The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[dafydd]

''Tipler's Omega Point theories have received criticism by physicists and skeptics. George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler's book on the Omega Point as "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline", and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis. Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler's early work was constructive but that now he has become a "crackpot".

[James Redford]

Originally Posted by dafydd

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?

I already told you to see Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of the article which I provided at the start of this thread. Again, that's the reason I wrote the article. But apparently reading isn't your forte.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by James Redford

I already told you to see Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of the article which I provided at the start of this thread. Again, that's the reason I wrote the article. But apparently reading isn't your forte.

I see you ignored my last post. Most physicists think that Tipler is a crackpot, and I would agree with them. Anyone who thinks that it will be possible to bring the dead back to life is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I read very well. What is your forte? None have been obvious yet.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by James Redford

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.

These laws aren't wrong, but you are by reading God into them.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by James Redford

I already told you to see Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of the article which I provided at the start of this thread. Again, that's the reason I wrote the article. But apparently reading isn't your forte.

Also, could you provide peer-reviewed criticism of your "article?"

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by James Redford

I already told you to see Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of the article which I provided at the start of this thread. Again, that's the reason I wrote the article. But apparently reading isn't your forte.

I'm getting on a bit and I don't want to risk destroying any more brain cells by reading your article. The abstract was enough. When are you going to start answering questions? I've been a member here for a while while now and your woo behavior is all too predictable.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Resume

Also, could you provide peer-reviewed criticism of your "article?"

Thou jesteth.

[the PC apeman]

So, no reason to think Tipler is pleased with where you have taken his work?

[James Redford]

Originally Posted by dafydd

''Tipler's Omega Point theories have received criticism by physicists and skeptics. George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler's book on the Omega Point as "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline", and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis. Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler's early work was constructive but that now he has become a "crackpot".

Dr. Sean M. Carroll couldn't even get a professorship. I demolish Carroll in the same blog page where he called Prof. Frank J. Tipler a "crackpot". Prof. George Ellis's above comment comes from a non-refereed book review, which at any rate was before the Omega Point cosmology was formulated as a theorem. Dr. Michael Shermer makes no attempt to refute Tipler.

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Prof. George Ellis and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by James Redford

Dr. Sean M. Carroll couldn't even get a professorship. I demolish Carroll in the same blog page where he called Prof. Frank J. Tipler a "crackpot". Prof. George Ellis's above comment comes from a non-refereed book review, which at any rate was before the Omega Point cosmology was formulated as a theorem. Dr. Michael Shermer makes no attempt to refute Tipler.

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Prof. George Ellis and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

How would you go about that? Maybe the physics community at large thinks that Tipler's fantasies about bring the dead back to life are not worth the bother of refuting. They have more important things to do. Could you provide peer-reviewed criticism of your "article?"

[Resume]

Originally Posted by James Redford

I demolish Carroll in the same blog page .

Do you "demolish" Carroll in any venue other than a blog?

Lot's of folks claim to "demolish" lots of scholarship on the interwebs.

[James Redford]

Originally Posted by dafydd

I see you ignored my last post. Most physicists think that Tipler is a crackpot, and I would agree with them. Anyone who thinks that it will be possible to bring the dead back to life is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. I read very well. What is your forte? None have been obvious yet.

Actually, that's not true. Most physicists aren't aware of the issue one way or the other, so specialized and compartmentalized has physics become. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point cosmology and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

...

Edited by LashL:

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Please, do not copy and paste lengthy tracts of texts available elsewhere. Instead, post a short quote and a cite to the source.

[dafydd]

''It would be easier to take Tipler seriously if it weren't so obvious that he regards himself as one of those giants whose work has been judged by pygmies. He unloads many criticisms of the current peer-review system used by academic journals. Most academics would agree with most of the criticisms Tipler makes, but they would quickly point out that we do need some sort of quality control system in journals and no one has suggested a better system than the one in place. Tipler makes a few proposals in this regard, but they are not very impressive.

But we will deal with those in a later post. In this post we will deal with one example of Tipler being less than accurate, to put it kindly, in his descriptions of other people's work. Two further examples will be given in a later post. ''

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/20...-part-one.html

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by James Redford

Actually, that's not true. Most physicists aren't aware of the issue one way or the other, so specialized and compartmentalized has physics become. Whereas Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point cosmology and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

...

Edited by LashL:

Removed quote of moderated content.

Why are you linking to crackpot websites?

[Mudcat]

Um... before you make any more of a fool of yourself, you do know that string theory is hardly universally accepted... right?

[James Redford]

Originally Posted by dafydd

How would you go about that? ...

By directing trajectories of mass. I go into it in the article, where I deal with the Taublike collapses (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations) of the universe.

Quote:

... Maybe the physics community at large thinks that Tipler's fantasies about bring the dead back to life are not worth the bother of refuting. They have more important things to do. Could you provide peer-reviewed criticism of your "article?"

See my previous post above. Again, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, so your theory here isn't only incorrect, but in fact the opposite is the case: i.e., the physics community hasn't ignored it, they've peer-reviewed it and found it to be correct. The physicists who have spoken against it mostly haven't studied it, and the one time that a criticism of the Omega Point cosmology was published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, it actually ended up unwittingly strengthening Tipler's case.

[James Redford]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Why are you linking to crackpot websites?

I didn't. But if I were to do so in the future, I suppose the reason why I might do such a thing is to refute the crackpot. Thus, I could imagine that I might link to Dr. Sean M. Carroll's blog for such purposes.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by James Redford

By directing trajectories of mass. I go into it in the article, where I deal with the Taublike collapses (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations) of the universe.



See my previous post above. Again, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, so your theory here isn't only incorrect, but in fact the opposite is the case: i.e., the physics community hasn't ignored it, they've peer-reviewed it and found it to be correct. The physicists who have spoken against it mostly haven't studied it, and the one time that a criticism of the Omega Point cosmology was published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, it actually ended up unwittingly strengthening Tipler's case.

Dream on. Cheerio. See you in ten quintillion years when we are all resurrected in Omega Point Heaven.

[Chucky]

Aren't you overlooking something? There will be no Omega point. For that to happen we would need to undergo a Big Crunch whereby gravity would pull the the universe into a singularity. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up over the last 15 years or so but not only do we now know the universe will continue to expand forever but there is this 'new thing' (for about the last 15 years) called dark energy whereby the expansion is ACCELERATING.

Throw your Tippler book away - he was wrong about that and made a bunch of other dubious assumptions to boot. We now know for certain since its publication that there will be no Omega point and the universe and its god myths will die a cold death hundreds of trillions of years from now.

[James Redford]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Dream on. Cheerio. See you in ten quintillion years when we are all resurrected in Omega Point Heaven.

Bye, bye, dafydd.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Chucky

Aren't you overlooking something? There will be no Omega point. For that to happen we would need to undergo a Big Crunch whereby gravity would pull the the universe into a singularity. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up over the last 15 years or so but not only do we now know the universe will continue to expand forever but there is this 'new thing' (for about the last 15 years) called dark energy whereby the expansion is ACCELERATING.

Throw your Tippler book away - he was wrong about that and made a bunch of other dubious assumptions to boot. We now know for certain since its publication that there will be no Omega point and the universe and its god myths will die a cold death hundreds of trillions of years from now.

I was thinking of pointing that out to him but maybe I'm just too nice a person I wouldn't throw the book away, just in case there is a shortage of toilet paper.

[James Redford]

Originally Posted by Chucky

Aren't you overlooking something? There will be no Omega point. For that to happen we would need to undergo a Big Crunch whereby gravity would pull the the universe into a singularity. Perhaps you haven't been keeping up over the last 15 years or so but not only do we now know the universe will continue to expand forever but there is this 'new thing' (for about the last 15 years) called dark energy whereby the expansion is ACCELERATING.

Throw your Tippler book away - he was wrong about that and made a bunch of other dubious assumptions to boot. We now know for certain since its publication that there will be no Omega point and the universe and its god myths will die a cold death hundreds of trillions of years from now.

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.

The reason for that is because that is dependent 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.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by James Redford

Bye, bye, dafydd.

Salut, and let me know when you eliminate event horizons.

[the PC apeman]

James,
Are there any real world consequences stemming from your take on Tipler that I would be concerned to know in the next 40 years or so?

[Complexity]

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 don't have a clue about what 'infinite' means.

You also don't understand what is 'information' is.

There is only a finite amount of information in our universe.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by James Redford

I already told you to see Section 3.1: "The Omega Point" of the article which I provided at the start of this thread. Again, that's the reason I wrote the article. But apparently reading isn't your forte.

I avoid reading junk.

[Complexity]

If you are going to think this badly, at least try to be amusing.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Complexity

If you are going to think this badly, at least try to be amusing.

No. In the immortal Words of Yoda, "Do, or do not. There is no try."

[Leumas]

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."

Unless you are wrong of course and it is NOT “per the known laws of physics”..... which it definitely is not I assure you.

You stating that some contrived gobbledygook is based in the laws of math and physics might make you feel smug and self assured ..... but it does not make it so.

We are not denying the laws of physics or math…. We are denying your assertion that your claptrap is soundly based upon them.

Any person can state anything they want and can contend that it is true..... but unless it is peer reviewed and verified it amounts to absolutely NOTHING.

So where is your Nobel Prize for having proven god? Which cosmology, physics, or mathematical journals and institutes have published your twaddle?

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by James Redford

Bye, bye, dafydd.

Never again, James Redford.

Life is too short to read your nonsense.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by James Redford

Below is an article that I recently wrote. It concerns the Omega Point cosmology by physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, which is a proof of God's existence based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).

Can you summarize this proof of God for those of us who don't want to wade through piles of hogwash a lengthy paper to get to the details?

Originally Posted by James Redford

which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity,

Several problems with this.

a) It's still uncertain whether the universe will collapse or tear itself apart through increasing expansion.
b) The words "diverge" and "collapse" in this context are mutually exclusive. Perhaps you meant "converge"?
c) Infinite computational power requires either infinite speed of calculation (requiring all particles involved in the process to be moving at an infinite speed), or infinite time in which to perform the calculations, neither of which would exist during the universe's collapse into a singularity.
d) You'd also need infinite memory, which would requite infinite particles or states, which also wouldn't exist.
e) For computational power of any kind to exist, you'd need some kind of structure or stable system capable of acting as a computer. A collapsing universe would tend to destroy all structures and systems.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by James Redford

Not so, so long as the computer has enough clock cycles and memory storage. Apparently you are not familiar with the Bekenstein Bound.

To raise the dead with computer-power alone you'd need somehow scan them into the computer as they were at the point of death. Given that there are significant random factors to the behavior of the universe (eg, atomic decay, virtual particles), you wouldn't be able to simply run a simulation of the universe in order to retrieve this data.

Looking up Bekenstein Bound, this would appear to disprove the possibility of infinite computing power that you claim. Perhaps you aren't familiar with it either?

From Wikipedia: In computer science, this implies that there is a maximum information-processing rate for a physical system that has a finite size and energy, and that a Turing machine with unbounded memory is not physically possible.

But I see dafydd already beat me to this quote. (I'm writing this as I read the thread.)

Originally Posted by James Redford

The highlighted part of the quote you gave is accurate if the computer in question had a finite energy and size. But in the Omega Point cosmology, the energy of the universe diverges to infinity, and so the Bekenstein Bound allows infinite computation in such a cosmology.

So in other words, your Omega point cosmology contradicts the first law of thermodynamics.

_{Note: I did not use a question mark. That was a statement, not a question.}

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.

Life must do this? Really? Life cannot choose oblivion? Life cannot fail to succeed, regardless of whether it makes the attempt or not?

Originally Posted by James Redford

As the universe collapses into the Omega Point final singularity, available energy diverges to infinity

This is annoying the heck out of me.

Diverge: To run apart; to separate; to tend into different directions.

If available energy were to diverge, it would be spread about diffusely and homogeneously, rendering it completely unusable. In other words, this would mean that you wouldn't have any usable energy at all.

Somehow, I don't think that this is what you're trying to say.

Originally Posted by James Redford

, while at the same time the density of the universe diverges to infinity.

So in other words, you favor the theory that the expansion of the universe will continue to accelerate, until even the atoms themselves are torn apart, and all that will remain is an empty void approaching an infinitely low density?

Because that's what the word "diverge" here implies.

Perhaps you mean "converge"?

Originally Posted by James Redford

There is no limit to the amount of matter that one can fit into a singularity.

But there is a limit to the amount of matter available to place into a singularity.

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

No, it doesn't. But even if it did, the possibility of available energy increasing to infinity would violate the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

You told us that all this is in accordance with the known laws of physics, but you're making claims that directly violate those laws.

Originally Posted by James Redford

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

Wait a second, that makes no sense at all.

First of all, the concept of "proper" time you propose here is possibly in violation of relativity (admittedly, I don't know enough about it to be sure).

But more importantly, even if subjective (what you call "experiential") time were to greatly reduced in rate, it would still take forever to reach a point where infinite time has passed in objective (what you refer to as "proper") time

Logically, this claim is complete nonsense.

[!Kaggen]

Frank is a clever guy. His covered most of the theoretical objections to his ideas.
The problem for me with this idea is that it assumes the laws of physics(abstractions) are discovered.
As we now know using the scientific method....every meaning may be right until it is wrong....

What Tipler's "Omega Point" and that other idiot Ray Kurzweil's " Technological Singularity" indicate is that our love for abstractions is infinite.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Frank is a clever guy. His covered most of the theoretical objections to his ideas.
The problem for me with this idea is that it assumes the laws of physics(abstractions) are discovered.
As we now know using the scientific method....every meaning may be right until it is wrong....

What Tipler's "Omega Point" and that other idiot Ray Kurzweil's " Technological Singularity" indicate is that our love for abstractions is infinite.

It is all about

The Usurping God Of Hindsight

[Twiler]

The argument seems to be:

1. There is an Omega Point.
2. The Omega Point is God.

James, can you explain the second of these without redirecting us to other materials?

[devnull]

Originally Posted by James Redford

That is the irrational position of antitheism.

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

You *really* arent helping your case.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by James Redford

Omega Point cosmology.

Um the Big Crunch seems unlikely at this time, so sort of a non-starter from the gate.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by James Redford

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.

The reason for that is because that is dependent 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.

Um, the fact that you qute a paper from 1999 is telling, the universe is expanding, it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, so ergo...

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by James Redford

But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...002.1952v2.pdf

Quote:

Textbooks used to state that when
we determined the geometry of the universe we would be able to unambiguously predict
the future. A flat universe would expand forever, slowly asymtotically to a halt. A closed
universe would recollapse, and an open universe would continue expanding at a finite
rate forever. With the possible existence of dark energy, all of these predictions go out
the window (Krauss and Turner (1999)). An open universe can collapse and a closed
universe can expand forever. Until we know the nature of dark energy, whether or not it
is truly a constant, we cannot predict the ultimate fate of the universe.

From Kruass (2010) himself, he says guess what?

We don't know! Nor can we any longer state the fate of the universe.

So evidently you just cherry pick.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by James Redford

By directing trajectories of mass. I go into it in the article, where I deal with the Taublike collapses (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations) of the universe.



See my previous post above. Again, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, so your theory here isn't only incorrect, but in fact the opposite is the case: i.e., the physics community hasn't ignored it, they've peer-reviewed it and found it to be correct. The physicists who have spoken against it mostly haven't studied it, and the one time that a criticism of the Omega Point cosmology was published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, it actually ended up unwittingly strengthening Tipler's case.

Um, no it is a little behind the times, the fact that it passed peer review does not mean it is correct. When was it piblished, what has happened in the field since then?