The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything - Page 2

Resume · 23rd December 2011, 03:18 PM

In what journal is this ToE of yours published?

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

What does infinite knowledge mean?

It's a meaningless phrase.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

In what journal is this ToE of yours published?

Tiger Tim's Weekly?

Leumas · 23rd December 2011, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

What the Omega Point Theorem demonstrates is that per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) life must gain control over all matter in the universe and that life's intelligence must diverge to infinite knowledge going into the final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. See Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of my above-provided article for the details on that.

Balderdash....hogwash...claptrap....twaddle.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Leumas

Balderdash....hogwash...claptrap....twaddle.

That's putting it mildly.

Complexity · 23rd December 2011, 04:05 PM

Utter nonsense.

Complexity · 23rd December 2011, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

Read the article. That's what I wrote it for.

No.

I value my time and my mind. I try not to let garbage in.

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

What does divergence refer to in this context?

What does infinite knowledge mean?

Diverge here means that the amount of the resource (i.e., energy, processor speed, memory storage, etc.) goes to infinity but that this process takes infinite experiential time to reach infinity. In proper time the Omega Point is reached in one quintillion to ten quintillion years, using the U.S. short scale convention for names of large numbers

Knowledge is veridical information that is in someway useful to sapient beings (even if just useful for entertainment purposes, such as knowledge about games and such).

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:09 PM

Did he really expect us to acclaim him as the greatest thinker that science has ever produced? Not by posting claptrap, not by a long shot.

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

In what journal is this ToE of yours published?

* 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, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. 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 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--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.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

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.)

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

Diverge here means that the amount of the resource (i.e., energy, processor speed, memory storage, etc.) goes to infinity but that this process takes infinite experiential time to reach infinity. In proper time the Omega Point is reached in one quintillion to ten quintillion years, using the U.S. short scale convention for names of large numbers

Knowledge is veridical information that is in someway useful to sapient beings (even if just useful for entertainment purposes, such as knowledge about games and such).

Verdical? Never heard of it. You are entertaining, I'll give you that. Ten quintillion years? We won't hold our breath.

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

It's a meaningless phrase.

Above I defined what knowledge is in a reply to Twiler. What infinite knowledge is is an infinite number of bits of said information.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

* 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, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. 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 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--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.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

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.)

He said 'yours'. Were any gods mentioned in the works you cite? I suspect not, this is your fantasy.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

Above I defined what knowledge is in a reply to Twiler. What infinite knowledge is is an infinite number of bits of said information.

You do know what the word 'infinite' means? All this has nothing to do with imaginary beings.

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

He said 'yours'.

Perhaps he's suffering from some brain malady. I tried to be nice by ignoring that part.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

Perhaps he's suffering from some brain malady. I tried to be nice by ignoring that part.

Transparent dodge. Why should resume have a brain malady just because he asked you a question about your article? That is a typical wooist response. Where have your works been published?

ynot · 23rd December 2011, 04:25 PM

Weird theoretical physics stuff I don’t understand - therefore god.

Mudcat · 23rd December 2011, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Where have your works been published?

In a Jack Trick tract I'd imagine. Or in a crackpot tabloid rag in a disaster movie (the only place where 'physics' like this could conceivably work).

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Transparent dodge. Why should resume have a brain malady just because he asked you a question about your article? That is a typical wooist response. Where have your works been published?

Had he and you read the abstract that I provided, then you two ought to have known that it's not my Theory of Everything.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:29 PM

Reading his abstract it became blindingly obvious that his article was not worthy of consideration by any intelligent person. Why he came here I do not know. There are plenty of woo sites that would lap it up and ask for more.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

Had he and you read the abstract that I provided, then you two ought to have known that it's not my Theory of Everything.

But you read god into a TOE. That is nonsense.

jond · 23rd December 2011, 04:31 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139440

Why yes, yes we have seen all this before. It was just as much of a waste last time too...

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Reading his abstract it became blindingly obvious that his article was not worthy of consideration by any intelligent person. Why he came here I do not know. There are plenty of woo sites that would lap it up and ask for more.

I realize that you and a number of people here aren't interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics, but you're not everyone.

Mudcat · 23rd December 2011, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

I realize that you and a number of people here aren't interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics, but you're not everyone.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

I realize that you and a number of people here aren't interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics, but you're not everyone.

I am very interested in science. The nonsense that you have been posting is not science. It is baseless speculation. You have contradicted yourself a number of times. The known laws of physics have nothing to do with a god, that is your delusion.

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by jond

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139440

Why yes, yes we have seen all this before. It was just as much of a waste last time too...

It's not a waste of time for those who are interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics. But antitheism is an irrational position, as it holds to a positive belief for which there is no evidence (i.e., the positive belief that God does not exist). And so such people become upset when their irrational belief is challenged with empirical science.

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I am very interested in science. The nonsense that you have been posting is not science. It is baseless speculation. You have contradicted yourself a number of times. The known laws of physics have nothing to do with a god, that is your delusion.

You're an adherent of epistemological relativism. Science to you is whatever you want it to be.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

It's not a waste of time for those who are interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics. But antitheism is an irrational position, as it holds to a positive belief for which there is no evidence (i.e., the positive belief that God does not exist). And so such people become upset when their irrational belief is challenged with empirical science.

So you have evidence that a god exists? I am not anti-theist, people can have silly delusions if they want to. I just feel sorry for them. Theism did not give you the internet. Nobody here is upset, that is another typical woo response. We've seen all this before.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

You're an adherent of epistemological relativism. Science to you is whatever you want it to be.

No, science is reality. There is only one science. There are many made-up gods. You are bending science to fit your god delusion.

Mudcat · 23rd December 2011, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

*snip*

Nothing you have posted so far would be construed as evidence for an existence of a god or group of gods. Let's say for the sake of the argument that it did: it wouldn't necessarily follow that this being is any of the billions of gods that humanity may be familiar with, let alone yours.

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:44 PM

If we wait for ten quintillion years we will see who was right. I think I'll start reading War And Peace.

jond · 23rd December 2011, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

It's not a waste of time for those who are interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics. But antitheism is an irrational position, as it holds to a positive belief for which there is no evidence (i.e., the positive belief that God does not exist). And so such people become upset when their irrational belief is challenged with empirical science.

Funnily enough, there were lots of people who are very knowledgeable in physics who strongly disagreed with your interpretation.

As for your antitheism statement: there are very few here who categorically state that a god cannot exist (though there are a few). There are lots who ask for evidence, and your tome is seriously lacking in that regard. Oddly enough, that was obvious last time around, and yet you're back with the same nonsense again. Why?

Mudcat · 23rd December 2011, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by jond

Oddly enough, that was obvious last time around, and yet you're back with the same nonsense again.

They tried this before?

Originally Posted by Jond

Why?

Maybe they are a glutton for punishment?

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by jond

Oddly enough, that was obvious last time around, and yet you're back with the same nonsense again. Why?

Some kind of fraternity prank?

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

So you have evidence that a god exists? I am not anti-theist, people can have silly delusions if they want to. I just feel sorry for them. Theism did not give you the internet. Nobody here is upset, that is another typical woo response. We've seen all this before.

You are an antitheist, as you hold a positive belief that God does not exist, of which is an irrational position because no positive evidence exists for God's nonexistence. Atheism isn't in and of itself irrational, as atheism is simply the lack of a positive belief in God.

Below is a quote by you from this thread where you express a positive belief that God does not exist, i.e., that God is an "imaginary being":

""
Which one of the many gods that mankind has invented are you referring to? The laws of physics do not require an imaginary being. Show me the maths that demonstrates that General Relativity requires a god.
""

And in answer to your third sentence therein, read the article that I provided at the start of this thread, specifically Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of the article. That's why I wrote the article. Nor is it General Relativity alone that proves the existence of God in the form of the Omega Point (although General Relativity by itself does prove the existence of God in the form of the First Cause, i.e., the Big Bang singularity), but rather the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

No, science is reality. There is only one science. There are many made-up gods. You are bending science to fit your god delusion.

You see, you have a positive belief that God does not exist. That is the irrational position of antitheism. And so you ignore empirical science when it conflicts with your irrational belief.

The only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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 cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Resume · 23rd December 2011, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

Below is an article that I recently wrote.

Originally Posted by James Redford

Perhaps he's suffering from some brain malady. I tried to be nice by ignoring that part.

In what journal is your article published?

James Redford · 23rd December 2011, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by jond

Funnily enough, there were lots of people who are very knowledgeable in physics who strongly disagreed with your interpretation.

As for your antitheism statement: there are very few here who categorically state that a god cannot exist (though there are a few). There are lots who ask for evidence, and your tome is seriously lacking in that regard. Oddly enough, that was obvious last time around, and yet you're back with the same nonsense again. Why?

The Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. The only way it could be wrong is if those laws of physics are wrong, yet they have been confirmed by every experiment to date. As Stephen Hawking wrote in his book A Brief History of Time, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem."

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

You are an antitheist, as you hold a positive belief that God does not exist, of which is an irrational position because no positive evidence exists for God's nonexistence. Atheism isn't in and of itself irrational, as atheism is simply the lack of a positive belief in God.

Below is a quote by you from this thread where you express a positive belief that God does not exist, i.e., that God is an "imaginary being":

""
Which one of the many gods that mankind has invented are you referring to? The laws of physics do not require an imaginary being. Show me the maths that demonstrates that General Relativity requires a god.
""

And in answer to your third sentence therein, read the article that I provided at the start of this thread, specifically Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of the article. That's why I wrote the article. Nor is it General Relativity alone that proves the existence of God in the form of the Omega Point (although General Relativity by itself does prove the existence of God in the form of the First Cause, i.e., the Big Bang singularity), but rather the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics

Show me evidence that a god exists and I will believe. GR does not prove the existence of a god, that is merely your opinion. You keep repeating the highlighted part like a parrot. Prove it. Show me where GR, The Second Law Of Thermodynamics and QM prove the existence of a god. Do it here. There is no positive evidence for the non-existence of leprechauns, unicorns and the Tooth Fairy either. Am I irrational for denying their existence?

dafydd · 23rd December 2011, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by James Redford

The Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. The only way it could be wrong is if those laws of physics are wrong, yet they have been confirmed by every experiment to date. As Stephen Hawking wrote in his book A Brief History of Time, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem."

It may be a theorem but you are the one reading god into it, without a shred of proof.

23rd December 2011, 03:18 PM	#41
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,012	In what journal is this ToE of yours published?
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,012

23rd December 2011, 03:20 PM	#42
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by Twiler What does infinite knowledge mean? It's a meaningless phrase.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 03:26 PM	#43
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by Resume In what journal is this ToE of yours published? Tiger Tim's Weekly?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 03:28 PM	#44
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	Originally Posted by James Redford What the Omega Point Theorem demonstrates is that per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) life must gain control over all matter in the universe and that life's intelligence must diverge to infinite knowledge going into the final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. See Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of my above-provided article for the details on that. Balderdash....hogwash...claptrap....twaddle.
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	__________________ "I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't." - Jules Renard "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." - Thomas Jefferson

23rd December 2011, 03:29 PM	#45
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by Leumas Balderdash....hogwash...claptrap....twaddle. That's putting it mildly.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 04:05 PM	#46
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Utter nonsense.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

23rd December 2011, 04:07 PM	#47
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Originally Posted by James Redford Read the article. That's what I wrote it for. No. I value my time and my mind. I try not to let garbage in.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

23rd December 2011, 04:09 PM	#48
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by Twiler What does divergence refer to in this context? What does infinite knowledge mean? Diverge here means that the amount of the resource (i.e., energy, processor speed, memory storage, etc.) goes to infinity but that this process takes infinite experiential time to reach infinity. In proper time the Omega Point is reached in one quintillion to ten quintillion years, using the U.S. short scale convention for names of large numbers Knowledge is veridical information that is in someway useful to sapient beings (even if just useful for entertainment purposes, such as knowledge about games and such).

23rd December 2011, 04:11 PM	#50
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by Resume In what journal is this ToE of yours published? * 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, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. 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 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--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.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE ) 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.)

23rd December 2011, 04:13 PM	#51
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by James Redford Diverge here means that the amount of the resource (i.e., energy, processor speed, memory storage, etc.) goes to infinity but that this process takes infinite experiential time to reach infinity. In proper time the Omega Point is reached in one quintillion to ten quintillion years, using the U.S. short scale convention for names of large numbers Knowledge is veridical information that is in someway useful to sapient beings (even if just useful for entertainment purposes, such as knowledge about games and such). Verdical? Never heard of it. You are entertaining, I'll give you that. Ten quintillion years? We won't hold our breath.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 04:13 PM	#52
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by dafydd It's a meaningless phrase. Above I defined what knowledge is in a reply to Twiler. What infinite knowledge is is an infinite number of bits of said information.

23rd December 2011, 04:14 PM	#53
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by James Redford * 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, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. 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 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--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.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE ) 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.) He said 'yours'. Were any gods mentioned in the works you cite? I suspect not, this is your fantasy.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 23rd December 2011 at 04:20 PM.

23rd December 2011, 04:15 PM	#54
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by James Redford Above I defined what knowledge is in a reply to Twiler. What infinite knowledge is is an infinite number of bits of said information. You do know what the word 'infinite' means? All this has nothing to do with imaginary beings.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 04:19 PM	#55
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by dafydd He said 'yours'. Perhaps he's suffering from some brain malady. I tried to be nice by ignoring that part.

23rd December 2011, 04:21 PM	#56
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by James Redford Perhaps he's suffering from some brain malady. I tried to be nice by ignoring that part. Transparent dodge. Why should resume have a brain malady just because he asked you a question about your article? That is a typical wooist response. Where have your works been published?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 23rd December 2011 at 04:23 PM.

23rd December 2011, 04:25 PM	#57
ynot Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 4,640	Weird theoretical physics stuff I don’t understand - therefore god.
	__________________ Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. My post are all (IMO) unless stated otherwise.

23rd December 2011, 04:26 PM	#58
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,679	Originally Posted by dafydd Where have your works been published? In a Jack Trick tract I'd imagine. Or in a crackpot tabloid rag in a disaster movie (the only place where 'physics' like this could conceivably work).
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

23rd December 2011, 04:28 PM	#59
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by dafydd Transparent dodge. Why should resume have a brain malady just because he asked you a question about your article? That is a typical wooist response. Where have your works been published? Had he and you read the abstract that I provided, then you two ought to have known that it's not my Theory of Everything.

23rd December 2011, 04:29 PM	#60
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Reading his abstract it became blindingly obvious that his article was not worthy of consideration by any intelligent person. Why he came here I do not know. There are plenty of woo sites that would lap it up and ask for more.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 04:30 PM	#61
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by James Redford Had he and you read the abstract that I provided, then you two ought to have known that it's not my Theory of Everything. But you read god into a TOE. That is nonsense.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 04:31 PM	#62
jond Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,409	http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139440 Why yes, yes we have seen all this before. It was just as much of a waste last time too...
jond Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,409

23rd December 2011, 04:32 PM	#63
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by dafydd Reading his abstract it became blindingly obvious that his article was not worthy of consideration by any intelligent person. Why he came here I do not know. There are plenty of woo sites that would lap it up and ask for more. I realize that you and a number of people here aren't interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics, but you're not everyone.

23rd December 2011, 04:33 PM	#64
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,679	Originally Posted by James Redford I realize that you and a number of people here aren't interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics, but you're not everyone.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

23rd December 2011, 04:35 PM	#65
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by James Redford I realize that you and a number of people here aren't interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics, but you're not everyone. I am very interested in science. The nonsense that you have been posting is not science. It is baseless speculation. You have contradicted yourself a number of times. The known laws of physics have nothing to do with a god, that is your delusion.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 23rd December 2011 at 04:36 PM.

23rd December 2011, 04:35 PM	#66
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by jond http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139440 Why yes, yes we have seen all this before. It was just as much of a waste last time too... It's not a waste of time for those who are interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics. But antitheism is an irrational position, as it holds to a positive belief for which there is no evidence (i.e., the positive belief that God does not exist). And so such people become upset when their irrational belief is challenged with empirical science.

23rd December 2011, 04:37 PM	#67
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by dafydd I am very interested in science. The nonsense that you have been posting is not science. It is baseless speculation. You have contradicted yourself a number of times. The known laws of physics have nothing to do with a god, that is your delusion. You're an adherent of epistemological relativism. Science to you is whatever you want it to be.

23rd December 2011, 04:40 PM	#68
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by James Redford It's not a waste of time for those who are interested in empirical science and the known laws of physics. But antitheism is an irrational position, as it holds to a positive belief for which there is no evidence (i.e., the positive belief that God does not exist). And so such people become upset when their irrational belief is challenged with empirical science. So you have evidence that a god exists? I am not anti-theist, people can have silly delusions if they want to. I just feel sorry for them. Theism did not give you the internet. Nobody here is upset, that is another typical woo response. We've seen all this before.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 04:41 PM	#69
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by James Redford You're an adherent of epistemological relativism. Science to you is whatever you want it to be. No, science is reality. There is only one science. There are many made-up gods. You are bending science to fit your god delusion.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 04:42 PM	#70
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,679	Originally Posted by James Redford snip Nothing you have posted so far would be construed as evidence for an existence of a god or group of gods. Let's say for the sake of the argument that it did: it wouldn't necessarily follow that this being is any of the billions of gods that humanity may be familiar with, let alone yours.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

23rd December 2011, 04:44 PM	#71
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	If we wait for ten quintillion years we will see who was right. I think I'll start reading War And Peace.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 04:49 PM	#73
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,679	Originally Posted by jond Oddly enough, that was obvious last time around, and yet you're back with the same nonsense again. They tried this before? Originally Posted by Jond Why? Maybe they are a glutton for punishment?
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

23rd December 2011, 04:51 PM	#74
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,441	Originally Posted by jond Oddly enough, that was obvious last time around, and yet you're back with the same nonsense again. Why? Some kind of fraternity prank?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

23rd December 2011, 04:58 PM	#75
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by dafydd So you have evidence that a god exists? I am not anti-theist, people can have silly delusions if they want to. I just feel sorry for them. Theism did not give you the internet. Nobody here is upset, that is another typical woo response. We've seen all this before. You are an antitheist, as you hold a positive belief that God does not exist, of which is an irrational position because no positive evidence exists for God's nonexistence. Atheism isn't in and of itself irrational, as atheism is simply the lack of a positive belief in God. Below is a quote by you from this thread where you express a positive belief that God does not exist, i.e., that God is an "imaginary being": "" Which one of the many gods that mankind has invented are you referring to? The laws of physics do not require an imaginary being. Show me the maths that demonstrates that General Relativity requires a god. "" And in answer to your third sentence therein, read the article that I provided at the start of this thread, specifically Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of the article. That's why I wrote the article. Nor is it General Relativity alone that proves the existence of God in the form of the Omega Point (although General Relativity by itself does prove the existence of God in the form of the First Cause, i.e., the Big Bang singularity), but rather the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics

23rd December 2011, 05:01 PM	#76
James Redford Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 63	Originally Posted by dafydd No, science is reality. There is only one science. There are many made-up gods. You are bending science to fit your god delusion. You see, you have a positive belief that God does not exist. That is the irrational position of antitheism. And so you ignore empirical science when it conflicts with your irrational belief. The only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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 cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

23rd December 2011, 05:02 PM	#77
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,012	Originally Posted by James Redford Below is an article that I recently wrote. Originally Posted by James Redford Perhaps he's suffering from some brain malady. I tried to be nice by ignoring that part. In what journal is your article published?
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,012