Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
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
Quote:
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.
Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
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.
Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
...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.
Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
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~
Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
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~
Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
You're all idolators!
When y'all cum before me for final judgement, you better have something better to say than "Oops!".
Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
How about, OOOOOHHHH OOOOOOOHHHHH FUCK!!! OOOOoooooOOOOoooooOOOOOoooooOMEGAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! !
Re: Physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
