The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[loveboof]

You are not a retired director of a mental hospital are you Stavros?

Because of his patience dealing with the clinically insane? lol

I can fully understand the desire to have a rational explanation for your beliefs - that is why I have discounted Christianity (and the other main religions) as viable options for me. But what I don't understand is religious people who have already abandoned the 'rational choice', seeking to reconcile their faith with some sort of pseudoscience...

Once you have made that faith based decision to accept a religion - surely you are implicitly accepting 'faith' as your reasoning?

It doesn't really make sense to put your faith in something while you hope for some proof to emerge. If that is your inclination, then a more reasonable decision would be agnosticism. The whole 'faith' aspect of religion is simultaneously it's biggest weakness and it's biggest strength. If you desire proof in addition to your faith, that only leaves faith as a weakness.

[Stavros]

Loveboof I think that is a hugely important point. I am not sure if Tipler's claim proves anything, it doesn't make sense to me to try and imagine what God is, so it is just as odd to assume that physics can do so through hypothetical ideas about a future we cannot know. And I also thought it was the mystery of God that makes the concept so flexible. Is it possible that God did create the heavens and the earth, and then moved on to other things and has forgotten us? It is is easy to ridicule someone with Jamie's beliefs, I at least gave her the benefit of the doubt, and was disappointed at the poor quality of the reasoning. Sometimes, a simple faith is the most effective way of finding peace with God, if that is what some people believe in. The rest sounds like the propaganda of the obsessed.

[loveboof]

Loveboof I think that is a hugely important point. I am not sure if Tipler's claim proves anything, it doesn't make sense to me to try and imagine what God is, so it is just as odd to assume that physics can do so through hypothetical ideas about a future we cannot know. And I also thought it was the mystery of God that makes the concept so flexible. Is it possible that God did create the heavens and the earth, and then moved on to other things and has forgotten us? It is is easy to ridicule someone with Jamie's beliefs, I at least gave her the benefit of the doubt, and was disappointed at the poor quality of the reasoning. Sometimes, a simple faith is the most effective way of finding peace with God, if that is what some people believe in. The rest sounds like the propaganda of the obsessed.

Exactly. And I respect your even-handed response to Jamie!

Before I even opened the thread I knew it was complete nonsense, but I lost interest very quickly when I saw exactly how half-baked and inaccessible the ideas had been portrayed to us.

Breaking down that mysticism behind God/religion is the surest way to desolve the power it has over people, and so it is strange to see religious people attempting to do just that! (Perhaps that's why they use 'scientific' theories - to discredit real science with a load of nonsense that is dressed up as the same thing?)

[buttslinger]

i like it!!!!

[broncofan]

When ideas are shrouded in terms of art and expressed in sentences so interminable and incomprehensible, it is clear that the point is to win converts through sheer confusion. Where the sentence structure allows people to actually understand what Jamie has written, the logic is not nearly as airtight as she pretends. Why does a potentially painful death without an afterlife make suicide the only rational option? Perhaps people want to enjoy the time they have and don't want to trade a long life for a certain outcome. In fact, the argument seems to indicate a lack of respect for the richness of life's experiences. I find that unattractive to begin with. The uncertainty of life does not make the entire enterprise worthless.

Since I don't understand the Cosmology, and have not made a good faith attempt to unravel what seems very muddled because I am afraid it will be a giant waste of time, I will just state one impression I have. It seems like a giant tautology. We prove the existence of Gd by assuming that Jesus is the savior and that all of these conspiratorial forces have undermined the real message of Gd. Then we cite the work of someone who speculates about the future. Neither inductive nor deductive reasoning can reliably predict the future without taking into account all causal forces. That means we must have a deity in our presence, or someone who is really confused and thinks that plucking together a bunch of disparate events and stating a conclusion that doesn't follow is political or hard science. It's junk science, pseudo-science, and the epitome of arrogance. I don't mean that as an insult though.

[broncofan]

Jamie,
since I find your writing to be really difficult to understand and since you say that all existence is mathematics, the following request seems to me at least eminently reasonable. State your arguments in the form of inductive and deductive reasoning. For the induction, briefly cull together the events that lead you to your axioms or postulates (we don't need all the details). For the deduction, state what premises you are starting with and what you are attempting to prove. I think you will find some gaps along the way, and will thus save everyone an enormous amount of time.

Of the questions I would like answered. What empirical evidence do you have that Jesus lived, and that he is the savior of mankind? What is the basis for believing anything Tipler or anyone else says about the future? When you cite a conspiracy, could you state all individuals involved, any correspondences between them proving that their actions were concerted, as well as any proof you have of their central goal? I am a firm believer that if something can't be expressed in terms that most people can understand, there's probably not much to it. So, help me out.

[hippifried]

The answer is 42.

[Jamie Michelle]

Rather than reply to Jamie's responses to my critical comments on parts of her original ppaper, I have divided my response into two parts.

Part I: Cosmology

In an attempt to take seriously the new version of the paper Jamie has made available, I have read that part of it which I understand, and have divided this very long response into two parts, dealing with the Cosmology as far as I can in part 1; and the ‘History’ in a second post which will appear after this one in the next day or so.

Since this thread was initiated by Jamie French, she has re-written the paper that she has made available on the weblinks in her post.

For those of you who do not want to read the whole of my refutation of the paper written by Jamie French, my resume is as follows:

The author, who claims that Frank Tipler’s work has been published in peer-reviewed science journals and that this gives Tipler a position of respect, deliberately ignores the ridicule and rejection that his version of ‘Intelligent Design’ has produced.
There are examples here:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...sicsChrist.htm
http://www.joly.org.uk/gordo/ellis3.html
http://sfgospel.typepad.com/sf_gospe...ianity.html--a relatively positive review of The Physics of Christianity.

Instead, Jamie uses Tipler’s anti-evolutionary cosmology to argue not only that God exists, but that most of recorded human history since the death of Jesus has been a giant conspiracy to undermine the legacy, the values and the message of Jesus Christ. Omega Point Cosmology not only proves the existence of God, it predicts a ‘Day of Judgement’ as an event –or sequence of events- in which those with the ‘Mark of the Beast’ will be punished, and those who have accepted Jesus into their hearts will be saved. A global conspiracy led by ‘the Rothschilds’ (phoney Jews who make a mockery of Jews and Judaism) has enabled the rulers of Empires and States to form secretive societies –the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bilderberg Group et al- to maintain their campaign of financial greed and universal evil, based around a pagan pre-Christian and indeed, Anti-Christian cult. Using Government as the instrument of absolute evil, God has forced humans to live through the evils of mass murder and hatred in order to learn the difference between it and the absolute purity of Christ’s message. No Pain, No Gain. The paper draws on numerous events in history to show how this Global Conspiracy has victimised ordinary people –mostly through hugely destructive world wars and genocide- and claims that only those who have lived in the way of Jesus will be saved.

I am not sure how far Jamie has actually understood the theory of Frank Tipler, but here is a succinct resume of his theories by a scientist:

In The Physics of Immortality, Tipler provided the mechanism by which we will all live forever. In a billion-billion years or so, life in the form of highly advanced and supremely intelligent robots, evolved from those that we humans invented and sent into space before destroying ourselves as a species, will have spread throughout the universe. At that point the robots will control the collapse of the universe down to a final singularity called the Omega Point. Following the teaching of the famous Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who died in 1955, Tipler associates the Omega Point with God, in particular, God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. This also follows from God's message to Moses in Exodus 3:14, "I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. The collapse to the final singularity takes an infinite time as viewed from inside the universe. During that time the robots recreate all the humans and life forms that ever existed in a computer simulation. Not only do we all live our lives over again in that simulation, but over and over and over again. And not just our lives, but also all the possible lives we ever might have had, good and bad. That's the immortality Tipler says we can look forward to.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...sicsChrist.htm

It should be noted that Jamie has included this biographical note at the end of the paper:

Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, James Redford is a born-again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who concludes that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists’ technical term for God) and the Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) are an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics (Page 128).

The starting point for Jamie’s version of Tipler’s cosmology is a book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) co-authored by John D. Barrow and Frank J.Tipler. Works subsequently written by Tipler form the main body of work on ‘Omega Point Cosmology’.

I have no expertise in hard science and am frequently baffled by cosmology; and to me the author has done nothing to advance the cause of those who rely on cosmology for the ‘big picture’ of how the Universe was created, and where it is going.

Here is a key point that drives much of the paper’s arguments:

The Omega Point is a term used by Prof. Tipler to designate the final cosmological singularity, which according to the known laws of physics is a physically-necessary cosmological state in the far future of the universe. Per the laws of physics, as the universe comes to an end at this singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage) increases unlimitedly with a hyperbolic growth rate as the radius of the universe collapses to zero, allowing an infinite number of bits to be processed and stored before the end of spacetime. Via this supertask, a simulation run on this cosmological computer can thereby continue forever in its own terms (i.e., in computer clock time, or experiential time), even though the universe lasts only a finite amount of proper time (page 4).

Crucially, the Omega Point is the definition of God…well sort of, as the author writes:
The Omega Point final singularity and its state of infinite informational capacity is by definition God, due to it having all the haecceities claimed for God by the traditional religions (as is detailed in Section 7.1). The final singularity is actually a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by the Abrahamic religions. (page 4).

The key point here is that of all the world’s religions and belief systems, the only one that matters is Christianity. As the author remarks, without naming Islam, Hinduism Buddhism or any other religion of system of belief:

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Cosmological Singularity within the Omega Point cosmology, which is deselective of all other major religions (Section 7.1, p44).

Indeed, the author, having dismissed all other religions from her mathematical equation, goes further in claiming that

Jesus Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck, and along with it the rest of the world. A great irony is that even antitheists benefit enormously from the civilization that Christ founded: indeed, almost all of the Earth’s current population—and hence, almost all antitheists—couldn’t even be alive were it not for the advancements made by Christian civilization (page 33).

There is no need to mention the achievements of ‘Science and Civilization in China’, no need to mention the crucial role that Islamic civilisation played in keeping alive the science of the Greeks and the Romans when Europeans were not interested in it; as well as its own achievements, because when you crunch the numbers, the Chinese and the Muslims are, quite simply, irrelevant to the history of science.

But to get back to that moment when the universe collapses and the super-computer starts up: If you want to know HOW this computational capacity has been reached, the author writes:

The known laws of physics require there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time in order to force the collapse of the universe and then manipulate its collapse so that the computational capacity of the universe can diverge to infinity (Page 4)

This divergence is performed by human life that has transferred

its information processes to higher energy states, eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on via traveling waves and standing waves. As the radius of the universe goes to zero, the matter energy of the universe goes to positive infinity, thereby allowing the number of particle states in which to store information to diverge to infinity (page 5).

The computing power that these ‘higher energy states’ have enables them to compute the whole of life from the beginning of the Big Bang, and in the process go further by colonising space:

The interstellar colonization phase required for achieving the Omega Point will be accomplished by naturally-evolved sapient life forms (with such species independently evolved on average roughly every Hubble volume2) whose brains have been transformed (e.g., with nanotechnology) into artificial computers (such as quantum computers) onboard tiny starships of circa one kilogram that will exponentially colonize space, many times faster than mortal human beings. The incredible expense of keeping flesh-and-blood humans alive in space makes it highly improbable that such humans will ever personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient substrate transformations of naturally-evolved sapient minds and artificial intelligences will spread civilization throughout space. Given the rate of exponential growth of human technological development, this colonization phase should likely start before 2100 (page 5).

The crucial point here is the way in which Tipler, supported by the author, presents human beings as machines, capable therefore of evolving into, in effect, super-computers.

The discussion of the Omega Point in Jamie’s paper continues by supporting the theory of Prof Tipler, and discusses the way in which Science has tried to accommodate itself or distance itself from God through various interpretations of the ‘Big Bang’, culminating in Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity (2007). Further discussion of science and the physics of the Omega Point are presented up to page 33, but I don’t understand it so I cannot comment.

The rest of the paper, from Section 6 on p33 to p121, is discussion of the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology (from the Abstract).

It is difficult for me to offer a summary of a cosmology that I do not understand, but I think I know enough about the history of civilisations to believe that it is nothing but pure arrogance, as well as a factual error, to claim that it is only the work of European scientists working in a culturally and theologically Christian environment that has any value in the history of science. This is Western Imperialism of the Mind taken to a really quite offensive level. No allowance is made, for example, in the history of medicine, which is part of science, for the use of Quinine as an anti-malarial in China and Peru long before Ronald Ross in the 19th century discovered the transmission of the disease through the bite of an infected mosquito (in India). It is also the case that Tipler, rather obviously, believes that ‘Intelligent Design’ explains the origin of the universe, not evolution; and that there has been no human agency in the creation of climate change and advanced global warming, which has been caused by sunspots.

The colonisation of space has me completely baffled, it seems to me to an idea that has more relevance to Star Trek. We have enough issues for science to deal with right here on Planet Earth, without seeing a need to send our robotic clones into the Galaxy to spread the word of Jesus.

Who is "Jamie French"? That's not my name. My name is Jamie Michelle Redford, and my article is published under my legal name of James Redford. I don't see where you get this "French" surname from, whether from my posts on this forum or from my article.

At any rate, your objections to my article are as fallacious as the name you have repeatedly applied to me.

My article is based upon the either the known laws of physics (which have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment to date); or upon the cited historical record which is not in dispute, and hence is not subject to change without a major reworking of history.

Your problem is that you are bringing to the table far too much intellectual baggage, and that is causing you to attempt to shoehorn reality to fit bounds which you are comfortable with, i.e., that simply confirm what you already believed before. Yet the entire point of my article is to demonstrate to people that their common conception of reality is for the most part utter bilge--and moreover, utter bilge that is causing the sociopolitical problems in the world which we see.

Yet you want to wallow in this utter bilge. If your parochial conception of the world were the correct view, then we would already be in paradise, as most people accept a conception of the world close to yours.

The reason the world is in such societal horror is not due to most people being in possession of the truth.

So obviously if I speak the truth it will be objected to quite strenuously by most people, since it is out of bounds of the lies that we all grow up with.

Yet the lies that we all grow up with are killing us. And the killing has only just begun.

The care that you have taken with my name is the same care that you have applied in your response to me. Which is to say, it has almost no connection to reality.

For those who are actuallty looking for veridical answers, instead of merely reinforcements of the massively destructive lies which were are told to believe by the mass-murderous elite who rule over us, see my below article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2

Note that the contents of my above article aren't subject to the type of fallacious critique which you have attempted, as I actually cite my sources per the Scholarly Method, and so people can see for themselves that what I say in my foregoing article is true.

Hence, your bizarre responses (such as coming up with the name "French") to me on this forum are a manifestation of your own worries and fears. It is up to you to let go of the lies which you were raised with, instead of attempting to rebuke one who shows you the way out of such deception. Many are not able to do that, as they are too wedded to their fairy-tale conception of reality.

Many would rather believe in a lie and lose their soul by doing so than to wake up. Waking up another person is hard to do when that person is committed to their dream-world. All I can tell you is that you're putting your very soul (i.e., the program of one's mind) in jeopardy by hanging on to these inculcated beliefs of yours, i.e., the lies imparted to you by others, with those others being the power-elite who stand to gain by them. Perhaps you think I'm telling you that as a ruse, in order to get one over on you. But in reality I'm just telling you that because it is the truth.

As well, it would be nice if you could join me in Heaven. But that option is purely your choice, and so for you wish to reject that option.

Truth is the most hated thing in the world. Whereas lies are accepted readily.

This world is not suffering from an overabundance of truth. Indeed, quite the opposite.

For those who would like to learn about the alternative to the way of this truth-disparaging world, see my above article.

----------

If I get the time, then I'll reply to Stavros's specific fallacious points when I get around to it. But it's sort of like replying to a mentally retarded child: there's not much point in doing so in the first place, and at any rate the poor child can just come up with an endless stream of nonsense anyway. So it's not as if one can ever "win" an argument with such a child.

And just to be clear, my appologies go out to mentally retarded children, as I did not mean to suggest that your arguments delve to the level of Stavros's.

[trish]

Jamie, your article is not based solely upon the “known laws of physics” together with that part of the “historical record which is not in dispute.” It is also based upon a proposed and not yet generally accepted and therefore not yet “known” formulation of quantum gravity. It is also based upon a number of reductive definitions, in particular of knowledge and god, that are neither part of the known laws of physics nor the indisputable historic record. Once again I refer you to ( http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=53278 ) our prior discussion of this issue in which both Bella and I clearly demonstrate the futility of such reductions. I think Stavro will probably point out as well that very little of the historical record is beyond dispute.

I shall take some time now to put forward a somewhat more detailed criticism.

General Relativity (GR) is an extremely general theory. There are infinitely many solutions to the Einstein field equations. Meaningful solutions are found by adjoining to GR additional assumptions; e.g. one could require the solution to display spherical symmetry, one may obtain solutions with absolutely no matter or energy what-so-ever, or one can find solutions in which the universe is filled homogeneously and isotropically with matter and energy. GR alone does not determine the shape of the universe. Yet, GR does have some consequences, one being the following: There are no stable binary star systems; i.e. two stars which are gravitationally bound will spiral toward each other and eventually collide. The lost effective energy of the contracting system is radiated away in the form of gravitational waves. As the stars fall toward each other the distance between them decreases continuously and the frequency of the radiated gravitational energy undergoes a continuous glissando. AFGL 3068 is a beautiful example of one such instability. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-bizarre-star/

Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory is another example of a classical field theory. It predicts that atoms decay and emit high frequency electromagnetic radiation as the electrons spiral, screaming into the nucleus of the atom. The instability of stellar binaries is a fact and there are many examples like AFGL 3068. The instability of atoms is not a fact and thankfully there are no examples. The resolution to the paradox was supplied by Planck who hypothesized that orbital angular momentum of an electron must come in multiples of h/2pi which is the lowest possible angular momentum for an electron orbit. Hence electrons can only radiate electromagnetic waves with a discrete spectrum (not a continuous glissando) and orbital electrons are bound away from the nucleus by the necessity of maintaining a minimal orbital angular momentum and the stability of the atom is thereby saved. Classical electrodynamics was clearly wrong and inconsistent with quantum theory.

Like GR, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is also a very general theory; less a theory than an amalgam of mathematical techniques designed to describe the interactions between fields and particles. QFT alone doesn’t tell us if there are any fields at all, or only one field, or nine hundred and twenty six. It does tell us that if there is a field, it must be decomposable mathematically into a discrete, if infinite, collection of vibrational modes. One of the great successes of twentieth century physics was the complete reformulation of electromagnetic theory as a quantum field theory known as Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Whereas Maxwell’s theory was inconsistent with QFT, QED is consistent with both special relativity and QFT.

I bring all of this up for two reasons:

QFT requires fields to propagate energy in discrete packets. The radiation from a quantum field will always have a discrete spectrum. GR predicts the gravitational radiation from a decaying binary has a continuous spectrum. The two theories are mutually inconsistent; i.e. GR+QFT is inconsistent. The hope of most working physicists is they aren’t hopelessly mutually inconsistent. Perhaps there is a modification of GR, call it GR’ or a modification of QFT, call it QFT’ so that GR’ and QFT’ are still recognizably the kin of GR and QFT respectively, that GR’+QFT’ is logically consistent and the predictions of GR’+QFT’ are empirically sound.
Since GR+QFT is inconsistent it is over-determined; i.e. you can prove anything from the amalgam of the two. But GR’+QFT’ , should such a unification exist, would be radically indeterminate in the same way that GR alone or QFT alone are radically indeterminate. QFT’ would be consistent with a world with no fields as well as with a world with fifty fields. GR’ would be consistent with a world with no matter, or a world with exactly one rotating blackhole or with a universe filled with energy. From GR’+QFT’ one would not be able to prove the existence of anything what-so-ever, especially gods.

GR’ + QFT’ would only provide a background against which physics can be done exactly like the three Newtonian principles provide the essential background for seventeenth century physics. The Principia doesn’t prove that matter exists, but the Principia does require that if matter does exist, then it’s conserved. What else is needed then for a Theory of Everything? A theory of the specific fields and particles that are known to exist; i.e. one needs to hypothesize the existence of quarks, bosons, etc. as well as their properties and their interactions. The Standard Theory of Particles would be an example.

In short: a consistent unification of GR and QFT cannot even prove a quark exists let alone the existence of even a single god answering to the Christian conception of said being. If Tipler has a proof of the existence of “God” it is false advertising to claim it is a proof from the principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics alone (assuming he has a consistent unification of the two). Such a proof would require many many more assumptions. Assumptions such as the ones we touched on in this post; e.g. assumptions pertaining to boundary conditions and postulates maintaining the existence of specific fields and particles as well as hypotheses regarding their interactions. And assumptions, such as the ones I touched upon in my last two posts and which Bela also addressed; e.g. definitional axioms that introduce the necessary theological language (“God”) which the scientific theory fails to incorporate and meta-assumptions that the definitional axioms do indeed have the intended reference.

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, your article is not based solely upon the “known laws of physics” together with that part of the “historical record which is not in dispute.” It is also based upon a proposed and not yet generally accepted and therefore not yet “known” formulation of quantum gravity. It is also based upon a number of reductive definitions, in particular of knowledge and god, that are neither part of the known laws of physics nor the indisputable historic record. Once again I refer you to ( http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=53278 ) our prior discussion of this issue in which both Bella and I clearly demonstrate the futility of such reductions. I think Stavro will probably point out as well that very little of the historical record is beyond dispute.

I shall take some time now to put forward a somewhat more detailed criticism.

General Relativity (GR) is an extremely general theory. There are infinitely many solutions to the Einstein field equations. Meaningful solutions are found by adjoining to GR additional assumptions; e.g. one could require the solution to display spherical symmetry, one may obtain solutions with absolutely no matter or energy what-so-ever, or one can find solutions in which the universe is filled homogeneously and isotropically with matter and energy. GR alone does not determine the shape of the universe. Yet, GR does have some consequences, one being the following: There are no stable binary star systems; i.e. two stars which are gravitationally bound will spiral toward each other and eventually collide. The lost effective energy of the contracting system is radiated away in the form of gravitational waves. As the stars fall toward each other the distance between them decreases continuously and the frequency of the radiated gravitational energy undergoes a continuous glissando. AFGL 3068 is a beautiful example of one such instability. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-bizarre-star/

Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory is another example of a classical field theory. It predicts that atoms decay and emit high frequency electromagnetic radiation as the electrons spiral, screaming into the nucleus of the atom. The instability of stellar binaries is a fact and there are many examples like AFGL 3068. The instability of atoms is not a fact and thankfully there are no examples. The resolution to the paradox was supplied by Planck who hypothesized that orbital angular momentum of an electron must come in multiples of h/2pi which is the lowest possible angular momentum for an electron orbit. Hence electrons can only radiate electromagnetic waves with a discrete spectrum (not a continuous glissando) and orbital electrons are bound away from the nucleus by the necessity of maintaining a minimal orbital angular momentum and the stability of the atom is thereby saved. Classical electrodynamics was clearly wrong and inconsistent with quantum theory.

Like GR, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is also a very general theory; less a theory than an amalgam of mathematical techniques designed to describe the interactions between fields and particles. QFT alone doesn’t tell us if there are any fields at all, or only one field, or nine hundred and twenty six. It does tell us that if there is a field, it must be decomposable mathematically into a discrete, if infinite, collection of vibrational modes. One of the great successes of twentieth century physics was the complete reformulation of electromagnetic theory as a quantum field theory known as Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Whereas Maxwell’s theory was inconsistent with QFT, QED is consistent with both special relativity and QFT.

I bring all of this up for two reasons:

QFT requires fields to propagate energy in discrete packets. The radiation from a quantum field will always have a discrete spectrum. GR predicts the gravitational radiation from a decaying binary has a continuous spectrum. The two theories are mutually inconsistent; i.e. GR+QFT is inconsistent. The hope of most working physicists is they aren’t hopelessly mutually inconsistent. Perhaps there is a modification of GR, call it GR’ or a modification of QFT, call it QFT’ so that GR’ and QFT’ are still recognizably the kin of GR and QFT respectively, that GR’+QFT’ is logically consistent and the predictions of GR’+QFT’ are empirically sound.
Since GR+QFT is inconsistent it is over-determined; i.e. you can prove anything from the amalgam of the two. But GR’+QFT’ , should such a unification exist, would be radically indeterminate in the same way that GR alone or QFT alone are radically indeterminate. QFT’ would be consistent with a world with no fields as well as with a world with fifty fields. GR’ would be consistent with a world with no matter, or a world with exactly one rotating blackhole or with a universe filled with energy. From GR’+QFT’ one would not be able to prove the existence of anything what-so-ever, especially gods.

GR’ + QFT’ would only provide a background against which physics can be done exactly like the three Newtonian principles provide the essential background for seventeenth century physics. The Principia doesn’t prove that matter exists, but the Principia does require that if matter does exist, then it’s conserved. What else is needed then for a Theory of Everything? A theory of the specific fields and particles that are known to exist; i.e. one needs to hypothesize the existence of quarks, bosons, etc. as well as their properties and their interactions. The Standard Theory of Particles would be an example.

In short: a consistent unification of GR and QFT cannot even prove a quark exists let alone the existence of even a single god answering to the Christian conception of said being. If Tipler has a proof of the existence of “God” it is false advertising to claim it is a proof from the principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics alone (assuming he has a consistent unification of the two). Such a proof would require many many more assumptions. Assumptions such as the ones we touched on in this post; e.g. assumptions pertaining to boundary conditions and postulates maintaining the existence of specific fields and particles as well as hypotheses regarding their interactions. And assumptions, such as the ones I touched upon in my last two posts and which Bela also addressed; e.g. definitional axioms that introduce the necessary theological language (“God”) which the scientific theory fails to incorporate and meta-assumptions that the definitional axioms do indeed have the intended reference.

The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) incorporates all the known laws of physics into a logically-consistent whole. So your claim that this is not a Theory of Everything (TOE) is not only logically nihil ad rem, but also a false claim.

Again, for more on this matter, see my below article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2

Regarding the definition of God, see Sec. 7.1: "The Haecceities of God" and the Glossary section "haecceity".

Your attempt to say that we just don't know the meaning of God, and therefore, shucks, any reference to God has no meaning, has no weight. The attributes of God have a well-defined and recurring meaning in the traditional religions. Indeed, the attributes tradditionally applied to God are so peculiar that they can only reference a Being infinite in Its attributes. So your attempt to play definitional sophistry don't work, as the traditional definitions of God apply to only one actual thing in reality, and that one thing is the Cosmological Singularity, of which has all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God. For the details on that, see my previous paragraph.