford, "Science and Discomfiting
Discoveries" in Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? (United
Church of God, 2000)
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/discomfitingdiscoveries.htm ,
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/GE.pdf
For more quotes by scientists along the above lines, see the below
article:
Mariano, "In the Beginning ... Cosmology, Part I," Atheism's
Assertions, February 20, 2007
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/in-beginning-cosmology-part-i-see.html
,
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-beginning-cosmology-part-i-pre-big.html
Again, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to
physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate
the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper
on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the
conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field
theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking,
"Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8,
084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed
physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive
testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking
implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the
universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black
hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity,
yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid
unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.
Contrast that ad libitum approach to doing physics with that of Prof.
Frank J. Tipler, who bases his Omega Point Theory and the
Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/extended Standard Model Theory of
Everything (TOE) strictly on the known laws of physics, and that of
Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first
person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and
winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize
for his work). They both believe we have to take the known laws of
physics seriously as true explanations of how the world works, unless
said physics are experimentally, or otherwise, refuted.
----------------------------------------
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research
Network (SSRN), revised and expanded edition, May 3, 2009 (originally
published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information on
Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity Theory
of Everything [TOE]) http://theophysics.110mb.com ,
http://geocities.com/theophysics/
I.N. Galidakis
> God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
> known laws of physics.
That's right. I saw Him last week too, when I was high:
http://misc.virtualcomposer2000.com/godonduty1024.jpg
Somebody care to give Him a wake-up call and tell Him to send some rain, STAT?
We are BURNING down here!
[snip for brevity]
--
Ioannis
Jens Stuckelberger
> God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
> known laws of physics.
So Odin exists. Yipee! What about Thor?
A Nony Mouse
James Redford <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> God has been proven to exist
BALLS!
BradGuth
kosher idiots we have before us. Proof accepted, and seconded by none
other than myself (also one of God's better creations).
When exactly is this supposed God going to take full responsibility
for his/her actions?
Or is this God just another faith-based opportunist, like so many
others that consider themselves as better and more deserving than
most?
~ BG
On Sep 6, 11:43 am, James Redford <jrredf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
> known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J.
> Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the
> known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general
> relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle
> physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final
> cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity
> identified as being God):
>
> F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports
> on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964.http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdfAlso released as
> "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a
> Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
>
> Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of
> 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles
> published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68].
> Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding
> reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our
> international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal
> Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005,"
> Reports on Progress in Physics.http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885)
>
> Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute
> of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further,
> Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according
> to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is
> the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which
> Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact
> factor reflects the importance the science community places in that
> journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own
> papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in
> Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters
> since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as
> defined by the latter journal.)
>
> See also the below resources for further information on the Omega
> Point Theory:
>
> Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicisthttp://theophysics.110mb.com,http://geocities.com/theophysics/
>
> "Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&ol...
>
> "Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, February 9, 2009http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=26958...
> additional comments by Frank J. Tipler.http://theophysics.110mb.com/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html
>
> The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to
> physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate
> the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper
> on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the
> conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field
> theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking,
> "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8,
> 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
>
> That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed
> physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive
> testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking
> implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the
> universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black
> hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity,
> yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid
> unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.
>
> Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its
> expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the
> Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner
> point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and
> Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at
> arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020), there is no set of
> doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x.http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf,http://www.gazup.com/FLQT0-tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf-downloa...
>
> The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of
> information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it
> is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it
> is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. As well, as Stephen
> Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the
> boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The
> Large Scale Structure of ...
>
> read more »
Musatov
On Sep 6, 4:04 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Only God could have created the Usenet/newsgroup village of mostly
> kosher idiots we have before us. Proof accepted, and seconded by none
> other than myself (also one of God's better creations).
>
> When exactly is this supposed God going to take full responsibility
> for his/her actions?
>
> Or is this God just another faith-based opportunist, like so many
> others that consider themselves as better and more deserving than
> most?
>
> ~ BG
>
> On Sep 6, 11:43 am, James Redford <jrredf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
> > known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J.
> > Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the
> > known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general
> > relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle
> > physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final
> > cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity
> > identified as being God):
>
> > F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Musatov wrote;
total results: 23 for guth musatov
sci.math | Google Groups
On Aug 17, 7:21 pm, BradGuth ... Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth,
BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet"- Hide quoted text ... is the premise.
Musatov + Musatov / 1 ...
groups.google.co.yu/group/sci.math/msg/1201585d6cde246e?dmode=print
Discussions - sci.astro | Google Groups
The 1% hollow moon / Brad Guth. 143 new of 143 - Aug 21. ABSOLUTELY
TRUE THEORIES ... Hey Jackasses, Musatov here, fuck you and stupid
small brains unless you can ...
groups.google.co.za/group/sci.astro/topics?lnk=rgh Discussions -
sci.astro | Google Groups
The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth. 48 new of 48 - Aug 18. Centrifuge
at ... From Musatov: the concept of life hurtling through space as a
blinding white ...
groups.google.sh/group/sci.astro/topics?lnk=rgh Discussions -
sci.astro | Google Groups
The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth. 73 new of 73 - Aug 24. Finite
Relativism and the Universe ... Musatov. By M.M.M. - Aug 24 - 14 new
of 14 messages. FREE MONEY ...
groups.google.co.ke/group/sci.astro/topics?lnk=rgh Discussions -
sci.astro | Google Groups
6 new of 6 - 21 Aug. The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth. 63 new of 63 -
21 Aug ... Hey Jackasses, Musatov here, fuck you and stupid small
brains unless you can ...
groups.google.az/group/sci.astro/topics?lnk=rga sci.chem
Re: The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth. 1. hanson. 13.08. Colossal
carbon tubes. ... 28.06. Re: 2H2 + SiO2 = ?? 1. Musatov. Back to Top
"La Directory Italiana" ...
www.4viaggi.com/news/sci.chem.html Discussions - sci.astro | Google
Groups
The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth. 73 new of 73 - Aug 24. Finite
Relativism and the Universe ... Musatov. By M.M.M. - Aug 24 - 22 new
of 22 messages. FREE MONEY ...
groups.google.co.ls/group/sci.astro/topics?lnk=rga&hl=en
MartinM...@Everything2.com
Preface: Martin M. Musatov. An Argument for P=NP. Selmer
Bringsjord ... Guth, A. (2000), 'Inflation and eternal inflation',
Physics Reports 333, 555â€"574. ...
www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1977353 Salt & Light
musatov (772) Description. P=NP. 9 Pages. Date Added. 03/26/2009.
Category ... Guth, A. (2000), Inflation and eternal inflation', Physics
Reports 333, 555–574. ...
www.scribd.com/doc/13690179/Salt-Light
total results: 6 for guth musatov GOD
sci.chem
Re: If I was GOD. 34. Mark. 26.08. Marie Curie. 82. Andrew Usher.
25.08. ... 28.06. Re: 2H2 + SiO2 = ?? 1. Musatov. Back to Top "La
Directory Italiana" ...
www.4viaggi.com/news/sci.chem.html sci.physics
From: Musatov. Re: Locating a wireless access point in 3-space. From:
eric gisse ... Humans Will Become No. 2 Species or God-like Superior
Machines Will Destroy Them. ...
sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2009-07/maillist.html
sci.physics
Re: How God executes "copyrights" for his inventions and creations
(JP), Uncle Al ... Re: Locating a wireless access point in 3-space.,
Musatov ...
sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2009-07 Astronomy Misc -
SpaceBanter.com
... god, gravity, images, life, light, mars, matter, may, mission,
moon, nasa, news, ... The 1~10% hollow moon / Brad Guth by
BradGuth ...
www.spacebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12 Knihy na internetu -
antikvariáty a nakladatelství, staré knihy, nové ...
Knihy na internetu - antikvariáty a nakladatelství, staré knihy, nové
knihy, ... JIŘÍ GUTH, 1861-1943) PEDAGOG, PUBLICISTA A SPISOVATEL,
ZAKLÁDAJÍCÍ ČLEN MOV ...
knihynainternetu.cz/Export-G.html Re: Alan Schwartz Jewish science in
full-bloom - Docendi.org
women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.
Martin Musatov ... Furthermore praise to Brad Guth who unearthed this
John Wilkins
<Jens_Stuc...@nowhere.net> wrote:
Thor can't come to the phone right now as he's too hammered.
Salmon Egg
Bill
--
Private Profit; Public Poop! Avoid collateral windfall!
James Redford
<Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>If it is on the internet, it must be true. I am totally underwhelmed.
Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in many
peer-reviewed physics and science journals and proceedings, including
a number of the world's leading physics journals[1]:
- Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International
Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp.
617-661; doi:10.1007/BF00670475. (First paper on the Omega Point
Theory.)
- Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to
Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion &
Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253;
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x.
http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf ,
http://www.gazup.com/FLQT0-tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf-download-mirrors
Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to
Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Beginning with the End: God,
Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, edited by Carol Rausch Albright and
Joel Haugen (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997),
ISBN: 0812693256, pp. 156-194.
- Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which
undergo inflation," Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23,
1992), pp. 36-43; doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W.
- Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future
of the Universe," NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop
Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January
1999, pp. 111-119; proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored
by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998;
doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number:
E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694.
http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-ultrarelativistic-rockets.pdf
See also:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ntk=DocumentID&Ntt=19990023204 ,
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990023204_1999021520.pdf
- Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole
Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the
Cosmological Constant," arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in Relativistic
Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000,
edited by J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Melville, N.Y.: American
Institute of Physics, 2001), ISBN: 0735400261; and in AIP Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), pp. 769-772;
doi:10.1063/1.1419654.
- Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International
Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148;
doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526.
http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf
Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058
- F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers,"
Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp.
897-964; doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04.
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as
"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a
Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
- Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua
Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black
Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole
Information Problem," arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp.
629-640; doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above
August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading
peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.
Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate
Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at
and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has
peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theory.
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports in Progress in
Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory
of Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005"
accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress
in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial
Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received
the highest praise from our international referees and a high number
of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer,
Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )
Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute
of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists.
Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor
(according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters,
which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one,
incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once).
A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science
community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its
papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005
Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in
Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and
hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)
For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler's above
2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper; and see the following
resources:
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," TetrahedronOmega,
December 26, 2008
http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=libertyandtruth
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist
http://theophysics.110mb.com , http://geocities.com/theophysics/
The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to
reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the
Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical
science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every
experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for
thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one
must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the
Omega Point cosmology.
Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything
(TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of
which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have
an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology
is correct. (Again, for the details on that, see Prof. Tipler's above
2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper.)
-----
Note:
1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that
is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which
violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support
whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the
peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such
papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating
paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said
papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with
reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such
papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas the
operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's refereed papers on the Omega
Point is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality
which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to
date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these
papers could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm,
i.e., the known laws of physics.
--
"James Redford" <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lcv8a556lgd63s78k...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:54:00 -0700, Salmon Egg
> <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>If it is on the internet, it must be true. I am totally underwhelmed.
>
> Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in many
> peer-reviewed physics and science journals and proceedings, including
> a number of the world's leading physics journals[1]:
>
"Prove" is a the problem word. There is no way that science can either
prove or disprove the existence of God.
Beyond this, modern theological thinking has no problems or conflicts with
science. Nor do modern scientists need to have conflicts with the concept
of God. Theologians search for "why" and scientists search for "how". The
subject has been dealt with by many authors(on both sides) on an open
minded basis and by others (on both sides) on a closed minded basis-so what
is new?
--
Don Kelly
dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the x to reply
--
--rest of references snipped
Kalkidas
> God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
> known laws of physics.
There is no such thing as "proof" in physical science. "Proof" is a feature
of mathematics and logic.
James Redford
Please pay attention to what was written. The title of my post was
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," and in the body
of the post the opening sentence was "God has been proven to exist
based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics," i.e.,
according to the known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed
by every experiment conducted to date.
The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to
reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the
Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical
science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every
experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for
thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one
must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the
Omega Point cosmology.
Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything
(TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of
which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have
an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology
is correct.
Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been
published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics
journals.[1]
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics
paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of
Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005"
accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress
in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial
Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received
the highest praise from our international referees and a high number
of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer,
Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )
Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute
of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further,
Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according
to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is
the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which
Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact
factor reflects the importance the science community places in that
journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own
papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in
Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters
since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as
defined by the latter journal.)
For much more on these matters, see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports
on Progress in Physics paper and the following resources:
F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports
on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964.
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as
"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a
Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," TetrahedronOmega,
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist
http://theophysics.110mb.com , http://geocities.com/theophysics/
-----
Note:
1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that
is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which
violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support
whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the
peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such
papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating
paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said
papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with
reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such
papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas,
e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on
Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our
actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every
experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged
with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its
James Redford
Please pay attention to what was written. The title of my post was
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," and in the body
of the post the opening sentence was "God has been proven to exist
based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics," i.e.,
according to the known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed
by every experiment conducted to date.
The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to
reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the
Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical
science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every
experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for
thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one
must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the
Omega Point cosmology.
Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything
(TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of
which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have
an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology
is correct.
Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been
published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics
journals.[1]
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics
paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of
Everything--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005"
accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress
in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial
Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received
the highest praise from our international referees and a high number
of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer,
Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )
Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute
of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further,
Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according
to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is
the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which
Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact
factor reflects the importance the science community places in that
journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own
papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in
Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters
since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as
defined by the latter journal.)
For much more on these matters, see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports
on Progress in Physics paper and the following resources:
F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports
on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964.
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as
"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a
Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," TetrahedronOmega,
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist
-----
Note:
1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that
is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which
violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support
whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the
peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such
papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating
paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said
papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with
reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such
papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas,
e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on
Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our
actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every
experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged
with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its
operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
Salmon Egg
James Redford <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please pay attention to what was written. The title of my post was
> "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," and in the body
> of the post the opening sentence was "God has been proven to exist
> based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics," i.e.,
> according to the known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed
> by every experiment conducted to date.
<snip>
I usually do not respond to such nonsense, but curiosity has gotten the
better of me.
What are the laws of physics that are needed for the proof? Could you
please outline the approach used in a way I can understand? Otherwise, I
will continue to believe that other "proofs" I have heard from
theologians really arise from plays on words.
Kalkidas
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:17:16 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>>
>>"James Redford" <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:4m08a5l62sk01u0kj...@4ax.com...
>>> God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
>>> known laws of physics.
>>
>>There is no such thing as "proof" in physical science. "Proof" is a
>>feature
>>of mathematics and logic.
>
> Please pay attention to what was written. The title of my post was
> "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," and in the body
> of the post the opening sentence was "God has been proven to exist
> based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics," i.e.,
> according to the known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed
> by every experiment conducted to date.
There is no such thing as "proof" in the physical sciences. Moreover, "God"
is undefined by physics and therefore cannot be physically hypothesized, nor
be the the subject of a physical experiment, nor appear in a system of
differential equations from which inferences can be made.
James Redford
>"James Redford" <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ctfma5h2jf7ec2amu...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:17:16 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"James Redford" <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4m08a5l62sk01u0kj...@4ax.com...
>>>> God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
>>>> known laws of physics.
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as "proof" in physical science. "Proof" is a
>>>feature
>>>of mathematics and logic.
>>
>> Please pay attention to what was written. The title of my post was
>> "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," and in the body
>> of the post the opening sentence was "God has been proven to exist
>> based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics," i.e.,
>> according to the known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed
>> by every experiment conducted to date.
>
>There is no such thing as "proof" in the physical sciences. Moreover, "God"
>is undefined by physics and therefore cannot be physically hypothesized, nor
>be the the subject of a physical experiment, nor appear in a system of
>differential equations from which inferences can be made.
Actually, there exists numerous apodictic proofs--i.e.,
theorems--within the field of physics. Prof. Frank J. Tipler is
himself well-known within the physics field for giving a number of
such theorems. As Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity
research in the U.S.) wrote, "Frank Tipler is widely known for
important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation
physics" on pg. viii in the "Foreword" to The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D.
Barrow and Tipler (which, incidentally, was the first book wherein
Tipler's Omega Point Theory was described).
For example, singularities have been proven to exist in this strong
sense of proof according to the known laws of physics (in this case,
general relativity). That is, the proofs of this are theorems, i.e.,
apodictically true if the known laws of physics are true--specifically
in this case, general relativity.
In general relativity, singularities are unavoidable with realistic
energy conditions (i.e., given any universe with enough matter to
contain life): for the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems proving
(i.e., according to general relativity) that the universe began in the
Big Bang singularity, see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, "The
Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical
Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2416467
Now it could be that the known laws of physics are incorrect. In which
case theorems that are based upon them wouldn't apply to our actual
reality, even though said theorems will forever remain true given
their operating assumptions (it's just that the operating assumptions
wouldn't apply to physical reality).
You wrote:
""
Moreover, "God" is undefined by physics and therefore cannot be
physically hypothesized, nor be the the subject of a physical
experiment, nor appear in a system of differential equations from
which inferences can be made.
""
That statement is the logical fallacy of circular argument. Literally
everything is undefined within physics until someone defines it, and
one can define any arbitrary concept in physics so long as it can be
given mathematical meaning (which can also include defining objects
with infinite attributes, such as singularities). And it so happens
that the Abrahamic religions, and many of the world's other leading
religions, are in agreement in definining a number of the same
physical attributes of God, such as being infinite in its omniscience,
omnipotence and omnipresence; as being transcendent beyond the world;
and as being the only actually existing infinity. All these attributes
of this by-far most-commonly given definition of God are definite
physical claims that can easily be given mathematical meaning.
So if a physically-existing object has all these attributes, then by
definition it is God. Regarding the equivalence of God and the Omega
So to recapitulate:
James Redford
In the post that you here respond to, I gave you links to Prof.
Tipler's below-cited 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper
available for free, wherein he demonstrates according to the known
laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general
relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle
physics) that the universe must end in the Omega Point.
##########
Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of
the Omega Point Theory
based on articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler; see:
F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports
on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964.
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as
"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a
Theory of Everything," arXiv, April 24, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International
Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148.
http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf
Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058
Frank Tipler, "The Omega Point and Christianity," Gamma, Vol. 10, No.
2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23.
http://theophysics.110mb.com/tipler-omega-point-and-christianity.html
Frank J. Tipler, "From 2100 to the End of Time," Wired.
http://theophysics.110mb.com/tipler-from-2100-to-the-end-of-time.html
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/wired.html
----------
Astrophysical black holes (i.e., trapped surfaces) exist, but Hawking
[1, 2] and Wald [3] have shown that if black holes are allowed to
exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate,
and a fundamental quantum law called "unitarity" will be violated.
Unitarity, which roughly says that probability must be conserved, thus
requires that the universe must cease to exist after finite proper
time, which implies that the universe is closed and has the spatial
topology of a 3-sphere [4]. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the
amount of entropy--the amount of disorder--in the universe cannot
decrease, but Ellis and Coule [5] and Tipler [6] have shown that the
amount of entropy already in the cosmic microwave background radiation
(CMBR) will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final
singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence
of horizons the Bekenstein Bound implies the universal entropy S is
less than or equal that constant (i.e., the Bekenstein Bound) times
the radius of the universe squared, and general relativity requires
the radius of the universe to go to zero at the final singularity. If
there are no horizons then the gravitational shear energy due to the
collapse of the universe itself will increase to infinity much faster
than the radius of the universe going to zero at the final singularity
[6, 7]. The absence of event horizons by definition means that the
universe's future c-boundary (causal boundary) is a single point [8],
call it the Omega Point. MacCallum [9] has shown that a 3-sphere
closed universe with a single point future c-boundary is of measure
zero in initial data space (i.e., infinitely improbable acting only
under blind and dead forces). Barrow [10, 11], Cornish and Levin [12]
and Motter [13] have shown that the evolution of a 3-sphere closed
universe into its final singularity is chaotic. Yorke et al. [14, 15]
have shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a
measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are
intelligently manipulated. Thus life (which near the final state, is
really collectively intelligent computers) must be present all the way
into the final singularity in order for the known laws of physics to
be mutually consistent at all times. Misner [16, 17, 18] has shown in
effect that event horizon elimination requires an infinite number of
distinct manipulations, so an infinite amount of information must be
processed between now and the final singularity. The amount of
information stored at any time diverges to infinity as the Omega Point
is approached, since the total entropy of the universe (i.e., S)
diverges to infinity there, requiring divergence of the complexity of
the system that must be understood to be controlled.
During life's expansion throughout the universe, baryon annihilation
(via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum
tunneling, which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number
minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved) is used for life's energy
requirements and for rocket propulsion for interstellar travel. In the
process, the annililation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its
absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant
and forcing the universe to collapse [7, 19, 20].
References:
[1] S. W. Hawking, "Breakdown of predictability in gravitational
collapse," Physical Review D, Vol. 14, Issue 10 (November 1976), pp.
2460-2473.
[2] Stephen Hawking's paper which attempts to solve the black hole
information issue without the universe collapsing is dependent on the
conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field
theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). That is, it's based
upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of
physics. See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes,"
Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005). Also at
arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
[3] Robert M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black
Hole Thermodynamics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), ISBN
0226870251, Section 7.3, pp. 182-185.
[4] John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, "The
closed-universe recollapse conjecture," Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical Society, Vol. 223 (December 1986), pp. 835-844.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.223..835B
[5] G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, "Life at the end of the
universe?," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 (July
1994), pp. 731-739.
[6] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God
and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN
0198519494, Appendix C: "The Bekenstein Bound," pg. 410. Said Appendix
is reproduced in Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began
According to Standard Model Particle Physics," arXiv, November 28,
2001, Section 2: "Apparent Inconsistences in the Physical Laws in the
Early Universe," Subsection a: "Bekenstein Bound Inconsistent with
Second Law of Thermodynamics." http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111520
[7] Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International
Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148.
http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf
Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058
[8] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of
Space-Time (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ISBN
0521200164, pp. 217-221.
[9] Malcolm A. H. MacCallum, "On the mixmaster universe problem,"
Nature--Physical Science, Vol. 230 (March 1971), pp. 112-3.
[10] John D. Barrow, "Chaotic behaviour in general relativity,"
Physics Reports, Vol. 85, Issue 1 (May 1982), pp. 1-49.
[11] John D. Barrow and Janna Levin, "Chaos in the Einstein-Yang-Mills
Equations," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 80, Issue 4 (January 1998),
pp. 656-659. Also at arXiv, June 20, 1997.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9706065
[12] Neil J. Cornish and Janna J. Levin, "Mixmaster universe: A
chaotic Farey tale," Physical Review D, Vol. 55, Issue 12 (June 1997),
pp. 7489-7510. Also at arXiv, December 30, 1996.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9612066
[13] Adilson E. Motter, "Relativistic Chaos is Coordinate Invariant,"
Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91, Issue 23, Art. No. 231101 (December
2003), four pages. Also at arXiv, December 7, 2003.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0305020
[14] Troy Shinbrot, Edward Ott, Celso Grebogi and James A. Yorke,
"Using chaos to direct trajectories to targets," Physical Review
Letters, Vol. 65, Issue 26 (December 1990), pp. 3215-3218.
[15] Troy Shinbrot, William Ditto, Celso Grebogi, Edward Ott, Mark
Spano and James A. Yorke, "Using the sensitive dependence of chaos
(the 'butterfly effect') to direct trajectories in an experimental
chaotic system," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 68, Issue 19 (May
1992), pp. 2863-2866.
[16] Charles W. Misner, "The Isotropy of the Universe," Astrophysical
Journal, Vol. 151 (February 1968), pp. 431-457.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...151..431M
[17] Charles W. Misner, "Quantum Cosmology. I," Physical Review, Vol.
186, Issue 5 (October 1969), pp. 1319-1327.
[18] Charles W. Misner, "Mixmaster Universe," Physical Review Letters,
Vol. 22, Issue 20 (May 1969), pp. 1071-1074.
[19] F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers,"
Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp.
897-964, Section 11: "Solution to the cosmological constant problem:
the universe and life in the far future."
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as
"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a
Theory of Everything," arXiv, April 24, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
[20] Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of
its expansion obviates the universe collapsing. But as the following
paper demonstrates, there is no set of cosmological observations which
can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually
collapse: Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and
Destiny," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 (October
1999), pp. 1453-1459. Also at arXiv, April 1, 1999.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 The reason for that is because
that is dependant on the actions of sapient life in annihilating
baryons.
Kalkidas
Since when are omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence "physical"
attributes? Which standard physics text gives a quantitative discussion of
these allegedly "physical" quantities, and ascribes them to God?
No, the fact is that those attributes are metaphysical, not physical.
Therefore, the science of metaphysics, not physics, is potentially able to
deal with them.
If you doubt this, you are welcome to give a physical, quantitative
description of, say, omniscience. To do that you will first need to define
scientia, or knowledge, quantitatively. Good luck.
Moreover, God's attributes are by no means exhausted by listing three, or
even three million metaphysical features. God, according to all traditional
religions, possesses an infinite variety of individual, unique qualities.
Physics cannot even imagine how to handle such an entity. The "God" of
Tipler's thesis is a simple fiction designed to make "science" appear more
universally applicable than it will ever be. It has no resemblance to the
actual eternal Supreme Being. It is not God.
[snip]
Salmon Egg
James Redford <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the post that you here respond to, I gave you links to Prof.
> Tipler's below-cited 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper
> available for free, wherein he demonstrates according to the known
> laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general
> relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle
> physics) that the universe must end in the Omega Point.
My experience in physics has been that its most useful aspects can be
expressed rather simply. Richard Feynman, who did not believe in a god,
was very good at extracting the essence of a physical law and making it
plausible. I do not have the inclination to invest many hours studying
something I believe to be useless and unsatisfying. Nevertheless, to be
open minded, I am willing to go over something I expect to be fruitless
if it will take no more that 16 minutes to attract more of my attention.
So go at it. Do not use intricate language like arty-farty English
teachers and art critics use.
James Redford
Since always. Consider what the words mean.
Omniscience means containing all knowledge, i.e., any knowledge that
exists is contained in that which is omniscient. The Omega Point
contains all knowledge that will ever exist, and an infinite amount of
such knowledge, at that.
Omnipotence means containing all power, i.e., any power that exists is
contained in that which is omnipotent. The Omega Point contains all
energy and power that will ever exist (i.e., an infinite number of
joules and watts), and an infinite amount of such energy and power, at
that.
Omnipresence means existing in all places, i.e., coextensive with
existence. The Omega Point consists of all that exists.
>No, the fact is that those attributes are metaphysical, not physical.
>Therefore, the science of metaphysics, not physics, is potentially able to
>deal with them.
That's the logical fallacies of circular argument and bare assertion,
as well as being definitionally self-contradictory. As shown above,
the terms omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are inherently
physical concepts.
You behave as if there's some ancient slate somewhere upon which has
been engraved by the hand of God forever demarcating what is
metaphysics or physics, and giving rules on the supposed mixing of
these fields--and further, that this Heavenly tablet cannot be
questioned. But in fact, no such thing exists.
Yet physics is concerned with everything that exists, so the question
of God's existence is first and foremost a physics question. As Prof.
Frank J. Tipler pointed out in a 1994 interview by Omni magazine:
""
Omni: What is the message of your book, Physics of Immortality?
Tipler: Emmanuel Kant claimed the three fundamental problems of
metaphysics are: Does God exist?, Do we have free will?, and Is there
life after death? I turn those questions of metaphysics into problems
of physics, and solve them, answering yes, yes, yes. That's how I'd
summarize my book.
Omni: Aren't you confusing physics with metaphysics?
Tipler: The history of science is typically about turning insoluble
problems of metaphysics into problems of physics and solving them.
Like one of Kant's problems: Has the universe existed forever, or only
a finite time? Kant thought this was fundamentally insoluble too, and
had a purported proof of this. But in this century, we've turned this
supposedly insoluble metaphysical problem into one of physics and
solved it, to find the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old. I'm
just taking the next step. My reductionist belief is that a problem
that can be solved can be solved by physics. And only by physics.
""
From Anthony Liversidge, "Frank Tipler--physicist--Interview," Omni,
Vol. 17, Issue 1 (October 1994), pp. 89 ff.
http://theophysics.110mb.com/tipler-omni-interview.html
>If you doubt this, you are welcome to give a physical, quantitative
>description of, say, omniscience. To do that you will first need to define
>scientia, or knowledge, quantitatively. Good luck.
Sapience is inherent in the physics of the Omega Point Theory, as
event horizon elimination requires an infinite number of distinct
manipulations of the universe's parameters that must be understood to
be controlled, and the growth of this understanding diverges to
infinity, since the total entropy of the universe, S, diverges to
infinity going into the Omega Point, meaning divergence of the
complexity of the system that must be understood to be controlled.
MacCallum [1] has shown that a 3-sphere closed universe with a single
point future c-boundary is of measure zero in initial data space
(i.e., infinitely improbable acting only under blind and dead forces).
Yorke et al. [2, 3] have shown that a chaotic physical system is
likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control
parameters are intelligently manipulated.
>Moreover, God's attributes are by no means exhausted by listing three, or
>even three million metaphysical features. God, according to all traditional
>religions, possesses an infinite variety of individual, unique qualities.
>Physics cannot even imagine how to handle such an entity. The "God" of
>Tipler's thesis is a simple fiction designed to make "science" appear more
>universally applicable than it will ever be. It has no resemblance to the
>actual eternal Supreme Being. It is not God.
>
>[snip]
According to that logic, human beings don't exist, because one can't
currently use physics to give an exact definition of a human. But the
mathematics for understanding the infinite physical properties of God
are well-developed, such as with limits. And you're here again
committing the logical fallacies of circular argument and bare
assertion.
Your statement is circular reasoning since it's taking for granted
that God cannot be proven to exist according to the known laws of
physics, yet no one has ever provided such a proof, and indeed Prof.
Tipler demonstrates the contrary.
-----
Notes:
[1] Malcolm A. H. MacCallum, "On the mixmaster universe problem,"
Nature--Physical Science, Vol. 230 (March 1971), pp. 112-3.
[2] Troy Shinbrot, Edward Ott, Celso Grebogi and James A. Yorke,
"Using chaos to direct trajectories to targets," Physical Review
Letters, Vol. 65, Issue 26 (December 1990), pp. 3215-3218.
[3] Troy Shinbrot, William Ditto, Celso Grebogi, Edward Ott, Mark
Spano and James A. Yorke, "Using the sensitive dependence of chaos
(the 'butterfly effect') to direct trajectories in an experimental
chaotic system," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 68, Issue 19 (May
1992), pp. 2863-2866.
----------------------------------------
Kalkidas
Excuse me, but exactly which physical element(s) make up "knowledge"? Can
you give the molecular structure of "knowledge"?
> Omnipotence means containing all power, i.e., any power that exists is
> contained in that which is omnipotent. The Omega Point contains all
> energy and power that will ever exist (i.e., an infinite number of
> joules and watts), and an infinite amount of such energy and power, at
> that.
Again, please demonstrate that "power" is a physical entity made up of
physical elements, etc.
> Omnipresence means existing in all places, i.e., coextensive with
> existence. The Omega Point consists of all that exists.
Excuse me, but can you give evidence that "existence" is physical?
>>No, the fact is that those attributes are metaphysical, not physical.
>>Therefore, the science of metaphysics, not physics, is potentially able to
>>deal with them.
>
> That's the logical fallacies of circular argument and bare assertion,
> as well as being definitionally self-contradictory. As shown above,
> the terms omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are inherently
> physical concepts.
No, as I have demonstrated, entities like "knowledge, power, and existence"
are metaphysical entities, not physical entities.
> You behave as if there's some ancient slate somewhere upon which has
> been engraved by the hand of God forever demarcating what is
> metaphysics or physics, and giving rules on the supposed mixing of
> these fields--and further, that this Heavenly tablet cannot be
> questioned. But in fact, no such thing exists.
Actually, since all of existence is within God and is His emanation, my
"behavior" is entirely consistent. Another attribute of God, which Tipler
and yourself apparently have not considered, is that His nature is
unchanging.
> Yet physics is concerned with everything that exists, so the question
> of God's existence is first and foremost a physics question. As Prof.
> Frank J. Tipler pointed out in a 1994 interview by Omni magazine:
No, physics is not concerned with "everything that exists". It is concerned
only with physical things that exist.
[snip]
James Redford
Per the Bekenstein Bound, everything that exists is made up of
information.
>> Omnipotence means containing all power, i.e., any power that exists is
>> contained in that which is omnipotent. The Omega Point contains all
>> energy and power that will ever exist (i.e., an infinite number of
>> joules and watts), and an infinite amount of such energy and power, at
>> that.
>
>Again, please demonstrate that "power" is a physical entity made up of
>physical elements, etc.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought such concepts as joules and watts were
physical concepts. It turns out that I and every other physicist are
wrong. Thank you for showing us the way.
Now the physics community will know not to use the term "power," on no
less authority than Kalkidas. So, again, thank you for showing us the
way.
>> Omnipresence means existing in all places, i.e., coextensive with
>> existence. The Omega Point consists of all that exists.
>
>Excuse me, but can you give evidence that "existence" is physical?
I'm not replying to you here, I'm just making a space here so that
others can more easily read your inanity.
>>>No, the fact is that those attributes are metaphysical, not physical.
>>>Therefore, the science of metaphysics, not physics, is potentially able to
>>>deal with them.
>>
>> That's the logical fallacies of circular argument and bare assertion,
>> as well as being definitionally self-contradictory. As shown above,
>> the terms omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are inherently
>> physical concepts.
>
>No, as I have demonstrated, entities like "knowledge, power, and existence"
>are metaphysical entities, not physical entities.
But that's just it. You never did demonstrate that. You merely make
assertions, which is the logical fallacy of bare assertion.
Nor could you demonstrate such things. Last time I looked, "power" was
definitely a physical concept.
>> You behave as if there's some ancient slate somewhere upon which has
>> been engraved by the hand of God forever demarcating what is
>> metaphysics or physics, and giving rules on the supposed mixing of
>> these fields--and further, that this Heavenly tablet cannot be
>> questioned. But in fact, no such thing exists.
>
>Actually, since all of existence is within God and is His emanation, my
>"behavior" is entirely consistent. Another attribute of God, which Tipler
>and yourself apparently have not considered, is that His nature is
>unchanging.
Indeed, the Omega Point exists eternally as a pure comprehension of
all that could ever exist.
>> Yet physics is concerned with everything that exists, so the question
>> of God's existence is first and foremost a physics question. As Prof.
>> Frank J. Tipler pointed out in a 1994 interview by Omni magazine:
>
>No, physics is not concerned with "everything that exists". It is concerned
>only with physical things that exist.
>
>[snip]
To say something exists is to say it has effects upon physical
reality. Anything that has physical effects on reality is physically
real and exists. Recall that information itself is a physical concept,
per the Bekenstein Bound. That is, the only thing that exists or could
ever exist is information.
Kalkidas
Pontificating about naive reductionism does not establish the claim that God
has been "proved" to exist by physics.
The fact is, Tipler has adopted the word "God" and completely changed its
meaning so that he can bluff people into thinking that the physical sciences
are more powerful than they actually are. This may work in certain ignorant
circles, but no one who has any real knowledge of the genuine article,
namely, the Supreme Lord, is buying such nonsense.
Metaphysics is not physics. Physical things are not all that exists. Denial
of this ensures a descent into incoherence, as your steadily more dogmatic
pronouncements amply demonstrate.
James Redford
The Omega Point meets all the traditional quidditative definitions of
God given by a number of the world's leading religions, so by
definition the Omega Point is God. Your claim is the logical fallacy
of bare assertion, as well as violating the law of noncontradiction
and the law of identity, as your assertion maintains that A is not-A.
----------------------------------------
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research
Network (SSRN), revised and expanded edition, May 3, 2009 (originally
published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://theophysics.110mb.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information on
Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity Theory
of Everything [TOE]) http://theophysics.110mb.com ,
James Redford
I find it simple to understand. On pp. 904-905 of Prof. Frank J.
Tipler's previously-cited Reports on Progress in Physics paper, he
gives a fairly layman's description of the physics of the Omega Point.
Again, see:
F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports
on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964.
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as
"Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a
Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
See also p. 925 of the above paper for the more technical description.
Below is a short popular-audience description of the physics of the
Omega Point, written by Prof. Tipler for Wired magazine, circa 2000.
Some of the physics of the Omega Point Theory have advanced since that
time, e.g., baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak
baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling, which is allowed in
the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is
conserved) being used for life's energy requirements and for rocket
propulsion for interstellar travel during the colonization of the
universe, which forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum,
thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the
universe to collapse; and the Feynman-Weinberg quantum
gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which also
inherently produces the Omega Point. For these advancements, see
Tipler's above-cited Reports on Progress in Physics paper.
##########
http://theophysics.110mb.com/tipler-from-2100-to-the-end-of-time.html
From 2100 to the End of Time
by
Frank J. Tipler
Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane
University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological
Principle (Oxford University Press, 1986), about the significance of
intelligent life in the universe, and the author of The Physics of
Immortality (Doubleday, 1994) about the ultimate limits of computers,
and the role computers will play in the universe. Professor Tipler was
the post-doc of a post-doc of John von Neumann, the mathematician who
made the first American digital computer. Tipler was also the post-doc
of a post-doc of a post-doc of Albert Einstein. Finally, Tipler was
the post-doc of John Wheeler, the man who named the black hole, and
Wheeler was in turn the post-doc of Niels Bohr, one of the founders of
quantum mechanics. Not surprisingly, Tipler's research is on
discovering the mutual implications of computer theory, relativity,
and quantum mechanics.
The year is 2100. AI's and human downloads have begun to explore and
colonize interstellar space. The spaceships carrying the AI's and
human downloads are tiny, massing no more than a kilogram. Quantum
computers, which can code more bytes of information in 400 atoms than
there are atoms in the entire visible universe, do not require much
mass. An entire simulated city with thousands of humans and AI's can
be coded in a few grams. And a tiny spaceship has a huge advantage
over the ponderous rockets of today. Powered by matter-antimatter
annihilation, such tiny spaceships can reach 90% of lightspeed with
only a few kilograms of fuel. At such a speed, the nearest star, some
four and one-half light years away, will be reached in only five
years. Acceleration to 90% of lightspeed will be very fast, because
the downloads and AI's will be impervious to acceleration. Humans not
living in computers can take only a few gravities of acceleration, and
can take that small acceleration only for a short time. Simulated
humans will experience only the usual one gravity acceleration in
their simulated environment. Human downloads have such a natural
advantage over present-day humans in the environment of space, that it
is exceedingly unlikely non-downloaded humans will ever engage in
interstellar travel. The stars are to be the inheritance of our
downloaded descendants, of the children of our minds rather than our
bodies.
All this may sound like the most outlandish science fiction, but it is
not. The above scene from the year 2100 uses only the technology
allowed by the known physical laws. The quantum computer should be a
practical device by 2020, according to the physicists and engineers
now developing it. CERN, the prestigious European research center for
particle physics, has announced it is ready to begin work designing a
matter-antimatter rocket. And the readers of Wired know full well that
AI's and human downloads should be a reality by 2100. We know from
experience that if anything, the actual technology possessed by
civilization in the future will actually be much more sophisticated
than that which we project using the physical laws which we now
understand. So let us continue, conservatively using only the known
physical laws, with the story of our mind children as they begin their
expansion into interstellar space.
After five years of travel--this is Earth time; by adjusting the
spaceship computer's clock speed, the travel time experienced by the
downloads could be less than a blink of an eye--the spaceship has
arrived in the solar system of the nearest star. They begin to
explore. They can also begin to colonize. There is a huge amount of
material--meteors, asteroids, planets--present in all star systems for
the downloads to construct other computers which can code other
simulated cities and entire simulated worlds for the downloads and
their descendants to inhabit. Our mind children can also construct new
spaceships, controlled by their descendants or perhaps even backup
copies of themselves, and send these newly commissioned ships out to
yet more stars.
We have exponential growth. A single tiny interstellar quantum
computer controlled starship can make several copies of itself in the
near star system, each copy travels to yet another star system, and in
turn makes several copies. At 90% lightspeed, in less than one million
years, the entire Milky Way Galaxy has been explored and colonized. In
another ten million years, the Local Group of Galaxies has been
explored and colonized. In another 100 million years, the Virgo
Cluster of Galaxies has been completely colonized. Where will this
expansion end?
It will never end. Eventually, mind children will engulf the entire
universe! In fact, they must eventually engulf the universe if they
are to survive. In fact, the laws of physics require them to
eventually engulf the entire universe and take control of the
universe!
To understand why, we have to understand just a bit about the laws of
physics that control the universe. Twenty-five years ago, the great
English scientist Stephen Hawking made a remarkable discovery: black
holes are not black; instead, they slowly but surely radiate away
their energy, and thus slowly but surely they evaporate. Given time,
they would completely evaporate. Nothing would be left. But although
energy can escape a black hole, information--the bytes describing the
matter that went to make up the black hole--cannot escape. So were a
black hole to evaporate completely, the information would have to be
annihilated, to disappear completely from reality.
This discovery greatly puzzled Hawking. For, great physicist that he
is, he knew very well that quantum information cannot be destroyed.
(This fact, that information cannot be destroyed, is the basis of the
quantum computer.) Since black holes certainly exist--astronomers have
seen them orbiting stars, and in the centers of galaxies--it seemed
that a fundamental law of nature, the indestructibility of quantum
information, would be violated, at least if the universe were to last
long enough for a black hole to evaporate.
This is the solution to Hawking's dilemma. The universe must not last
for an unlimited time. There is one and only one type of universe
which lasts for only a finite time, and that is a "closed" universe.
Such a universe expands (as the actual universe is now expanding) to a
maximum size, and then contracts to zero size after a finite time. It
is "closed" in time. In order for no black hole to evaporate, the
universe must end within 10^64 years. A very large closed universe,
but closed nevertheless.
But another fundamental quantum law is a limit on the complexity of a
physical system. This limit, called the Bekenstein Bound after the
Israeli physicist who discovered it, says that any physical system can
code at most 10^43 bytes of information times the system's mass in
kilograms and its maximum size in meters. This means, for example,
that a typical human can code at most 2 times 10^45 bytes, since most
people weigh less than 100 kilograms, and are less than two meters
tall. This Bound poses a serious problem for a closed universe,
because one way to state the Second Law of Thermodynamics is as
follows: the microscopic complexity of the universe can never
decrease. Think about what this means when combined with the
Bekenstein Bound. If the non-gravitational mass and energy of the
universe is constant, then as the size of the universe goes to zero,
the maximum information coded by the universe--its complexity--must go
to zero, giving a direct contradiction with the Second Law. We seemed
to have escaped one dilemma, only to land into another one.
There is one and only one way out. If the closed universe is a very
special type in which every location in the universe can send signals
back and forth an infinite number of times to every other location in
the universe, then the gravitational energy due to the collapse of the
universe itself will increase to infinity much faster than the size of
the universe going to zero--remember it is the product of mass and
size that restricts the complexity of a physical system. In such a
special case, the Bekenstein Bound on the complexity of the universe
would no longer force the complexity of the universe to zero. Indeed,
it would be possible for the complexity of the universe to go to
infinity!
We're not out of the woods yet. The type of closed universe that has
unlimited communication between all locations is very special. So
special, that the probability the actual universe, acting only under
the action of blind and dead forces, will evolve in such a way as to
allow such unlimited communication is zero. Such a universe is
infinitely improbable. This means that an unlimited communication
universe, if it evolves under no guidance, would violate the Second
Law of Thermodynamics, because another statement of the Second Law is
"physical systems evolve from less probable to more probable states".
An infinitely improbable state is not a "more probable" state. Some
crucial physical phenomena has been left out of the analysis.
Our downloaded descendants have been left out. Notice I emphasized
that an unlimited communication universe is infinitely improbable if
it evolves under no guidance. But guided physical systems routinely
evolve into vastly improbable states. For example, it is a well-known
fact that a chaotic system can be pushed into an extremely improbable
state with negligible effort. State-of-the-art jet fighters are
designed to be unstable--their dynamics are chaotic--so that a
negligible effort by the guiding computers can push the jet into a
rapid change of direction. So the mutual consistency of the laws of
physics requires that our downloaded descendants control the entire
universe in the far future.
To ensure an unlimited amount of communication in the far
future--something our descendants will have to do in order to control
the universe--our descendants will have to act an infinite number of
times between now and the end of time, and by the Second Law this will
increase the complexity of the universe to infinity. But this in turn
means that the computer capacity of the universe will also have to
increase to infinity as the final state of the universe is approached,
because to control a system--the entire universe--whose complexity is
increasing without limit means that our downloaded descendants'
knowledge of the system must increase without limit.
I've gone through a discussion of the physics in some detail--probably
excruciatingly more detail than you would like to read!--in order to
show how the laws of physics collectively force us to accept the
conclusion that computer capacity in the universe will diverge to
infinity, and the conclusion that our downloaded descendants will
ultimately control the universe. The laws of physics require us to
survive, and to increase our capacity without limit. If the laws of
physics be for us, who can be against us?
One of the things our downloaded descendants can do with this
diverging to infinity computer capacity is resurrect us. The
Bekenstein Bound shows that any human can be perfectly simulated in a
computer with 10^45 bytes of storage capacity. The entire visible
universe can be perfectly simulated with 10^123 bytes of storage
capacity. Large as these numbers are, they are insignificant in
comparison with infinity. So they could easily simulate us--bring us
back into existence, since a perfect simulation is the thing being
simulated--with an insignificant part of their total computer
resources. They could also simulate perfectly all possible variants of
the visible universe, an endeavor which would require a mere 10 raised
to the 10 raised to the 123 bytes of storage capacity. (You read
correctly: the number is a DOUBLE exponent: 10 raised to the power of
1 followed by 123 zeros!) Our descendants may wish to reproduce all
possible variants in case they don't remember or know everything about
us. No problem: they'll just simulate every possibility consistent
with what they do know. Isn't it amazing what you can do with
unlimited amount of hard disc space?
Now that we know where our downloaded descendants will ultimately end
up--ubiquitous throughout, and in complete control of, the entire
universe--let's take up their history from where we left off. As you
recall, when we left them, they had just completely colonized the
Virgo Cluster (100 million years from now). They will expand out from
the Virgo Cluster, engulfing the entire universe just a bit after the
time of maximum expansion of the universe. After that they will work
to convert the entire universe into habitable space, increasing their
knowledge to infinity, by the end of time knowing everything that can
be known. They can have an infinity of experiences between now and the
end of time, even though the universe will end in a finite time,
because they can increase their computer clock speed without limit
(recall that light will pass back and forth across the universe an
infinity of times). They will also increase their use of energy to
infinity (remember, there is an unlimited amount of energy available
from the the collapse of the universe into zero size).
So our mind children at the end of time will be omniscient (they will
know everything that can be known); they will be omnipotent (they will
have infinite energy, controlling all the energy resources in the
universe), and they are omnipresent (they are ubiquitous throughout
the universe). It is interesting that God's Name, as given in Exodus
3:14, is in the original Hebrew Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, which translates
into English as I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE.
----------------------------------------
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research
Network (SSRN), revised and expanded edition, May 3, 2009 (originally
published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://theophysics.110mb.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information on
Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity Theory
of Everything [TOE]) http://theophysics.110mb.com ,
Kalkidas
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:24:14 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>>"James Redford" <jrre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:smova5dcldb6lju3h...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:49:17 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
[snip]
>>Pontificating about naive reductionism does not establish the claim
>>that God has been "proved" to exist by physics.
>>
>>The fact is, Tipler has adopted the word "God" and completely changed
>>its meaning so that he can bluff people into thinking that the
>>physical sciences are more powerful than they actually are. This may
>>work in certain ignorant circles, but no one who has any real
>>knowledge of the genuine article, namely, the Supreme Lord, is buying
>>such nonsense.
>>
>>Metaphysics is not physics. Physical things are not all that exists.
>>Denial of this ensures a descent into incoherence, as your steadily
>>more dogmatic pronouncements amply demonstrate.
>
> The Omega Point meets all the traditional quidditative definitions of
> God given by a number of the world's leading religions, so by
> definition the Omega Point is God. Your claim is the logical fallacy
> of bare assertion, as well as violating the law of noncontradiction
> and the law of identity, as your assertion maintains that A is not-A.
I've read Tipler's books. They are by far the most egregious example of
"the logical fallacy of bare assertion" I have ever encountered in
published writings by any modern physicist. If you think they are an
example of anything resembling "science" or "religion" then I pity you.
But I cannot waste any more time on you. Tipler is a gibbering fool, and
you are his disciple. Enjoy one another's company.
James Redford
wrote:
The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist
-----
Note:
1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that
is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which
violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support
whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the
peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such
papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating
paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said
papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with
reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such
papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas,
e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on
Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our
actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every
experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged
with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its
operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.