Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
You're applying physics to abstract concepts. You also base this on multiverse theory, which hasn't been proven by physics in any stretch of the imagination. It is a hypothesis, but it doesn't have great empirical evidence, if any.
Keep in mind that the physics of the actual Omega Point don't necessitate a multiverse conception. The physics of the Omega Point itself don't invoke the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Yet given an infinite computational state, the multiverse exists, since the multiverse can easily be rendered with such computational resources.
But beyond that, there exists only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that is the many-worlds interpretation. All other so-called "interpretations" either make no attempt to actually explain quantum phenomena (such as the Statistical Interpretation), or they are merely the many-worlds interpretation in denial (such as David Bohm's pilot-wave interpretation).
Anything that acts on reality is real and exists. Quite strange then that quantum phenomena behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist if in fact they don't exist. If the actual physical nature of the "wave functions" and "pilot waves" are not the other particles in the multiverse, then new physical entities with their own peculiar physics are being invoked: for if these aren't the other particles in the multiverse interacting with the particles in this universe, then we will do well to ask what is their actual physical nature? Pinball flippers, bumpers and ramps? What is their actual physical form, and why do they behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist?
Furthermore, all wave phenomena are nothing more than particle phenomena: there is no particle-wave duality. A wave is simply a collection of particles interacting with each other. It is the particles that actually exist; the wave is simply an action by particles interacting with each other. We see this with waves through, e.g., liquids: the individual molecules are jostled about via interacting with the other molecules. Likewise, a single photon in this universe behaves as a wave because it's interacting with the ocean of its parallel photons in the multiverse.
Prof. Frank J. Tipler points out on pg. 95 of The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), "if the other universes and the multiverse do not exist, then quantum mechanics is objectively false. This is not a question of physics. It is a question of mathematics. I give a mathematical proof of [this] in my earlier book ..." For that, see Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Appendix I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," pp. 483-488.
As well, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the existence of the multiverse: see Frank J. Tipler, "Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds Interpretation," arXiv:quant-ph/0003146, March 30, 2000.
See also David Deutsch, "Comment on Lockwood," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 47, No 2 (June 1996), pp. 222-228; also released as "Comment on '"Many Minds" Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics by Michael Lockwood,'" 1996.
Quantum mechanics is strictly deterministic across the multiverse. If one does away with causation then one also does away with the possibility of explanation, as all explanation is predicated on explicating cause-and-effect relationships. So if by "interpretation" it is meant explanation, then Prof. Deutsch's point in his above paper about there actually only being one known interpretation of quantum mechanics is again found to be inescapable.
And as Deutsch writes in The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), Chapter 9: "Quantum Computers," pg. 217:
""
The argument of Chapter 2, applied to *any* interference phenomenon destroys the classical idea that there is only one universe. Logically, the possibility of complex quantum computations adds nothing to a case that is already unanswerable. But it does add psychological impact. With Shor's algorithm, the argument has been writ very large. To those who still cling to a single-universe world view, I issue this challenge: *explain how Shor's algorithm works*. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor's algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources that can be seen to be present, where was that number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed?
""
See also the below paper by Prof. Tipler:
Frank J. Tipler, "Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates," arXiv:0809.4422, September 25, 2008.
And most leading physicists do accept the Many-Worlds Interpretation as true. The political scientist L. David Raub conducted a poll of 72 leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists regarding their view on the truth of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. The possible answers were: (1) "Yes, I think the MWI is true"; (2) "No, I don't accept the MWI"; (3) "Maybe it's true, but I'm not yet convinced"; and (4) "I have no opinion one way or the other." The results of the poll were: 58% said yes; 18% said no; 13% said maybe; and 11% said no opinion. In the "yes" category were Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, and Murray Gell-Mann, while the "no" answers included Roger Penrose.
I also object to this:
The objection you try to answer is justified. Even if these things are only finite, it does not matter. If the Final Singularity, God, whatever, is responsible for all things, then these evils are most certainly from him/it. Doesn't matter if they're finite or not. They still exist because of him.
Well, of course. But the same criticism applies equally to any conception of God, if God is the Creator of existence.
...What? Also, I'm no physicist, but the assertion that causality goes backwards is accurate in physics doesn't sound entirely like it's something that's accepted by the physics community at large.
Any actual physicist knows that such is the case. This is just pure logic at work here. Any action has an opposite and equal reaction. So if you reverse the causal chains they eventually lead back to the Big Bang singularity.
We humans don't commonly tend to think of causation going in both time directions, because our brains only record what we call the past. But from God's point of view, all of reality (i.e, its entire timeline, from beginning to end) is recorded, and so it makes just as much sense to Him to regard causation as going from what we call future to past.
I'm not sure if things like stopping the sun from moving across the sky (which we now know would mean stopping the Earth from orbiting) don't violate the laws of physics. According to physics, if the Earth suddenly stopped moving, we would all basically be vaporized from the sudden lurch forward at a few thousand miles per hour.
Then they wouldn't be actual laws of physics.
This isn't an arbitray notion that the Christian theologians came up with. It's required by logic. Seriously think about it: God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient.
This is a logical requirement, not an arbitrary doctrine. One might as well strive against the idea that 2+2 = 4.
If we possessed the ultimate physical law, then we would be able to explain miracles. And now we do, and so we can. (Since the quantum gravity Lagrangian is an infinite series [though term-by-term finite], we do not possess the entire law, as that law is infinite, but from what is already known of it, it does require the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics, and so we can analyze physical systems based upon that.)
Regarding Joshua 10:12-14, baryon annihilation can explain this event, whether it was an experience implanted in the minds of people by God, or if God stopped the rotation of the Earth.
And yes, you got that wrong. Stopping the Earth's orbit wouldn't stop the Sun from moving across the sky, as the Earth's orbit around the Sun isn't what causes that. Rather, it's the Earth's rotation about it own axis which causes the Sun to move across the sky. The Earth's orbit around the Sun could stop completely and the Sun would still move across the sky, so long as the Earth's rotation continued. The Earth's rotation moves at about 1038 MPH, or around 1.35 times the speed of sound.
__________________ Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), October 17, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity Theory of Everything [TOE]) To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I didn't write the bible, so you must be thinking of someone else.
Well i guess if you're just regurgitating Tipler's nonsense...
__________________
Give me Scotland or I die - John Knox
A mathematician confided
That a Möbius band is one-sided,
And you'll get quite a laugh,
If you cut one in half,
For it stays in one piece when divided!
Keep in mind that the physics of the actual Omega Point don't necessitate a multiverse conception. The physics of the Omega Point itself don't invoke the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Yet given an infinite computational state, the multiverse exists, since the multiverse can easily be rendered with such computational resources.
But what if the actual nature of the universe is not multiverse? If it is not necessarily invoked in some fashion, then there is a gray area, and the whole idea falls apart. Just because it *could* be rendered with such computational resources (assuming that the universe actually is a giant computer in the first place...), does not mean it has to be.
But beyond that, there exists only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that is the many-worlds interpretation. All other so-called "interpretations" either make no attempt to actually explain quantum phenomena (such as the Statistical Interpretation), or they are merely the many-worlds interpretation in denial (such as David Bohm's pilot-wave interpretation).
I don't think that's true. But now the core of this hypothesis comes out. It relies entirely on the many worlds interpretation. That is not something that is standardized across all of physics. It has found acceptance in many places, but there is still great controversy over how it works, whether or not it's falsifiable, etc.
Well, of course. But the same criticism applies equally to any conception of God, if God is the Creator of existence.
Only conceptions of God that include God as the creator of absolutely everything that exists. Admittedly, this is what most conceptions of the Christian God are.
Any actual physicist knows that such is the case. This is just pure logic at work here. Any action has an opposite and equal reaction. So if you reverse the causal chains they eventually lead back to the Big Bang singularity.
We humans don't commonly tend to think of causation going in both time directions, because our brains only record what we call the past. But from God's point of view, all of reality (i.e, its entire timeline, from beginning to end) is recorded, and so it makes just as much sense to Him to regard causation as going from what we call future to past.
We don't commonly think of causation going in both time directions because it doesn't go in both time directions. Causality is one way. It can (theoretically) be traced backwards, but you can't undo a cause.
This isn't an arbitray notion that the Christian theologians came up with. It's required by logic. Seriously think about it: God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient.
This is a logical requirement, not an arbitrary doctrine. One might as well strive against the idea that 2+2 = 4.
Really? Many theologians think that God is capable of bending the laws of the universe to accomplish miracles. That God does not violate the laws of physics seems, to me, to be a relatively recent invention because now we have realized that violations of the laws of physics would 1. Make God into a deceiver or 2. Cause horrible imbalances in the natural world.
Regarding Joshua 10:12-14, baryon annihilation can explain this event, whether it was an experience implanted in the minds of people by God, or if God stopped the rotation of the Earth.
From what I read, baryon annihilation is another random thing proposed by Tipler in order to make his theory work. I don't find any other refereces to such things anywhere else.
And yes, you got that wrong. Stopping the Earth's orbit wouldn't stop the Sun from moving across the sky, as the Earth's orbit around the Sun isn't what causes that. Rather, it's the Earth's rotation about it own axis which causes the Sun to move across the sky. The Earth's orbit around the Sun could stop completely and the Sun would still move across the sky, so long as the Earth's rotation continued. The Earth's rotation moves at about 1038 MPH, or around 1.35 times the speed of sound.
Yeah, yeah. I was in a hurry at the time. The orbit causes the seasons, the rotation causes the days. Either way, the result is the same. Stopping the rotation of the Earth instantaneously = instagibbed everything.
__________________ Causing confusion one avatar at a time.
We were born to go, We're never turning back We were born to go, and leave a burning track We were born to go, and leave no star unturned We were born to grow, We were born to learn
We're breaking out of the shell, We're breaking free We're hatching our dreams into reality
We were born to blaze, a new clear way through space A way out of the maze, that held the human race We were born to go, as far as we can fly We were born to go, to blow the human mind
Urgh, I was hoping the same Omega Point fanboy wasn't spamming things up in this thread also, but I guess I'll ask my question anyway -
Can someone explain to me how the universe has "computational power"? My main problems with this are:
1. What is the medium for storing information?
2. Wouldn't the organisation of said medium require something external to the universe (much like how a hard drive has to be prepared by an external organiser)?
3. Wouldn't the increase of information storage by the entire universe violate the second law of thermodynamics?
__________________ ____________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Urgh, I was hoping the same Omega Point fanboy wasn't spamming things up in this thread also, but I guess I'll ask my question anyway -
Can someone explain to me how the universe has "computational power"? My main problems with this are:
1. What is the medium for storing information?
The earth of course.
2. Wouldn't the organisation of said medium require something external to the universe (much like how a hard drive has to be prepared by an external organiser)?
Pan-dimensional mice.
3. Wouldn't the increase of information storage by the entire universe violate the second law of thermodynamics?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
