The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[martin48]

Thank you Martin for digging up and posting the review by George Ellis, one of the most respected relativists of our times.

Correction to my last post: "There are (at least) FIVE ways ..."

Just in case anyone doubts George Ellis's credentials see:
George Francis Rayner Ellis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[martin48]

End of thread?

[loveboof]

End of thread?

It really should be, but unfortunately Jamie is batshit crazy!

S/he is a 'highly advanced genius'. The mere fact that Tipler himself didn't believe in this nonsense, will not stop the truth.

The truth? ~ being whatever Jamie believes, of course...

[Jamie Michelle]

Review from Nature of one of Prof Tipler's outputs.

I cite that unrefereed book review in my "Physics of God" article. See Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology" of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

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

[Jamie Michelle]

It really should be, but unfortunately Jamie is batshit crazy!

S/he is a 'highly advanced genius'. The mere fact that Tipler himself didn't believe in this nonsense, will not stop the truth.

The truth? ~ being whatever Jamie believes, of course...

Apparently you do not have a concept of time. Ellis's review is from 1994. Tipler stated in his 1994 book that he is still an atheist and will remain so until the Omega Point cosmology is confirmed. The 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), and so Tipler is now a theist. Due to the Omega Point cosmology's triune structure preferentially selecting God as described by Christian theology, Tipler is also now a Christian.

For the details on all of this, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

[Jamie Michelle]

Thank you Martin for digging up and posting the review by George Ellis, one of the most respected relativists of our times.

Correction to my last post: "There are (at least) FIVE ways ..."

My, aren't you guys just regular Sherlock Holmeses.

I cite that book review in my article "The Physics of God". But since you have a superstitious fear against reading this devil-possessed article, you wouldn't know much of anything that's in it.

[Jamie Michelle]

Prof. George Ellis, by the way, is a theist, and he's against the Omega Point cosmology due to his fideist position.

[Jamie Michelle]

I asked, "Has experiment confirmed that spatial sections of the cosmos are diffeomorphic to 3-spheres? Can you cite the paper?" Your (Jamie Michelle) reply is, "That is established by the Omega Point cosmology itself."

Tipler says in his book Physics of Immortality, that communication in an open universe is obstructed by the arbitrarily large amount of energy required to overcome the redshift in the signal. Tipler points out that in open universes "it becomes impossible for structures to form of sufficiently larger and larger size to store a diverging amount of information." Since he requires the single causal boundary point code an arbitrarily large amount of information, Tipler requires the universe to be a closed 3-sphere. That's not a proof from the accepted laws of physics. There are two ways to think the claim: 1) it is an assumption designed to guarantee a conclusion or 2) it is a consequence of the assumption that the causal boundary of the universe consists of a unique point that codes all the information on the future directed worldlines leading to that limit point. Either way there is an underlying assumption: 1) the spatial sections of the universe are 3-spheres or 2) the causal boundary consists of a unique limit point and it codes an arbitrary large amount of information. Either way there is no proof of Omega Point Theory from the accepted foundations of current physics...which has been your claim in this thread. [Pretty much the same criticism applies to Tipler's claim that life lives forever].

That the universe must end in finite proper time itself logically implies that the universe is a 3-sphere. But a dynamical proof for the 3-sphere nature of the Omega Point cosmology can be found in Ref. 1.

Per Seifert's Theorem [2], the absence of event horizons means that the universe is spatially a closed manifold. On this Theorem, see also Refs. 3, p. 435 ff.; and 4, p. 145 of the Int. J. Astrobio. version or p. 6 of the arXiv version.

References:

1. John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, "The closed-universe recollapse conjecture", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223, No. 4 (Dec. 15, 1986), pp. 835-844.

2. Hans-Jürgen Seifert, "The Causal Boundary of Space-Times", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Sept. 1971), pp. 247-259.

3. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1994).

4. Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141–148. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007.

After you claimed that everything in Omega Point Theory followed from the standard laws of accepted physics or from experimentally substantiated experimental evidence you said, "we will use nanotechnology to transform the substrate of our minds in order to become superintelligent. That is, we will use technology to become immortal." I asked, "Has this been confirmed by experiment?" Your reply is, "Sure. All life is based upon nanoassemblers." That all life is based on nanoassemblers, is not a proof that at all future times there will be life in the universe, nor is it proof that we will become superintelligent, nor is it a proof that "we" will use "our" superintelligence to use nanotechnology to become immortal. Sure you see that the premise, "all life is based on nanoassemblers" is insufficient for proving anything about life's sustainability within the universe or life's future intellectual capacities.

That's a conclusion, not an assumption, of the Omega Point cosmology. The only assumptions of the Omega Point cosmology are the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).

There are four ways to reject Omega Point Cosmology without rejecting General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory nor Thermodynamics. Just deny any of the five ASSUMPTIONS of Omega Point Theory: 1) The imaginary boundary called the causal boundary (which is in reality a collection of bundles of worldlines) consists of a single point (called the omega point); ...

One can "reject" the existence of buses, but that doesn't mean that one won't be smashed if ones steps in front of one.

The Omega Point c-boundary is a conclusion of the Omega Point cosmology, not an assumption. So "reject[ing]" it does nothing to diminish the logical unavoidability of the Omega Point cosmology per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).

2) The omega point "knows" all the information there is to know about the interior of the universe; ...

Again, that's a conclusion, not an assumption. You obviously have a difficult time understanding the difference between the two.

The Omega Point final singularity contains all information that the entire timeline of the multiverse contains. So it knows this in the sense that all information that could ever exist is contained there. And the information there is infinite. So the Omega Point is literally omniscient.

3) There is a single causal boundary point which all powerful because it is the focal point of all the universe's power and energy (in the same sense that Hiroshima was the focal point of Little Boy);

Again, that's a conclusion, not an assumption. Watts and joules become infinite at the Omega Point. Moreover, this is all the energy and power which exists there. Hence, the Omega Point is literally omnipotent.

4) The is a single causal boundary point which exists everywhere because every worldline asymptotically approaches it, getting closer and closer after arbitrarily longer and longer stretches of time;

Again, that's a a conclusion, not an assumption.

5) A point that satisfies assumptions 1, 2, 3 and 4 must be a god.

This statement by you is incorrect. A god (lowercase G) is a finite sapient being who is immortal. God (capital G) is the infinite sapient being.

A state which has the properties that you described above is by definition God, since it has all the unique properties (i.e., haecceities) claimed for God in the traditional religions.

If there were an omega point is would be a bundle of worldlines; i.e. a bundle of imaginary trajectories in the spacetime manifold. It's like pointing to the infinitude of meridians passing through the Earth's poles and claiming that that bundle of great circles is Mother Nature.

I'm sorry if you got the idea that my criticism was a personal attack. It is not. I simply have an interest cosmology.

[trish]

The only assumptions of the Omega Point cosmology are the known laws of physics...

and yet the an infinitely expanding universe with infinite spatial sections is consistent with all the laws of physics known to date. It seems the evidence is that not only is the universe expanding but that the expansion is accelerating. How can p->q when ~q is provably consistent with p?

The Nobel laureate and physicist Gerard't Hooft has written some advice to young physicists. You may find it helpful.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hoof...eoristbad.html

[Jamie Michelle]

and yet the an infinitely expanding universe with infinite spatial sections is consistent with all the laws of physics known to date. It seems the evidence is that not only is the universe expanding but that the expansion is accelerating. How can p->q when ~q is provably consistent with p?

The Nobel laureate and physicist Gerard't Hooft has written some advice to young physicists. You may find it helpful.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hoof...eoristbad.html

Actually, an infinitely expanding universe violates unitarity, a fundamental law of quantum mechanics. This is known as the black hole information problem.

All proposed solutions to the black hole information issue to date, except for Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, have the common feature of invoking new laws of physics which have no experimental confirmation and indeed which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured String Theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes", Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 (October 2005), Art. No. 084013; also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171 .

For the details on this, see Appendix A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp