The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[loveboof]

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.

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Christianity being the religion which claims Jesus Christ, son of God, died for our sins. His many miracles, culminating with the resurrection, acted as proof of his divinity within his lifetime. To this day, the dogma and teachings of the church dictate to us how to act out even the minutiae of our daily lives. What we can eat and when; who we can love and how; what we can even think!

The holy book which is to act as our guide in all this trivia was written by many different men, with many different agendas, from many different time periods. All of whom wrote their gospels many years after the death of Jesus. These gospels were later to be picked through and chosen for canonisation depending on which best suited the ambitions of a small few religious leaders. Warped through multiple translations before reaching us in English, and well before then being spread simply for convenience by the Roman Empire.

Even without highlighting the startling similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus to older mythological stories and more ancient religions, why should we believe a word of what we know about this bronze age fairy tale called 'Christianity'?

[Jericho]

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Step aside Jaimie, i got this one...

BECAUSE I SAY SO...BURN, HERETIC!






















Or perhaps, maybe not!

[Prospero]

You got the truth Jericho. We will follow, oh enlightened one.

[danthepoetman]

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Christianity being the religion which claims Jesus Christ, son of God, died for our sins. His many miracles, culminating with the resurrection, acted as proof of his divinity within his lifetime. To this day, the dogma and teachings of the church dictate to us how to act out even the minutiae of our daily lives. What we can eat and when; who we can love and how; what we can even think!

The holy book which is to act as our guide in all this trivia was written by many different men, with many different agendas, from many different time periods. All of whom wrote their gospels many years after the death of Jesus. These gospels were later to be picked through and chosen for canonisation depending on which best suited the ambitions of a small few religious leaders. Warped through multiple translations before reaching us in English, and well before then being spread simply for convenience by the Roman Empire.

Even without highlighting the startling similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus to older mythological stories and more ancient religions, why should we believe a word of what we know about this bronze age fairy tale called 'Christianity'?

I love your post, Loveboof. And I agree with everything you said. If you don’t mind, I would add one more element to your description: the very logic of Christianity. It’s the story of a God who created man in such a way that he had to be saved, and who, to make sure of saving him indeed, gave Himself (as a “son”) to Himself (as a “father”) to satisfied His own wrath, yet is still not satisfied and demands that we act in the definite way you alluded to. An all mighty and omniscient God that gave himself to himself in sacrifice for the reparation of his own creation… Is it because we are born in it that we can’t see the utter absurdity of such a myth? Is it me or are we right in the middle of a schizophrenic delusion?

[trish]

Omega point cosmology does not solve the black hole information puzzle, it simply avoids it by hypothesizing a universe that has no event horizons. Tipler’s argument is essentially this:

Argument 1: God exists. The omega point is God because the omega point has the defining characteristic features of God. But the construction of the causal boundary of a model universe won’t result in an omega point unless the model has no event horizons. Therefore there are no event horizons and consequently the black hole information puzzle doesn’t arise in our particular universe.

In this argument the assumption is that God “exists” (or if you prefer, the construction of the causal boundary leads to a unique point on the mathematically constructed boundary, the omega point; i.e. God). That God “exists” is not one of the known laws of the physical universe.

In other places in his book The Physics of Immortality, Tipler takes a different tact.

Argument 2: Tipler invites us to assume the universe has no event horizons (among other assumptions) and proves from those assumptions that an omega point “exists.”

The first argument is somewhat akin to saying, “Missing links would discredit Genesis, therefore there are no missing links, in spite of the fact that science keeps finding more of them.” The second argument is homologous to, “There are no missing links (fossil evident to the contrary) and therefore Genesis is correct.” Either form of the argument employs an assumption that goes beyond generally accepted science.

What is true is that Tipler’s theory doesn’t require extra-dimensions, a holographic principle, multiple universes or other as yet unproven hypothesis of fundamental physics. Rather than forwarding hypotheses concerning fundamental physics (e.g. a hypothesis that would truly address the information puzzle associated with event horizons) Tipler’s hypotheses assume a background physics that is generally well accepted (semi-classical gravity, quantum field theory and thermodynamics). That’s a plus for Tipler. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Tipler does forward a number of assumptions. Unfortunately they are assumptions that beg his desired conclusion. Worse, they are assumptions (like the universe isn’t expanding or there are no event horizons) that run counter to the current evidence.

A word of explanation: Why do I put “exists” in quotes when paraphrasing Tipler’s conclusion that the omega point “exists”?
Answer: It is alleged that Tipler makes no assumptions that don’t belong to what is generally accepted science. So Tipler doesn’t assume there are multiple universes; i.e. that there is anything outside our own universe. To say something exists is to say it lies within our universe. But the causal boundary of the universe is not something that lies within our own universe. It is an abstract construction that allows mathematicians talk about certain bundles of world-lines as if they were points at infinity outside the universe(much like in the mathematical theory of perspective certain bundles of lines are identified with focal points at infinity). These points don’t exist in the universe. They exist in the heads of mathematicians. At best they exist in Plato’s world of forms. But Tipler can’t assume Plato world of forms; it’s not part of generally accepted science. So Tipler’s omega point can only “exist” as a formal idea in the heads of mathematicians.

I will grant that in these posts you have added to Tipler’s arguments. We now have

Argument 3) If you don’t have the moral stamina to believe each step of the prior arguments you are doomed to perdition. These arguments are designed to save you. Accept or die forever.

Poor Nietsche, he’s no doubt rolling in his grave right now, seeing what Tipler has done to the doctrine of eternal return

You really should read this

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

[loveboof]

I love your post, Loveboof. And I agree with everything you said. If you don’t mind, I would add one more element to your description: the very logic of Christianity. It’s the story of a God who created man in such a way that he had to be saved, and who, to make sure of saving him indeed, gave Himself (as a “son”) to Himself (as a “father”) to satisfied His own wrath, yet is still not satisfied and demands that we act in the definite way you alluded to. An all mighty and omniscient God that gave himself to himself in sacrifice for the reparation of his own creation… Is it because we are born in it that we can’t see the utter absurdity of such a myth? Is it me or are we right in the middle of a schizophrenic delusion?

Yes you're right. As Jamie is apparently a scientist you would think she would abide by logic and assume a more elegant and simple position in all this. Ockham's razor.

@ Jericho, lol.

[martin48]

Jamie - You are convinced of Prof Tipler's thesis and I cannot change that view; but his arguments are not scientific – why do I say that? Science depends on assuming the minimum number of axioms – Tipler makes many more than are necessary. Science depends on objective and rational arguments – Tipler’s arguments are not consistent; neither does each step follow logically from the previous. Science depends on falsifiability – agreed difficult in some scientific disciplines but should always been attempted.
You make great play that (i) there have been few attempts to refute Tipler’s views, and (ii) he is a Professor. The question I ask myself – not so much why so few rebuttals? but why has no one else has taken up his views? OK, I would agree that every generally held view was once believed by one person. But are Tipler’s views in the same vein as Flat Earthers. He’s a “Professor” – well, so am I. Do we cancel each other out?
You want to believe there is a God – far enough! That is a belief but it is not science – nor is it probably capable of being within the domain of scientific explanation – it is not parsimonious, testable and all the other quantities that science demands.
What if – some non-conventional individualistic proposition suggests that on a very large scale, some imaginary lines meet in some dimension – how does that occurrence become “god” – within the normally accepted view of such a concept – deist or theist?
Dear Jamie – Believe what you wish but please do not confuse it with science.


M

[Jamie Michelle]

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Christianity being the religion which claims Jesus Christ, son of God, died for our sins. His many miracles, culminating with the resurrection, acted as proof of his divinity within his lifetime. To this day, the dogma and teachings of the church dictate to us how to act out even the minutiae of our daily lives. What we can eat and when; who we can love and how; what we can even think!

The holy book which is to act as our guide in all this trivia was written by many different men, with many different agendas, from many different time periods. All of whom wrote their gospels many years after the death of Jesus. These gospels were later to be picked through and chosen for canonisation depending on which best suited the ambitions of a small few religious leaders. Warped through multiple translations before reaching us in English, and well before then being spread simply for convenience by the Roman Empire.

Even without highlighting the startling similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus to older mythological stories and more ancient religions, why should we believe a word of what we know about this bronze age fairy tale called 'Christianity'?

Regarding the Christ myth theory, virtually all the items which the Christ myth theorists claim as facts which show the parallels of Christianity with earlier pagan religions are completely fabricated modern claims that can't be found in the historical record. For an excellent discussion on this, see the following video:

"Did Jesus Exist? Shattering the Christ Myth (JP Holding)", rfvidz, March 30, 2012

The above video is an interview of J[ames]. P[atrick]. Holding (author of Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? [Maitland, Fla.: Xulon Press, 2008]) by Dr. Craig Johnson on the topic of the Christ myth theory [1]. See also the below resources regarding the Christ myth theory on J. P. Holding's website:

"Were Bible stories and characters stolen from pagan myths?", Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

"Did Jesus exist?", Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

-----

Note:

1. For the full video of this interview, see "Craig Johnson Video Podcasts", Bethel Christian Fellowship, Agoura Hills, Cal. http://drcraigjohnson.net/podcasts/video/podcast.xml , in particular "Veritas Forum: Shattering the Christ Myth", May 21, 2009 http://bethelchristianfellowship.inf...ythCopyCat.m4v .

##########

Regarding the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity:

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-aspect 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.

For much more on the above, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 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://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

[Jamie Michelle]

Omega point cosmology does not solve the black hole information puzzle, it simply avoids it by hypothesizing a universe that has no event horizons. Tipler’s argument is essentially this:

Argument 1: God exists. The omega point is God because the omega point has the defining characteristic features of God. But the construction of the causal boundary of a model universe won’t result in an omega point unless the model has no event horizons. Therefore there are no event horizons and consequently the black hole information puzzle doesn’t arise in our particular universe.

In this argument the assumption is that God “exists” (or if you prefer, the construction of the causal boundary leads to a unique point on the mathematically constructed boundary, the omega point; i.e. God). That God “exists” is not one of the known laws of the physical universe.

In other places in his book The Physics of Immortality, Tipler takes a different tact.

Argument 2: Tipler invites us to assume the universe has no event horizons (among other assumptions) and proves from those assumptions that an omega point “exists.”

The first argument is somewhat akin to saying, “Missing links would discredit Genesis, therefore there are no missing links, in spite of the fact that science keeps finding more of them.” The second argument is homologous to, “There are no missing links (fossil evident to the contrary) and therefore Genesis is correct.” Either form of the argument employs an assumption that goes beyond generally accepted science.

What is true is that Tipler’s theory doesn’t require extra-dimensions, a holographic principle, multiple universes or other as yet unproven hypothesis of fundamental physics. Rather than forwarding hypotheses concerning fundamental physics (e.g. a hypothesis that would truly address the information puzzle associated with event horizons) Tipler’s hypotheses assume a background physics that is generally well accepted (semi-classical gravity, quantum field theory and thermodynamics). That’s a plus for Tipler. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Tipler does forward a number of assumptions. Unfortunately they are assumptions that beg his desired conclusion. Worse, they are assumptions (like the universe isn’t expanding or there are no event horizons) that run counter to the current evidence.

A word of explanation: Why do I put “exists” in quotes when paraphrasing Tipler’s conclusion that the omega point “exists”?
Answer: It is alleged that Tipler makes no assumptions that don’t belong to what is generally accepted science. So Tipler doesn’t assume there are multiple universes; i.e. that there is anything outside our own universe. To say something exists is to say it lies within our universe. But the causal boundary of the universe is not something that lies within our own universe. It is an abstract construction that allows mathematicians talk about certain bundles of world-lines as if they were points at infinity outside the universe(much like in the mathematical theory of perspective certain bundles of lines are identified with focal points at infinity). These points don’t exist in the universe. They exist in the heads of mathematicians. At best they exist in Plato’s world of forms. But Tipler can’t assume Plato world of forms; it’s not part of generally accepted science. So Tipler’s omega point can only “exist” as a formal idea in the heads of mathematicians.

I will grant that in these posts you have added to Tipler’s arguments. We now have

Argument 3) If you don’t have the moral stamina to believe each step of the prior arguments you are doomed to perdition. These arguments are designed to save you. Accept or die forever.

Poor Nietsche, he’s no doubt rolling in his grave right now, seeing what Tipler has done to the doctrine of eternal return :)

You really should read this

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

Actually, Trish, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988]).

Regarding proposed solutions to the black hole information issue, all except for Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem share the common feature of using new laws of physics that have never been experimentally confirmed--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.) Hence, the end of the universe in finite proper time via collapse before a black hole evaporates is required if unitarity is to remain unviolated (i.e., if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics--which is what the proof of Hawking radiation is derived from--are true statements of how the world works).

It's known that the Bekenstein Bound is required if General Relativity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are to be mutually consistent (e.g., see Bekenstein's papers on this). There's been debate as to the proper form of the Bound (i.e., between the area form of the Bound, and Bekenstein's original energy times radius form of the Bound), but unitarity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics themselves select which form of the Bound is correct as applied to the latter universe's collapse, because if the area form of the Bound were correct in this situation then this gives a direct vioation of the Second Law, as then the universe's entropy must decrease as the radius of the universe goes to zero. So if the area form of the Bound were correct in this situation, then we either preserve the Second Law by not having the universe end in collapse, in which case unitarity is violated; or we preserve unitarity by having the universe end in collapse in finite proper time, in which case the Second Law is violated.

So logically this means that the energy times radius form of the Bekenstein Bound is the correct form to apply to the latter universe's collapse. Yet since the radius of the universe is collapsing to zero, energy must grow at a greater rate than the radius going to zero, otherwise this gives a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for then entropy would be decreasing. But the only way for the energy to grow faster than the radius of the universe going to zero is for event horizons to be eliminated (which generates gravitational shear energy much faster than the radius going to zero), thereby allowing entropy to grow as opposed to decrease, per the energy times radius form of the Bekenstein Bound.

Yet this is by definition the Omega Point cosmology, for by eliminating event horizons the universe is forced to end in a solitary-point final singularity, called the Omega Point.

The foregoing is all that is required to derive the logical necessity of the Omega Point cosmology if the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics are true statements of how the world works (see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper for fuller details, particularly p. 925, see also pp. 904-905). These three known laws of physics, if they are correct, logically require the Omega Point cosmology.

In Prof. Tipler's derivation of this proof, he also notes how an Omega Point final state is of measure zero in initial data space; how the final collapse is chaotic; and how a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated (in this case, the universe's collapse trajectories being intelligently guided). But this part of the proof logically derives intelligence growing without bound going into the final single-point singularity--it is not itself required in order to prove that the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics logically require the Omega Point cosmology. But it is astonishing icing on the cake, i.e., in how the laws of physics work together as a mutually-consistent and mutually-reinforcing unity. And it further reinforces that the Omega Point cosmology--and hence, the known laws of physcs--are correct, as we would not expect the known laws of physics to mesh so perfectly together in buttressing the reality of the Omega Point cosmology if it were incorrect. In the case of event horizon elimination, this is a two-for-one special: event horizon elimination is necessary in order to allow communication (and hence life) to continue, but as an automatic consequence the energy available to life diverges to infinity. Not only does this dovetailing of fundamental physics that allows for the Omega Point cosmology concern the aforesaid details, but numerous others as well, such as particle energy states automatically scaling as the universe collapses, thereby allowing life to encode its mental processes all the way into the final singularity.

The following is Tipler's 2005 paper referred to in the above:

* 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://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.

For much more on the above, see my below article, particularly Sec. 3.1: "The Omega Point" and Appendix A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe":

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 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://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

[trish]

...by eliminating event horizons the universe is forced to end in a solitary-point final singularity, called the Omega Point.

And yet there are event horizons.