The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[trish]

...but I know that I could test their views and their claimed evidence.

and you also know (in most cases) those tests have been carried out repeatedly by scores of independent observers each time confirming the claims and often obtaining another significant digit of accuracy.

[trish]

Very nicely done. Thanks for the link, Stavros.

I have always regarded it an intellectual duty to prove every theorem I quote and use in my own work. Of course that’s a relatively easy thing to do in the theoretical realm. One cannot perform every measurement and do every experiment upon which one wishes to build (though we should ~imo~ understand and critically scrutinize those measurements and experiments).

But what is our intellectual responsibility in ordinary life in domains not pertaining to our professional work? What is a non-expert to make of claims of global warming, the teaching of evolution or the claimed risks of vaccinations against horrible childhood diseases?

The problem of determining which “authorities” deserve your trust become even more acute in this age when misleading the public is now a multi-billion dollar industry. With governance comes responsibilities, and in a democracy it is the citizens and their representatives that ultimately shoulder that responsibility. One of those responsibilites is to base your vote and support (whether it’s for a candidate or a policy) on the most accurate and reliable information currently available.

[trish]

http://nyti.ms/19KagUT

[martin48]

http://nyti.ms/19KagUT

There is scant evidence that rationalism will survive.

[Jamie Michelle]

So, I'm confused, does God exist? :hide-1:

There are no peer reviewed papers in any respected journals (that I know of) claiming to demonstrate the non-existence of God. On the other hand, there are no such papers (that I know of published after the nineteenth century) claiming to use the hypothesis that God exists to explain a physical, chemical or biological phenomenon. On the third hand, there are quite a number of ordained reverends, priests, preachers, bishops etc. who professionally endorse the claim of God's existence and even talk to Him. On the fourth hand, many of them (despite the fact they they all talk to God) disagree about what God says, thinks and intends for us to do. If you actually have the four hands required to follow this nonsense, you're probably the god Kali. :Bowdown:

In answer to Jericho's question: according to the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), God's existence is mathematically unavoidable.

The Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence, is now a mathematical theorem per the aforesaid known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. 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].)

The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies 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.

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 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 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 arithmetical operations 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 using 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 the boundary 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, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article (published under my legal name):

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; 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://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpre...ics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physico...ics-of-God.pdf

Furthermore, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

[broncofan]

In answer to Jericho's question: according to the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), God's existence is mathematically unavoidable.

I've been able to avoid it mathematically.

[martin48]

May I be so bold as to point the interested reader to this

[Prospero]

Thanks Martin. Excellent.

God does exist however in many people's minds. That is undeniable.

[Stavros]

A concise demolition of Tipler's silly views, but if anything I think it demonstrates the trend among some scientists who use mathematics to suggest they can explain everything. As Martin and Trish have pointed out in various threads science cannot explain everything, which suggests Tipler is deluded in believing not only that he can explain everything but that he has the intellectual means to do so. I suppose the question is this: how limited is mathematics as a tool of explanation? Most of the surveillance technology that is used by google or the NSA or GCHQ is based on algorithms that are the compression of data into numbers, but doesn't recognise poetic licence: so to say in an email 'we bombed in New Haven' is not to say we -assuming 'we' to be a terrorist cell- dropped a bomb in Connecticut but that there was a play of that name performed there -but algorithms searching for that sequence of letters that makes 'bomb' would not know this.

[martin48]

Thanks Martin. Excellent.

God does exist however in many people's minds. That is undeniable.

So does Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy