Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists

[Jamie Michelle]

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler gave the below presentation at TEDxBrussels--which is the largest TEDx conference in the world--on December 6, 2010 in Brussels, Belgium. Tipler's talk was the headline presentation of the event.

"TEDx Brussels - Frank Tipler - The Ultimate Future", TEDxTalks, January 14, 2011. YouTube - TEDx Brussels 2010 - Frank Tipler - The Ultimate Future (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNkuJvhyfP0)

TEDxBrussels 2010. http://www.tedxbrussels.eu/2010/index.html

For the details on what Prof. Tipler spoke about in his above presentation, see his below paper, which in addition to giving the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, also demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God--of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause):

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Particularly see pp. 925 and 904-905 of the above Reports on Progress in Physics paper (or pp. 44-45 and 11-12 of the arXiv version) for the proof that the Omega Point cosmology is required per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.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.

For the details regarding the point Prof. Tipler made in his presentation about how modern physics (i.e., General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are simply special cases of classical mechanics (i.e., Newtonian mechanics, and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation), see the following articles:

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics", September 20, 2008. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271310

* Maurice J. Dupré and Frank J. Tipler, "General Relativity As an Æther Theory", arXiv:1007.4572, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572

* Frank J. Tipler, "Hamilton-Jacobi Many-Worlds Theory and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", arXiv:1007.4566, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4566

Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in quantum field theory and computation theory. His Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of prestigious physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.

##########################################

As stated above, 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 Theorem 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.

Below are some more of the peer-reviewed papers in science and physics journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://www.webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T.

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://www.webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://www.webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://www.webcitation.org/5nY13xRip Full proceedings volume: http://www.webcitation.org/5nwu4fT31

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://www.webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://www.webcitation.org/5nx3CxKm0 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

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

The peer-reviewed journal Reports on Progress in Physics--in which Prof. Tipler published the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) with his aforecited 2005 paper--is described above.

For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper in addition to the following resources:

* "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics", TetrahedronOmega, December 26, 2008 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=libertyandtruth

* Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com

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

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing fundamentally wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[muhmuh]

wow thats an amazing degree of bullshit even for a ted talk

[Jamie Michelle]

wow thats an amazing degree of bullshit even for a ted talk

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. The only way the Omega Point cosmology could be wrong is if one or more of the aforesaid known laws of physics are wrong. Hence, the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason to think that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

For the details on the foregoing, see my previous post above.

[muhmuh]

lemme guess
your grasp on actual physics ended at about elementary school level? no one takes this crackpot serious and for good reason

[Jamie Michelle]

lemme guess
your grasp on actual physics ended at about elementary school level? no one takes this crackpot serious and for good reason

Says the one who cannot adequately read.

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 Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see my first post above). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

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.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

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

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing fundamentally wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[muhmuh]

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

science and religion? seriously?


Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics

no we dont and if you really believe this your grasp on physics and science in general is so limted that youre a complete and utter waste of air and anyones time

[trish]

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. The only way the Omega Point cosmology could be wrong is if one or more of the aforesaid known laws of physics are wrong.Unfortunately almost every physicist on the planet (Dr. Tipler counting among the exceptions) will tell you either General Relativity (GR) or Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is wrong. How have they reached this conclusion? It follows from the observation that GR+QFT is inconsistent. GR predicts that a gravitationally bound two body system will emit a continuous spectrum of radiation as it continuously decays. QFT requires the spectrum and the decay to be discrete. GR predicts gravity and space-time behave classically even within the Planck regime; QFT requires otherwise. Of course from an inconsistent set of axioms one can prove anything; i.e. every proposition is a theorem of GR+QFT (including both Tipler's Omega Point Theorem and its negation). Teasing inferences from the union of GR and QFT is currently a delicate affair which can be dangerous to one's career and which has only met with limited success in the hands of Penrose, Hawking, Susskind, etc. (I highly recommend Mukhanov and Winitzki as a reasonable rigorous introduction to the subject).

Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism was in the same boat as GR. It's inconsistent with QFT. After some very hard and imaginative work Richard Feynman et. al. negotiated a consistent marriage between electromagnetism and QFT known as Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Most physicists are of the opinion that a similar modification of GR will have to be forthcoming before we have a full understanding of gravity.

IMO it's irrational to derive grand theories from an obviously inconsistent set of assumptions unless the derivation can be shown to stand alone as a consistent body of propositions (i.e. can be derived from a consistent subset of GR+QFT) and makes testable predictions that distinguish it from competing TOE's.

If Tipler's Omega Point Theory meets these criteria, then we'll be hearing the sound of corks popping in universities around the world. It hasn't happened yet and the theory is more than fifteen years old (the copyright date on my paperback version is 1994).

[Jamie Michelle]

science and religion? seriously?

no we dont and if you really believe this your grasp on physics and science in general is so limted that youre a complete and utter waste of air and anyones time

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.

[Jamie Michelle]

Unfortunately almost every physicist on the planet (Dr. Tipler counting among the exceptions) will tell you either General Relativity (GR) or Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is wrong. How have they reached this conclusion? It follows from the observation that GR+QFT is inconsistent. GR predicts that a gravitationally bound two body system will emit a continuous spectrum of radiation as it continuously decays. QFT requires the spectrum and the decay to be discrete. GR predicts gravity and space-time behave classically even within the Planck regime; QFT requires otherwise. Of course from an inconsistent set of axioms one can prove anything; i.e. every proposition is a theorem of GR+QFT (including both Tipler's Omega Point Theorem and its negation). Teasing inferences from the union of GR and QFT is currently a delicate affair which can be dangerous to one's career and which has only met with limited success in the hands of Penrose, Hawking, Susskind, etc. (I highly recommend Mukhanov and Winitzki as a reasonable rigorous introduction to the subject).

Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism was in the same boat as GR. It's inconsistent with QFT. After some very hard and imaginative work Richard Feynman et. al. negotiated a consistent marriage between electromagnetism and QFT known as Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Most physicists are of the opinion that a similar modification of GR will have to be forthcoming before we have a full understanding of gravity.

IMO it's irrational to derive grand theories from an obviously inconsistent set of assumptions unless the derivation can be shown to stand alone as a consistent body of propositions (i.e. can be derived from a consistent subset of GR+QFT) and makes testable predictions that distinguish it from competing TOE's.

If Tipler's Omega Point Theory meets these criteria, then we'll be hearing the sound of corks popping in universities around the world. It hasn't happened yet and the theory is more than fifteen years old (the copyright date on my paperback version is 1994).

General relativity and quantum mechanics aren't known to be incompatible per se. They are incompatible if one attempts to artificially eliminate the arbitrarily higher number of terms within the quantum gravitational Lagrangian. For the full details on that, see the below paper by Prof. Frank J. Tipler:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (pp. 49 and 279), "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.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.

[trish]

They are incompatible if one attempts to artificially eliminate the arbitrarily higher number of terms within the quantum gravitational Lagrangian.Such an elimination already constitutes a modification the Lagrangian that is strictly required by GR+QFT. The fact that without such an ad-hoc modification the action diverges is a form of the contradiction inherent in the combination GR+QFT.

Isn't it a little strange that none of the axioms of GR nor of QFT make any reference to gods and that "gods" is neither a defined term of either theory, nor an undefined term of either theory; yet somehow, magically, GR+QFT proves the existences of gods? If you can show me an airtight deduction that gods exist from GR+QFT that alone constitutes a logical contradiction, for a consistent theory will not make substantial pronouncements on the existence of objects which do not appear within the theory's logical domain.

[Jamie Michelle]

Such an elimination already constitutes a modification the Lagrangian that is strictly required by GR+QFT. The fact that without such an ad-hoc modification the action diverges is a form of the contradiction inherent in the combination GR+QFT.


If one tries to artificially suppress the higher orders of the quantum gravity Lagrangian then it produces an inconsistent quantum field theory.

An infinite number of axioms being required for a theory doesn't make it contradictory. A theory can have an infinite number of axioms and be consistent.

For more on this, see pp. 913-914 of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276



Isn't it a little strange that none of the axioms of GR nor of QFT make any reference to gods and that "gods" is neither a defined term of either theory, nor an undefined term of either theory; yet somehow, magically, GR+QFT proves the existences of gods? If you can show me an airtight deduction that gods exist from GR+QFT that alone constitutes a logical contradiction, for a consistent theory will not make substantial pronouncements on the existence of objects which do not appear within the theory's logical domain.

Humans also don't appear in the axioms of General Relativity and quantum field theory. Yet we exist.

For the proof of the Omega Point cosmology per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, see pp. 925 and 904-905 of Prof. Tipler's above Reports on Progress in Physics paper (or pp. 44-45 and 11-12 of the arXiv version). This paper also presents the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE).

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.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.

[trish]

Harvey Wallbangers do not appear in the axioms or definitions of Euclidean geometry, yet Harvey Wallbangers exist. Bandersnatches don't appear in the axioms or definitions of Euclidean geometry either, and Bandersnatches do not exist. Are any of these observations at all surprising? No, because consistent theories don't make significant pronouncements on subjects which are neither explicitly addressed by the axioms of the theory, nor rigorously definable from the explicit terms of the theory. This is an immediate consequence of what modern logicians call second order generalization, though the principle was well known to Hume and others.

[Jamie Michelle]

Harvey Wallbangers do not appear in the axioms or definitions of Euclidean geometry, yet Harvey Wallbangers exist. Bandersnatches don't appear in the axioms or definitions of Euclidean geometry either, and Bandersnatches do not exist. Are any of these observations at all surprising? No, because consistent theories don't make significant pronouncements on subjects which are neither explicitly addressed by the axioms of the theory, nor rigorously definable from the explicit terms of the theory. This is an immediate consequence of what modern logicians call second order generalization, though the principle was well known to Hume and others.

One can prove many true things with consistent theories that don't appear in the theories' axioms. Indeed, that's the whole point of a theory, otherwise one simply has a collection of axioms.

[trish]

One can prove many true things with consistent theories that don't appear in the theories' axioms.No, you can't. Every term that occurs within a consequence of a theory must either be one of the undefined terms (i.e. one of the terms occurring already in the axioms) or it must be reducible through rigorous definition to the terms occurring in the axioms. This is just elementary logic.


Indeed, that's the whole point of a theory, otherwise one simply has a collection of axioms. No. The point of a theory is to organize a particular domain of thought and allow one to logically and economically solve problems and make predictions based on explicit assumptions.

Imagine we use stakes and string to lay out a garden with four sides. Euclidean geometry says nothing about gardens, stakes and string and yet it seems to require that the sum of the angles around the garden is 360 degrees. How does it do that? Well, as you know, there is no theorem in Euclidean geometry that says anything about gardens. What we're doing when we apply Euclidean geometry to garden plots is making additional assumptions (A). We're adding to the axioms of Euclidean geometry (EG) assumptions about stakes (that they can be treated as if they were Euclidean points) and assumptions about strings stretched between stakes (that they are Euclidean lines) etc. to obtain a theory EG+A that extends Euclidean geometry and which hopefully provides a reasonably accurate (within the requirements of the gardener) description of the geometry of gardens. Even if we had absolute confidence that the geometry of space was Euclidean, we cannot be absolutely confident of all the conclusions we draw from EG+A. For example, if stakes are points shouldn't we, at least in principle, be able to place infinitely many stakes along the stretched string that connects two given stakes, or at least as many as we please?

"Gods" is not one of the terms to be found in GR+QFT, yet Tipler claims he can prove gods exist using GR+QFT. To do this he defined the word "God" in terms of the future boundary conditions on the fields permeating space-time (paraphrasing, God is the Omega Point of a cosmological space-time, when such a point exists). At this stage of the theory's development, of course "God" is just jargon; i.e. a technical term reducible by rigorous definition to the basic jargon of the theory (fields, metric, etc.). There is no reason yet to think that whatever one proves from GR+QFT about this technical term has anything to do with the God or gods referred to by our human religions. To make that leap is to assent to a set of additional assumptions (A), namely the technical definition of "God" (the Omega Point of cosmological space-time, if it exists) refers to the God of religion. Tipler claims to prove from GR+QFT (actually he modifies this inconsistent theory by ad-hoc adjustment to the gravitational Lagrangian) that the Omega Point exists (actually he makes additional assumptions (B) about the boundary conditions). This is not a proof that the God or gods of religion exist. For such a proof we need not only the modified GR+QFT (say GR'+QFT') but also the boundary conditions B plus the assumption A that the Omega Point refers to the God or gods of religion. Tipler's real claim is that from GR'+QFT' + A + B one can prove the God of religion exists. Even if we grant the deduction from GR'+QFT'+A+B is without error (which I don't), every one of the four components of this union of theories and assumptions is open to contention.


...one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.Really? Extreme irrationality?? You might want to rethink what it means to be a scientist.

[BellaBellucci]

I find this thread absolutely fascinating. What I find equally fascinating is the fact that Jamie Michelle can't seem to fathom the possibility that even though there is no axiom in GR, QFT, et al, to define anything beyond the universal barrier (even if the 'Omega Point' does indeed exist, whether its matter, energy, or an old bearded man in the sky), and that there is at least a very real probably that either GR or QFT is wrong, that the theory in question could, even possibly, be at very least incomplete. I'm no physicist, but based on what I read, Trish's logic is sound on its face, while if we were in court, I would object to Jamie Michelle's testimony because it calls for a conclusion.

In my personal spiritual system, the compatible concept to the so-called Omega Point is called the (Hall of) Akashic Records. Even if the theory in question were to prove that there is a 'metaphysical supercomputer' of sorts at the final singularity, what is the evidence that said force or entity is specifically the god of Abraham? I'm pretty sure Trish asked this question already and I can't decide whether Jamie Michelle is being purposely obtuse or if she's not really speaking as scientist, but as an individual with an agenda to validate her religion by co-opting the so-called 'new religion.'

The followers of the god of Abraham co-opted the houses of worship, traditions, and cultures of my Pagan ancestors upon their rise to power, so let's not pretend that it wouldn't be strategically advantageous for 'believers' to co-opt another belief system in a last ditch effort to retain that power as they fall.

~BB~

[trish]

In my personal spiritual system, the compatible concept to the so-called Omega Point is called the (Hall of) Akashic Records.Beautiful example. If I had thought of it, it would have save me a lot of words.


The followers of the god of Abraham co-opted the houses of worship, traditions, and cultures of my Pagan ancestors upon their rise to power, so let's not pretend that it wouldn't be strategically advantageous for 'believers' to co-opt another belief system in a last ditch effort to retain that power as they fall.An interesting point. It does seem to be the way the viral religions work.

It hadn't occurred to me that all this religious new age pseudo-science babble was just the same mechanism. It's sad to see intelligent people, like Tipler and Michelle, who have everything they need to defend against the pitfalls of logical error still succumb to the desire to feel big by believing in big things.

[BellaBellucci]

Beautiful example. If I had thought of it, it would have save me a lot of words.

An interesting point. It does seem to be the way the viral religions work.

It hadn't occurred to me that all this religious new age pseudo-science babble was just the same mechanism. It's sad to see intelligent people, like Tipler and Michelle, who have everything they need to defend against the pitfalls of logical error still succumb to the desire to feel big by believing in big things.

Thank you. I thought you might like that. And if Michelle were smart, she'd cut out the middle man and just believe in herself... except as it pertains to her scientific ability. At this point, I think she should re-evaluate her ability to be objective if she wants to be taken seriously.

~BB~

[hippifried]

You're all idolators!

When y'all cum before me for final judgement, you better have something better to say than "Oops!".

[trish]

How about, OOOOOHHHH OOOOOOOHHHHH FUCK!!! OOOOoooooOOOOoooooOOOOOoooooOMEGAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! !

[Jamie Michelle]

No, you can't. Every term that occurs within a consequence of a theory must either be one of the undefined terms (i.e. one of the terms occurring already in the axioms) or it must be reducible through rigorous definition to the terms occurring in the axioms. This is just elementary logic.


That's not what you said before. Obviously the results of a logical system have to be deducible back to the axioms. But that's quite different from saying that the axioms themselves already speak about those results.

Here you're agreeing with what I said, since humans don't appear in the axioms of General Relativity and quantum field theory. Yet we exist.



No. The point of a theory is to organize a particular domain of thought and allow one to logically and economically solve problems and make predictions based on explicit assumptions.

Imagine we use stakes and string to lay out a garden with four sides. Euclidean geometry says nothing about gardens, stakes and string and yet it seems to require that the sum of the angles around the garden is 360 degrees. How does it do that? Well, as you know, there is no theorem in Euclidean geometry that says anything about gardens. What we're doing when we apply Euclidean geometry to garden plots is making additional assumptions (A). We're adding to the axioms of Euclidean geometry (EG) assumptions about stakes (that they can be treated as if they were Euclidean points) and assumptions about strings stretched between stakes (that they are Euclidean lines) etc. to obtain a theory EG+A that extends Euclidean geometry and which hopefully provides a reasonably accurate (within the requirements of the gardener) description of the geometry of gardens. Even if we had absolute confidence that the geometry of space was Euclidean, we cannot be absolutely confident of all the conclusions we draw from EG+A. For example, if stakes are points shouldn't we, at least in principle, be able to place infinitely many stakes along the stretched string that connects two given stakes, or at least as many as we please?

"Gods" is not one of the terms to be found in GR+QFT, yet Tipler claims he can prove gods exist using GR+QFT. To do this he defined the word "God" in terms of the future boundary conditions on the fields permeating space-time (paraphrasing, God is the Omega Point of a cosmological space-time, when such a point exists). At this stage of the theory's development, of course "God" is just jargon; i.e. a technical term reducible by rigorous definition to the basic jargon of the theory (fields, metric, etc.). There is no reason yet to think that whatever one proves from GR+QFT about this technical term has anything to do with the God or gods referred to by our human religions. To make that leap is to assent to a set of additional assumptions (A), namely the technical definition of "God" (the Omega Point of cosmological space-time, if it exists) refers to the God of religion. Tipler claims to prove from GR+QFT (actually he modifies this inconsistent theory by ad-hoc adjustment to the gravitational Lagrangian) that the Omega Point exists (actually he makes additional assumptions (B) about the boundary conditions). This is not a proof that the God or gods of religion exist. For such a proof we need not only the modified GR+QFT (say GR'+QFT') but also the boundary conditions B plus the assumption A that the Omega Point refers to the God or gods of religion. Tipler's real claim is that from GR'+QFT' + A + B one can prove the God of religion exists. Even if we grant the deduction from GR'+QFT'+A+B is without error (which I don't), every one of the four components of this union of theories and assumptions is open to contention.


"Humans" also don't appear in the axioms of General Relativity and quantum field theory. Yet we exist.

What the known laws of physics show is that a physical state unavoidably results which has all the quidditative properties (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions, of which state is called the Omega Point. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.



Really? Extreme irrationality?? You might want to rethink what it means to be a scientist.

You're here doing a great job of demonstrating my point.

For the proof of the Omega Point cosmology per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, see pp. 925 and 904-905 of Prof. Tipler's below Reports on Progress in Physics paper (or pp. 44-45 and 11-12 of the arXiv version). This paper also presents the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE).

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.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.

Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of prestigious physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.

[Jamie Michelle]

I find this thread absolutely fascinating. What I find equally fascinating is the fact that Jamie Michelle can't seem to fathom the possibility that even though there is no axiom in GR, QFT, et al, to define anything beyond the universal barrier (even if the 'Omega Point' does indeed exist, whether its matter, energy, or an old bearded man in the sky), and that there is at least a very real probably that either GR or QFT is wrong, that the theory in question could, even possibly, be at very least incomplete. I'm no physicist, but based on what I read, Trish's logic is sound on its face, while if we were in court, I would object to Jamie Michelle's testimony because it calls for a conclusion.

In my personal spiritual system, the compatible concept to the so-called Omega Point is called the (Hall of) Akashic Records. Even if the theory in question were to prove that there is a 'metaphysical supercomputer' of sorts at the final singularity, what is the evidence that said force or entity is specifically the god of Abraham? I'm pretty sure Trish asked this question already and I can't decide whether Jamie Michelle is being purposely obtuse or if she's not really speaking as scientist, but as an individual with an agenda to validate her religion by co-opting the so-called 'new religion.'

The followers of the god of Abraham co-opted the houses of worship, traditions, and cultures of my Pagan ancestors upon their rise to power, so let's not pretend that it wouldn't be strategically advantageous for 'believers' to co-opt another belief system in a last ditch effort to retain that power as they fall.

~BB~

We now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. For the details of that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's above-cited 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper.

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity (i.e., the uncaused cause of all causes) is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics, through baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the principle of least action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-mode structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

[Jamie Michelle]

In my personal spiritual system, the compatible concept to the so-called Omega Point is called the (Hall of) Akashic Records.


Beautiful example. If I had thought of it, it would have save me a lot of words.



The followers of the god of Abraham co-opted the houses of worship, traditions, and cultures of my Pagan ancestors upon their rise to power, so let's not pretend that it wouldn't be strategically advantageous for 'believers' to co-opt another belief system in a last ditch effort to retain that power as they fall.


An interesting point. It does seem to be the way the viral religions work.

It hadn't occurred to me that all this religious new age pseudo-science babble was just the same mechanism. It's sad to see intelligent people, like Tipler and Michelle, who have everything they need to defend against the pitfalls of logical error still succumb to the desire to feel big by believing in big things.

The history of mindkind is the history of coming out of a condition of extremely ignorant fallacy into lesser states of ignorance, with some massively gruesome setbacks along the way (all of them perpetrated by government). This is because of minkind's coming out of an animalistic mental state into states of higher degrees of reason. While nonhuman animals don't appear to hold much fallacious mental content, this is due to them apparently not being able to form very much in the way of abstract mental concepts. When the faculty of sapient reasoning and language skills comes into being, this allows forming ideas on a wide range of subjects, but in mankind's history many of those ideas were quite destructively erroneous, with no small amount of that error still with us today.

Such applies to religious knowledge, as well. For instance, the Torah is itself quite evil in many places, such as requiring any Israelite picking up twigs on a Sabbath to be stoned to death. (See Numbers 15:32-36; Exodus 31:12-17; 35:1-3.) No one alive today actually believes in much of the Torah laws, and at any rate there is no place on Earth where it would be legal to practice them. These days no Jew is lethally stoning another Jew for gathering sticks on a Saturday. Again, this has to do with mankind's evolution from fallacious ignorance into knowledge: early Judaism is a derivation from prior paganism.

The pagan religion of the original Hebrews evolved in time to the monotheism of what we now regard as modern Judaism, though the Torah reflects the strong polytheism of its roots: the plural elohim, gods, became in time God. Yet the modern Bible translations still preserve the polytheistic roots of Judiasm: e.g., "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ...'" (Genesis 1:26; cf 3:22). Indeed, some forms of human sacrifice for purely religious purposes were retained within Pentateuch Judaism, i.e., Judaic human-sacrifice rituals can actually be found in the Torah and Nevi'im Rishonim books, supposedly sanctified by God. (See Leviticus 27:28,29; Judges 11:29-40. Cf. Exodus 13:1,2; 13:11-16; 22:29,30 for how this practice of human sacrifice eventually evolved into substitution via animal sacrifice.) But then, the actual prophets (principally from Isaiah on, i.e., the Nevi'im Aharonim books) and Yeshua Ha'Mashiach spoke out against much of the supposed Law of Moses. (For examples of this Prophetic rejection just regarding the Torah laws on animal sacrifice, see Psalms 40:6-8; Isaiah 1:11-14; Jeremiah 7:21,22; 8:8; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21,22; Hebrews 10:4-7.)

The above matters bring up another issue. The teachings of Yeshua Ha'Mashiach's ministry itself necessitates the involvement of a superintelligence, since it is so spectacularly advanced beyond that age, and indeed this age: as mankind to this date is of a barbaric and primitive nature, and still a long way (morally speaking) from catching up with Christ.

Albert Einstein said that "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion", in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium [New York: Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., 1941], p. 211.) In an interview for the Saturday Evening Post in 1929 (conducted by George Sylvester Viereck, "What Life Means to Einstein", October 26), Einstein had the following exchange regarding Jesus Christ:

""
[S.E.P.:] "To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

[Einstein:] "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

[S.E.P.:] "Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

[Einstein:] "Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a *bon mot*."

[S.E.P.:] "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

[Einstein:] "Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."
""

And here is what Einstein wrote regarding Christianity in his book The World as I See It:

""
If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.

It is the duty of every man of good will to strive steadfastly in his own little world to make this teaching of pure humanity a living force, so far as he can. If he makes an honest attempt in this direction without being crushed and trampled under foot by his contemporaries, he may consider himself and the community to which he belongs lucky.
""

So authentic Christianity (i.e., the doctrine taught by Yeshua Ha'Mashiach), according to Einstein, is "capable of curing all the social ills of humanity." That bold and clear statement is quite a strong endorsement.

In the previous quote of Einstein, he is careful to seperate the message preached by Jesus Christ and the Prophets (i.e., the Latter Prophets of the Nevi'im Aharonim books) from that of the Torah, which indeed is filled with much irrationality (much of it derived from earlier pagan practices). But then Jesus Christ and the Prophets spoke out against the irrational aspects of the Torah, and a number of them were murdered by the Israeli priestcraft for doing so. Such was not lost on Einstein, which is why he is careful in the above to specify which aspects of the Bible he finds to be in conformance with the truth.

Unfortunately, the inversion of that organization popularly calling itself the Christian church occured with the pagan Roman government's takeover of said group under Constantine I, himself a lifelong pagan, bloodthirsty tyrant, and unrepentant murderer of his eldest son Crispus and his wife Fausta, to say nothing of all the plebeians he murdered. Since that time, the organizations commonly calling themselves "Christian" have often acted in the role of intellectual bodyguards of the state, and hence have been hostilely opposed to actually applying Jesus Christ's teachings, since said teachings are incompatible with government and its frequent activities, e.g., taxes, war, the inversion of genuine moral understanding, the sowing of needless discord and strife among the populace (i.e., divide et impera), etc.

For much more on the above, see the below article and the article by me that follows it:

"A Military Chaplain Repents", an interview of Rev. George B. Zabelka, the Catholic chaplain who blessed the pilots who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by Rev. Emmanuel Charles McCarthy, conducted circa 1984, published on the LewRockwell website on April 13, 2007. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/mccarthy5.html , http://www.centerforchristiannonviolence.org/data/Media/Fr.%20George%20Zabekla%20Interview%20%5B02%5D.pdf

My below article (published under my legal name) demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Old Testament, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), revised and expanded edition, October 17, 2009 (originally published at Anti-State.com on December 19, 2001). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://theophysics.chimehost.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

Below is the abstract to my above article:

""
ABSTRACT: The teachings and actions of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha'Mashiach) and the apostles recorded in the New Testament are analyzed in regard to their ethical and political philosophy, with analysis of context vis-á-vis the Old Testament (Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible) being given. From this analysis, it is shown that Jesus is a libertarian anarchist, i.e., a consistent voluntaryist. The implications this has for the world are profound, and the ramifications of Jesus's anarchism to Christians' attitudes toward government (the state) and its actions are explicated.
""

[ConradG]

Jamie, calm down, relax, have some jasmin tea, anything but more posts with such a bewildering set of daft ideas. I am not criticising your right to free speech, but you began with a defence/promotion of a theory in physics/cosmology that is debatable, and have now got lost in an attempt to prove some kind of 'processional' theory of human evolution in which humans start out in ignorance and gradually evolve into supercomputers -Hegel all over again, and historical nonsense. Major events in history have taken place in spite of government, not always because of them, and Akhenaten was probably the first ruler of a state/empire/civilisation to be a monotheist; but your biggest problem is an inability to express your thoughts in simple language (Hegel again).

I believe the argument that Wittgenstein had with Popper was due to Wittgenstein pointing out to Popper that meaning in science was dependent upon the language used to describe it, your own use of language is obscure, unhelpful, and for whatever reason determined to prove the impossible.
Have a great weekend, get laid, try some new make up, whatever!

[trish]

"Humans" also don't appear in the axioms of General Relativity and quantum field theory. Yet we exist.Of course we do...exist that is. Still the combined theory GR+QFT doesn't even speak to the issue of our existence and it can't without the introducing either 1) a definition of human existence in terms of the fields and particles found in the already existing language of GR+QFT, or 2) introducing a new undefined and technical term "human being" and new axioms A delineating how such "human beings" are to interact with the fields and particles of GR+QFT. Still then, one only has a new theory, GR+QFT+A, that seems to talk about us and our existence, but it really only talks about what the theory calls "human beings." To assert it talks about us, is to make the additional assumption that Bella's post underscores so well; i.e. the additional assumption that the technical definition of "human being" appropriately refers us, actual human beings. Suppose one agrees that it does. Still you couldn't claim GR+QFT proves human beings exist, you've only shown that 'GR+QFT+A+the additional assumption' proves that human beings exist.


We now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics:Of course the claim of correctness would be disputed by most working physicists for reasons which I've posted in this thread and other related threads. But let's go with it and accept it for the moment.

...of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology.This also is disputed by most working physicists, but technically since anything can be proven from an inconsistent set of axioms, let's go with it.

Within Tipler's framework, let us now examine your attempt to prove "God" exists. You define God as anything that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Then you claim the Omega Point of Tipler's model of the universe has these properties. So if the actual universe is modeled by Tipler's (which you claim it is), then the Omega Point is God. I'll saying nothing of the sheer fuzziness of this definition. I will instead point out that the Omega Point fails to exemplify any of these supposedly defining characteristics of God.


The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known;My parent's old Britannica Encyclopedia sitting on their oak shelves has a lot of complex "text" printed on thousands of thin sheaves of paper. People have defined various technical measures of that complexity. We call those "measures of information content." Of course if you don't have the key (i.e. if you can't read it) the encyclopedia doesn't have any information, only complexity. Now my parent's encyclopedia only has a finite amount of "information" (or more precisely it's complexity is high but finite). But it has a lot of complexity. Yet it knows nothing. The Omega Point is a mathematical singularity in a model of the universe occurring on the future boundary. Being a singularity it has no complexity...only the configuration of space-time around the singularity can have complexity, or put more loosely, code information. When it is said the omega singularity has infinite complexity, one means the "information" content of those configurations is theoretically unbounded. But the real point is, even if there was a real omega point on the edge our space-time and its information content was infinite, there's no proof that it even knows how to tie a shoe. There is an important distinction between complexity or information content and knowing. The encyclopedia has information, but it knows nothing. The omega point, if it even exists, may be packed with information, but that's the only thing Tipler's model says about it. Tipler never demonstrated that the omega point is even the sort of thing that could know something.


...it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power;It's a singularity, right? It can't not be a singularity. It can't wear a tie, it can't crawl on its belly and it can't seduce naked woman into eating forbidden fruit. It's not omnipotent. The Hoover Damn produces a lot a power. But it can't even peel a candy wrapper. There's a difference between having power (in the Hoover Damn sense, or the sense in which the omega point would have energy) and having the capacity to exercise one's will. Tipler never demonstrated that the Omega Point has any more WILL than the Hoover damn does. He showed it has energy as does the Hoover damn. You are making what philosophers sometimes call the error of equivocation.


...and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists.Of course it isn't omnipresent. It exists only abstractly on the future boundary of the Tipler model. Consider a simpler model: let M denote a set (like the set of all points in n-dimensional space). Now add a new point to M. Call it O. Instead of adopting the usual topology on M, we shall define another topology T on M+{O}. A subset U of M+{O} will be called open (relative to T) provided O is an element of U. T is then closed under supersets and closed under intersections. Hence (M+{O}, T) is a topological space. It's not Hausdorff. In fact every open set contains the point O. If one wants to play fast, loose and sloppy with the language, O is infinitely near every point of the topology. Now I'm not claiming that (M+{O}, T) models the actual universe, but I gave Tipler the benefit of consideration, so now it's my turn. Suppose, just for a moment, our universe looked like (M+{O}, T). Is there any reason to say that O was omnipresent? That it must be God? Of course not. Yet Tipler's topology is exactly the same in all the relevant respects. In short, Tipler's topology "shows" that any abstract point O what-so-ever can be regarded as being infinitely close to every point in a given space. If this is all it means to be omnipresent, then omnipresence cannot be invoked to explain the things it was originally invented to explain.

Your effort to get around the Bela’s (and mine) objection by resorting to the medieval scholastics of Duns Scotus fails, not only because one cannot force axiomatic systems to refer to external notions by appeal to quiddity, but also because you failed to show the Omega Point in Tipler's model really has the properties you claimed it has, namely omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, calm down, relax, have some jasmin tea, anything but more posts with such a bewildering set of daft ideas. I am not criticising your right to free speech, but you began with a defence/promotion of a theory in physics/cosmology that is debatable, and have now got lost in an attempt to prove some kind of 'processional' theory of human evolution in which humans start out in ignorance and gradually evolve into supercomputers -Hegel all over again, and historical nonsense. Major events in history have taken place in spite of government, not always because of them, and Akhenaten was probably the first ruler of a state/empire/civilisation to be a monotheist; but your biggest problem is an inability to express your thoughts in simple language (Hegel again).

I believe the argument that Wittgenstein had with Popper was due to Wittgenstein pointing out to Popper that meaning in science was dependent upon the language used to describe it, your own use of language is obscure, unhelpful, and for whatever reason determined to prove the impossible.
Have a great weekend, get laid, try some new make up, whatever!

The Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. The only way it could be wrong is if one or more of those said laws of physics are wrong, yet they have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.

[Jamie Michelle]

Of course we do...exist that is. Still the combined theory GR+QFT doesn't even speak to the issue of our existence and it can't without the introducing either 1) a definition of human existence in terms of the fields and particles found in the already existing language of GR+QFT, or 2) introducing a new undefined and technical term "human being" and new axioms A delineating how such "human beings" are to interact with the fields and particles of GR+QFT. Still then, one only has a new theory, GR+QFT+A, that seems to talk about us and our existence, but it really only talks about what the theory calls "human beings." To assert it talks about us, is to make the additional assumption that Bella's post underscores so well; i.e. the additional assumption that the technical definition of "human being" appropriately refers us, actual human beings. Suppose one agrees that it does. Still you couldn't claim GR+QFT proves human beings exist, you've only shown that 'GR+QFT+A+the additional assumption' proves that human beings exist.


If General Relativity and quantum field theory (viz., Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of particle physics) are correct, then humans are obviously a consequence of them. After all, we exist.

Regarding logically deriving the existence of humans from the axioms of the aforesaid known laws of physics, logically speaking it can be done (i.e., if those known laws of physics are correct), it's just that we don't have the computational resources to do so at this time. Which is to say, that's a computationally-intensive task.

Given an infinite amount of computational resources, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial (per the Bekenstein Bound), requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.



Of course the claim of correctness would be disputed by most working physicists for reasons which I've posted in this thread and other related threads. But let's go with it and accept it for the moment.


That's incorrect. No physicist has ever challenged the correctness of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE).

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.



This also is disputed by most working physicists, but technically since anything can be proven from an inconsistent set of axioms, let's go with it.


Not so. No physicist has ever disputed it. See above.



Within Tipler's framework, let us now examine your attempt to prove "God" exists. You define God as anything that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Then you claim the Omega Point of Tipler's model of the universe has these properties. So if the actual universe is modeled by Tipler's (which you claim it is), then the Omega Point is God. I'll saying nothing of the sheer fuzziness of this definition. I will instead point out that the Omega Point fails to exemplify any of these supposedly defining characteristics of God.

My parent's old Britannica Encyclopedia sitting on their oak shelves has a lot of complex "text" printed on thousands of thin sheaves of paper. People have defined various technical measures of that complexity. We call those "measures of information content." Of course if you don't have the key (i.e. if you can't read it) the encyclopedia doesn't have any information, only complexity. Now my parent's encyclopedia only has a finite amount of "information" (or more precisely it's complexity is high but finite). But it has a lot of complexity. Yet it knows nothing. The Omega Point is a mathematical singularity in a model of the universe occurring on the future boundary. Being a singularity it has no complexity...only the configuration of space-time around the singularity can have complexity, or put more loosely, code information. When it is said the omega singularity has infinite complexity, one means the "information" content of those configurations is theoretically unbounded. But the real point is, even if there was a real omega point on the edge our space-time and its information content was infinite, there's no proof that it even knows how to tie a shoe. There is an important distinction between complexity or information content and knowing. The encyclopedia has information, but it knows nothing. The omega point, if it even exists, may be packed with information, but that's the only thing Tipler's model says about it. Tipler never demonstrated that the omega point is even the sort of thing that could know something.


Your above objections apply every bit as much to humans. After all, per the Bekenstein Bound, a human is a finite state machine and *nothing but a finite state machine*.

Yet the Omega Point is the collection of all spacetime points. As well, anything that will ever exist will merely be a subset of what is rendered at the Omega Point. Intelligence diverges to infinity going into the Omega Point, becoming literally infinite at the Omega Point.



It's a singularity, right? It can't not be a singularity. It can't wear a tie, it can't crawl on its belly and it can't seduce naked woman into eating forbidden fruit. It's not omnipotent. The Hoover Damn produces a lot a power. But it can't even peel a candy wrapper. There's a difference between having power (in the Hoover Damn sense, or the sense in which the omega point would have energy) and having the capacity to exercise one's will. Tipler never demonstrated that the Omega Point has any more WILL than the Hoover damn does. He showed it has energy as does the Hoover damn. You are making what philosophers sometimes call the error of equivocation.


Again, anything that will ever exist will merely be a subset of what is rendered at the Omega Point. Our own existence is a subset of the Omega Point.



Of course it isn't omnipresent. It exists only abstractly on the future boundary of the Tipler model. Consider a simpler model: let M denote a set (like the set of all points in n-dimensional space). Now add a new point to M. Call it O. Instead of adopting the usual topology on M, we shall define another topology T on M+{O}. A subset U of M+{O} will be called open (relative to T) provided O is an element of U. T is then closed under supersets and closed under intersections. Hence (M+{O}, T) is a topological space. It's not Hausdorff. In fact every open set contains the point O. If one wants to play fast, loose and sloppy with the language, O is infinitely near every point of the topology. Now I'm not claiming that (M+{O}, T) models the actual universe, but I gave Tipler the benefit of consideration, so now it's my turn. Suppose, just for a moment, our universe looked like (M+{O}, T). Is there any reason to say that O was omnipresent? That it must be God? Of course not. Yet Tipler's topology is exactly the same in all the relevant respects. In short, Tipler's topology "shows" that any abstract point O what-so-ever can be regarded as being infinitely close to every point in a given space. If this is all it means to be omnipresent, then omnipresence cannot be invoked to explain the things it was originally invented to explain.


Actually, the conclusion that the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime is due to B. G. Schmidt from the 1970s, not Tipler.



Your effort to get around the Bela’s (and mine) objection by resorting to the medieval scholastics of Duns Scotus fails, not only because one cannot force axiomatic systems to refer to external notions by appeal to quiddity, but also because you failed to show the Omega Point in Tipler's model really has the properties you claimed it has, namely omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence.

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity (i.e., the uncaused cause of all causes) is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics, through baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the principle of least action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-mode structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

[hippifried]

Hasn't it already been established that the answer to the "theory of everything" is 42?

[Stavros]

the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity

What? You mean something with three parts is singular? Why marshal so much pseudo-scientific drivel to prove you believe God made the world and everything in it? If you believe it then fine, if people don't believe it they always have Pascal's Wager to consider, but I guess a lot of sincere unbelievers are comfortable with their position, in which case you are struggling to make yourself understood to people who don't care.

[trish]

If General Relativity and quantum field theory (viz., Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of particle physics) are correct, then humans are obviously a consequence of them. After all, we exist.This is a logical fallacy based on the assumption that not only are GR+QFT consistent but that together they are strongly complete. It's the same as saying, if the rules of monopoly are correct, then there must be a button shaped like a top hat. After all the top hat button exists. But of course the rules of monopoly do not pronounce upon the shape of the buttons; i.e. in that sense the rules might be regarded as incomplete. Now maybe GR+QFT is strongly complete. But no one has yet shown it to be the case. Like I said above. You cannot prove from GR+QFT that humans exist without smuggling in outside assumptions. In your alleged proof above, the assumption is that of strong completeness.
Your above objections apply every bit as much to humans. Of course they do and I said as much. We cannot prove from the axioms of GR+QFT that humans exist any more than we can prove from GR+QFT that gods exists. It is through first hand empirical evidence (not theoretical proof) that we know humans exist.

Likewise, we don't claim that humans have knowledge because we can deduce the fact from the complexity of their brains, but rather because we have first hand experience with humans knowing things. There has never been a proof that human beings are mere Turing machines or that consciousness is mere information processing. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that is all there is to it...consciousness is just a form of information processing. Still the Omega Point is not processor. It's just an abstract point and it's "information" content is stagnant like that of an encyclopedia.


The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.The cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime in the topology induced by the the Schmidt b-boundary. So what? Why is that the relevant notion of nearness and not the notion of nearness provided by the metric of the interior? Given any abstract point one can always adjoin it to our space-time and define a topology in which the added point becomes inseparable from the rest of the space-time. Never-the-less the adjoined point is still infinitely far away by the relevant measure of distance (i.e. the metric tensor of the space-time itself) and outside the universe to boot.

Now there may be ways around all these objections. But there are not ways around them yet, and so there is not yet a proof (from GR+QFT alone) that there is an abstract point (not inside our universe but on the abstract edge...defined by mathematically adjoining idealized points associated with a congruence of geodesics) which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

All the prior objections still stand. 1) "Knowing" may be nothing but mere information processing, but that remains to be proven. Moreover, it hasn't been demonstrated that the Omega Point processes anything or that it is a Turing machine of any kind. There's a difference between being as complex as a universal Turning machine and being an operating universal Turing machine. 2) Having the power to implement your will is not the same thing has having or generating energy. 3) Being near me is not the same thing as being on the edge of the universe no matter what bizarre topology you invent to measure nearness.

[Jamie Michelle]

This is a logical fallacy based on the assumption that not only are GR+QFT consistent but that together they are strongly complete. It's the same as saying, if the rules of monopoly are correct, then there must be a button shaped like a top hat. After all the top hat button exists. But of course the rules of monopoly do not pronounce upon the shape of the buttons; i.e. in that sense the rules might be regarded as incomplete. Now maybe GR+QFT is strongly complete. But no one has yet shown it to be the case. Like I said above. You cannot prove from GR+QFT that humans exist without smuggling in outside assumptions. In your alleged proof above, the assumption is that of strong completeness.


They explain all observed phenomenon (when made consistent with the Big Bang and Omega Point cosmological singularity boundary conditions), and so there is no rational reason to suspect that they are incomplete.



Of course they do and I said as much. We cannot prove from the axioms of GR+QFT that humans exist any more than we can prove from GR+QFT that gods exists. It is through first hand empirical evidence (not theoretical proof) that we know humans exist.

Likewise, we don't claim that humans have knowledge because we can deduce the fact from the complexity of their brains, but rather because we have first hand experience with humans knowing things. There has never been a proof that human beings are mere Turing machines or that consciousness is mere information processing. But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that is all there is to it...consciousness is just a form of information processing. Still the Omega Point is not processor. It's just an abstract point and it's "information" content is stagnant like that of an encyclopedia.

The cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime in the topology induced by the the Schmidt b-boundary. So what? Why is that the relevant notion of nearness and not the notion of nearness provided by the metric of the interior? Given any abstract point one can always adjoin it to our space-time and define a topology in which the added point becomes inseparable from the rest of the space-time. Never-the-less the adjoined point is still infinitely far away by the relevant measure of distance (i.e. the metric tensor of the space-time itself) and outside the universe to boot.


Actually, this result caused global general relativists much confusion at the time, which they weren't able to resolve to their satisfaction. If what you said above about the supposed triviality of this result were true, then it wouldn't have caused these great topologists, geometers, mathematicians and physicists such consternation. Not that there's anything logically contradictory about the result, it's just a result they weren't expecting and one which they couldn't explain in intuitive terms.

As physicist and philospher Prof. Michał Heller wrote on this matter:

""
A space-time boundary construction satisfying this requirement was proposed by Bernard Schmidt.21 It is mathematically elegant and physically appealing. Schmidt does not consider directly space-time itself, but rather a larger space of all possible local reference frames that can be defined in this spacetime. This larger space is called a frame bundle (over space-time). It is very much in the spirit of relativity theory for which reference frames are “more real” than points in space-time. One can meaningfully speak about curves in the frame bundle space, and it turns out that the standard notion of length refers to them correctly. The boundary points of a given space-time are defined in terms of classes of the frame bundle curves having finite lengths. The corresponding space-time boundary is called a bundle boundary or, for short, b-boundary of space-time; and it takes into account both geodesics and other curves in space-time.

Shortly after its publication Schmidt’s b-boundary began to be viewed as the best available description of singularities. It had, however, one serious drawback: to compute b-boundaries of more interesting (nontrivial) space-times effectively was extremely difficult. Only a few years later, B. Bosshardt22 and R. A. Johnson23 were able to say something more concrete about the structure of the b-boundaries of such important cases as the closed Friedman world model and the Schwarzschild solution (describing a symmetric black hole)—and their results proved disastrous. It turned out that in both these cases the corresponding b-boundary consisted of a single point. This looks especially pathological in the case of the closed Friedman universe, in which there are two singularities: the initial singularity and the final singularity. In the b-boundary construction they coalesce to a single point; that is, the beginning of the Friedman universe is simultaneously its end. Moreover, in both the closed Friedman and Schwarzschild solutions, from the topological point of view the entire space-times together with their b-boundaries reduce to a single point.24 Something is really going wrong.

There were many attempts to cure the situation, but with no substantial effect.25 During the next several years the beautiful, but now useless, b-boundary construction, almost forgotten, waited on the libraries’ shelves for a better time.

[Notes:]

21. B. Schmidt, “A New Definition of Singular Points in General Relativity,” General Relativity and Gravitation 1 (1971) 269–280.

22. B. Bosshardt, “On the b-Boundary of the Closed Friedman Model,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 46 (1976) 263–268.

23. R. A. Johnson, “The Bundle Boundary of the Schwarzschild and Friedman Solutions,” J. Math. Phys. 18 (1977) 898–902.

24. Technically, the singularities are not Hausdorff separated from the rest of space-time.

25. For more details see, for instance, C. T. J. Dodson, “Spacetime Edge Geometry,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 17 (1978) 389–504; Categories, Bundles, and Spacetime Topology, Orpinton: Shiva Publishing, 1980.
""

(From Michael Heller, Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion (Radnor, Penn.: Templeton Foundation Press, 2003), Part Three: "The Work of Creation", Chapter 9: "Cosmological Singularity and the Creation of Time", pp. 79-99. http://www.templetonprize.org/pdfs/93-113.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/6515ODVYi )

By "useless", what Heller is saying is that the b-boundary produced results that the global general relativist community couldn't make sense of in terms of human intuition, and so they abandoned it--not that they demonstrated that it produces any logical contradiction.

However, the b-boundary demonstrated a number of central tenants of traditional Christian theology--with these results coming from the most advanced sector of General Relativity, that of Global General Relativity, which was founded by Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking! Besides the Cosmological Singularity being transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time, as Heller mentions above, the b-boundary also demonstrates that the Beginning is also the End, another central tenant of Christian theology!

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."--Yeshua Ha'Mashiach, Revelation 22:13, New King James Version; cf. Revelation 21:6; 1:8.



Now there may be ways around all these objections. But there are not ways around them yet, and so there is not yet a proof (from GR+QFT alone) that there is an abstract point (not inside our universe but on the abstract edge...defined by mathematically adjoining idealized points associated with a congruence of geodesics) which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

All the prior objections still stand. 1) "Knowing" may be nothing but mere information processing, but that remains to be proven. Moreover, it hasn't been demonstrated that the Omega Point processes anything or that it is a Turing machine of any kind. There's a difference between being as complex as a universal Turning machine and being an operating universal Turing machine. 2) Having the power to implement your will is not the same thing has having or generating energy. 3) Being near me is not the same thing as being on the edge of the universe no matter what bizarre topology you invent to measure nearness.

[Faldur]

Everyone gets the answer when they breath there last. Live life, believe what you wish.

[trish]

Not true at all. When you're dead, you aren't there to receive the answer, 'cause the answer is, "No, there ain't no god." That's the thing I hate most about knowing the truth, I won't be able to say, "I told you so."

[Jamie Michelle]

Not true at all. When you're dead, you aren't there to receive the answer, 'cause the answer is, "No, there ain't no god." That's the thing I hate most about knowing the truth, I won't be able to say, "I told you so."

But that's a belief by you, one that is contradicted by physics. For the details on that, see my below article (published under my legal name):

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 20, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://theophysics.chimehost.net/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/64ttxvzUr

See also my below post:

Jamie Michelle, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", January 27, 2012 http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=63803

[Faldur]

Not true at all. When you're dead, you aren't there to receive the answer, 'cause the answer is, "No, there ain't no god." That's the thing I hate most about knowing the truth, I won't be able to say, "I told you so."

I'll probably go a few years before you. And if I could buy you a ticket so you could do the "nee nur nee nur" dance I would. But I'm afraid I believe I will find myself before my savior. That I wish you could see... :)

[trish]

But that's a belief by you, one that is contradicted by physics.So when do you expect the Nobel committee to give you the call?

[Jamie Michelle]

So when do you expect the Nobel committee to give you the call?

Nowadays the Nobel Prize is a dishoner, a dishoner which I'm fine doing without. Look at the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Barack Hussein Obama II, even though his first offical act in the presidential office was to mass-murder a bunch of innocent Pakistani civilians via unmanned drones. I don't want to share in the dishonor of receiving such a prize given to mass-murderers like Obama. (Or look at the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to war-criminal Henry Kissinger.)

Besides, I'm not the originator of the Omega Point cosmology. That is the work of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler. What I am doing is popularizing his results, in addition to systematizing it with the rest of veridical human knowledge, such as political theory, economics, ethics, and theology. That is my contribution to this topic.

[martin48]

Sorted then!