1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

  2. Please check out our two newest forums, the "Buy, Sell or Trade" (link ) forum in the Society Category, and the "Conspiracy Theories" (link) forum in our Discussion and Debate Category.

Physicist Frank J. Tipler at TEDxBrussels: Physics Proves God Exists

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by James Redford, Jan 14, 2011.

  1. James Redford

    James Redford Newbie

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler gave the below presentation at TEDxBrussels--which is the largest TEDx conference in the world--on December 6, 2010 in Brussels, Belgium. Tipler's talk was the headline presentation of the event.

    "TEDx Bussels - Frank Tipler - The Ultimate Future", TEDxTalks, January 14, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNkuJvhyfP0

    TEDxBrussels 2010. http://www.tedxbrussels.eu/2010/index.html

    One can download the video of this presentation below:

    tNkuJvhyfP0.flv
    45699920 bytes
    MD5: a5c508f501010ac241a57d06e7abcf96
    http://rapidshare.com/files/442586522/tNkuJvhyfP0.flv
    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZZATRRR6
    http://depositfiles.com/en/files/tabjyroyd
    http://hotfile.com/dl/96797411/d118601/tNkuJvhyfP0.flv.html
    http://www.zshare.net/video/85231870359d54dd/
    http://uploading.com/files/84f2ab91/tNkuJvhyfP0.flv/

    For the details on what Prof. Tipler spoke about in his above presentation, see his below paper, which in addition to giving the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, also demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God--of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause):

    * 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

    Particularly see pp. 925 and 904-905 of the above Reports on Progress in Physics paper (or pp. 44-45 and 11-12 of the arXiv version) for the proof that the Omega Point cosmology is required per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

    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.

    For the details regarding the point Prof. Tipler made in his presentation about how modern physics (i.e., General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are simply special cases of classical mechanics (i.e., Newtonian mechanics, and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation), see the following articles:

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics", September 20, 2008. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271310

    * Maurice J. Dupré and Frank J. Tipler, "General Relativity As an Æther Theory", arXiv:1007.4572, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572

    * Frank J. Tipler, "Hamilton-Jacobi Many-Worlds Theory and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", arXiv:1007.4566, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4566

    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 quantum field theory and computation theory. 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.

    ##########################################

    As stated above, Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

    Below are some more of the peer-reviewed papers in science and physics journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology:

    * Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X.

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://www.webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T.

    * Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://www.webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5

    * Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://www.webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS

    * Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://www.webcitation.org/5nY13xRip Full proceedings volume: http://www.webcitation.org/5nwu4fT31

    * Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://www.webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

    * Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://www.webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

    * 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://www.webcitation.org/5nx3CxKm0 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

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

    Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

    Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

    The peer-reviewed journal Reports on Progress in Physics--in which Prof. Tipler published the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) with his aforecited 2005 paper--is described above.

    For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper in addition to the following resources:

    * "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics", TetrahedronOmega, December 26, 2008 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=libertyandtruth

    * Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com

    The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theorem is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

    Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying 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.

    -----

    Note:

    1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing fundamentally wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
     
  2. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    Messages:
    3,355,819
    Likes Received:
    8,569
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nothing like good faith-destroying science to explain our God, is there?

    We can all please God by sight now, can't we?

    I'll stick with this:

    Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


    And Tipler and his physics can take a hike.
     
  3. James Redford

    James Redford Newbie

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as 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. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events that are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world. As Augustine of Hippo wrote concerning miracles (The City of God, Book 21, Ch. 8; cf. Romans 1:19,20),

    ""
    For we say that all portents are contrary to nature; but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature.
    ""

    That is, traditional Christian theology has maintained that if we had the ultimate physical law, then we would be able to explain how God's existence and His miracles are possible. According to the known laws of physics, we now have that ultimate physical law, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, and so we are now able to explain God's existence and His miracles.

    The English word miracle etymologically means "object of wonder". The Old Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Hebrew: oth, "sign, token"; mopheth, "sign, wonder"; and pala, "marvelous, wondrous". The New Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Greek: dunamis, "power, mighty work"; semeion, "sign"; and teras, "wonder". So the meaning of these words in their Biblical context has nothing to do with violating natural law.

    Nor does the fact that God has been proven to exist according to the known laws of physics leave no room for faith. Recall that Jesus Christ in part defined Himself as the truth (John 14:6). Hence, truth, particularly scientific truth, confirms the existence of God and Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.

    Faith in the Christian sense is trust in the truth (i.e., equivalently, trust in Jesus Christ), even when things seem hopeless. It does not mean a lack of rationality in coming to belief in Jesus Christ. Indeed, Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God:

    ""
    because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ...
    ""

    After all, some form of reason must be used in order for a person to convert in belief from one religion to another; or from any belief to another belief, for that matter. It can either be veridical reason, or false reason--but some process of reasoning must be involved.

    Having faith in God is having trust in the truth, since the Godhead in all its fullness is the highest obtainment of truth: said state is the perfection of all knowledge.
     
  4. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    Messages:
    3,355,819
    Likes Received:
    8,569
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since when has God been proven to exist according to the known laws of physics?

    The known laws of physics have changed over time more than I change my clothes.
    Scientific truth is a contradiction in terms.
     
  5. James Redford

    James Redford Newbie

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    As Prof. Frank J. Tipler points out in his TEDx presentation, the known laws of modern physics (i.e., General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are simply special cases of classical mechanics (i.e., Newtonian mechanics, and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation). For the details on that, see the following articles:

    * Frank J. Tipler, "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics", September 20, 2008. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271310

    * Maurice J. Dupré and Frank J. Tipler, "General Relativity As an Æther Theory", arXiv:1007.4572, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572

    * Frank J. Tipler, "Hamilton-Jacobi Many-Worlds Theory and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", arXiv:1007.4566, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4566

    Science and Christianity have been closely intertwined since the birth of science. A myth was developed in the late 19th century by antitheistic supporters of Karl Marx and Charles Darwin that science and religion are mortal enemies and polar opposites.

    Both the university system and the field of natural science as a systematic discipline are the inventions of Christianity. The Christian Weltanschauung was a unique develpment in the history of thought, since it held that God is rational and that (unlike in, e.g., Judaism or Islam) the mind of God could be better known through the systematic study of His creation--as opposed to the arbitrary and capricious gods of the ancient Greeks and Romans. It was this change in worldview which made systematic study into the physical world possible. Jesus Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck, and along with it the rest of the world.

    For much more on this, see the below article and book by Prof. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.:

    "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization", LewRockwell.com, May 2, 2005 http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

    How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005). http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895260387

    Here one can obtain Chapter 3: "How the Monks Saved Civilization" from the above book for free: http://www.catholicchurchbook.com/offers/offer.php?id=CH001

    Natural science as a discipline in the modern sense didn't exist before the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution began with the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. Before then, what existed in the Western intellectual world (going all the way back to the Greeks) was Aristotelianism, which held to geocentrism based upon philisophical ideals. This lead to the persecution of Galileo Galilei, which was demanded by the Aristotelian academics of the time in order to protect their bailiwick; the actual churchmen and the pope were quite enthusiastic about Galileo's observations confirming heliocentrism, but caved-in to the demands of the Aristotelian academics. For the details on that, see:

    Prof. Jerry Bergman, "The Great Galileo Myth", Investigator, No. 95 (March 2004), pp. 36-47. http://web.archive.org/web/20071212222840/http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm
    http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm

    Many of the top names in the history of science have been deeply devout Christians, such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and Max Planck, just to name a few. For these men, their scientific investigations were driven by their desire to better know the intellect of God.
     
  6. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    Messages:
    3,355,819
    Likes Received:
    8,569
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm second to none here in saying that I hold science up to a Higher Standard, and that God gifts us scientists so we can have a better life in these end-times; and I'm also on record here as stating that -- in my opinion -- God's two choices for seeing Him in nature are astronomy (Psalm 19) and geology (Luke 19:40); but in today's science, where man has disregarded Paul's admonition to refrain from holding the Periodic Table of the Elements over Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:8), I feel that God cannot be found by latter-day [mundane] scientific reasoning alone.
     
  7. Bushido216

    Bushido216 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,339
    Likes Received:
    128
    Marital Status:
    Engaged
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Catholic
    Virgin birth? Water into wine? Walking on water? The Epiphany? The Ascension?

    To quote the immortal Liz Lemon:

    "What the wha?"

    Jesus feeds five thousand. Jesus RISES FROM THE DEAD. Lazarus.

    I don't understand how Christianity and God not going beyond the laws of nature can possibly savvy, but to each their own I suppose.
     
  8. James Redford

    James Redford Newbie

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    That's according to traditional Christian theology. God violating His own laws would make no sense. After all, they're His laws. Moreover, the idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient, since it would mean that God failed to foresee that a better set of laws would be required in order to accomplish His goal.

    God does go beyond the laws of physics, but that is not the same as God violating the laws of physics. Infinity does not violate arithmetic. Rather, arithmetic does not apply to infinity, since infinity is not a number on the real line, which is the open interval of (-infinity, +infinity). This is the exact reason why no possible laws of physics can apply to the cosmological singularity (i.e., the uncaused first cause, i.e., God), because physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and hence it's not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction (and hence multiplication or division) in which to apply a physics equation to said infinite values.

    The Standard Model of particle physics provides the mechanism by which the miracles recorded in the New Testament can be achieved without violating any known laws of physics, even if one were to assume that we currently don't exist on a level of implementation in a computer simulation (in that case, then such miracles would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation, even though it would seem amazing from our perspective). This process uses baryon annihilation, and its inverse, via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the cosmological end state of the Omega Point (since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity). If the coming of Jesus Christ and the miracles that He performed were necessary in order to lead to the Omega Point, then the probability of said event occuring is exactly 1: certain to happen.
     
  9. Exiledoomsayer

    Exiledoomsayer Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this

    Messages:
    2,188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    He does not break the law, he's above the law.
    Right thanks for clearing that up thats so totally different.

    Regarding Tiplers arguement I watched the video clip but I am not sure I follow his reasoning. Particulary he tries to argue that we cannot possibly destroy ourselfs even if we think we can, but he does not back this up at all as far as I can see other then to state that if we did there would be no intelligent life in the future.

    So if we cant destroy ourselfs because then his arguement fails.
    His arguement cant fail because we cant destroy ourself.

    err okay either thats circular or I did not hear his reason.

    edit:
    Interestingly enough near the end of the vid he suddenly decides not only is the omega point filled with the knowledge we as life aquire through time and can be called god. But that it is certainly the judeochristian god, dispite that even if you accept his entire arguement that does not follow.


    To sum the whole thing up as I understand it he says.
    1. We are smart now, in the future we will be even smarter.
    2. We will be so smart we can simulate the universe so we can see what happened before.
    3. This simulation will be so good that we created our own universe from the past people included.
    4. for some reason this will mean all those people come back to life in this simulation but they cannot die again.
    5. As such in the future we are god.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2011
  10. That's pretty much what I got out of it, doomsayer, although you summarize it well.
     
  11. TheReasoner

    TheReasoner Former christian, current teapot agnostic.

    Messages:
    10,533
    Likes Received:
    131
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Atheist
    If science destroys faith, then faith is weak and based on premises which contradict observations of the physical world around us. That is to say: Does a faith which relies on the universe being "wrong" while a subjective and human idea is somehow right and "better"/"more true" than the objective laws of nature have any right to life whatsoever?

    Science cannot disprove or shatter any true belief. Sure, paradigms we adopt may fail to explain reality perfectly, but that is pretty much self evident to any serious scientist. So that is to say, while a faith can certainly survive inconsistencies and disagreements with a given scientific paradigm it cannot and should not survive if it relies on a radical and diametrical opposition to solid empirical evidence across multiple/all fields in natural science. Which happens to be the case for example for young earth creationism.

    A strong faith will not only survive the believer discovering that he or she is wrong on a particular topic. It is also humble and quite easily survives scrutiny and criticism. It is - in my opinion - a poor faith which is so rigid it cannot survive the believer being wrong on issues such as (but certainly not limited to) the area where it may find itself challenged or contradicted by science.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2011
  12. James Redford

    James Redford Newbie

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    That's just standard physics. 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 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.

    On p. 179 of the The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), Hawking wrote "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."

    Agnostic and physicist Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), p. 113:

    ""
    This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause] is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.
    ""

    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.

    You didn't understand Prof. Frank J. Tipler's argument. Here it is:

    ----------

    Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point Theory

    based on articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler; see:

    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, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

    Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. http://theophysics.chimehost.net/pdf/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

    Frank Tipler, "The Omega Point and Christianity," Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23. http://theophysics.chimehost.net/tipler-omega-point-and-christianity.html

    Frank J. Tipler, "From 2100 to the End of Time," Wired. http://theophysics.chimehost.net/tipler-from-2100-to-the-end-of-time.html , http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/wired.html

    ----------

    Astrophysical black holes (i.e., trapped surfaces) exist, but Hawking [1, 2] and Wald [3] have shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and a fundamental quantum law called "unitarity" will be violated. Unitarity, which roughly says that probability must be conserved, thus requires that the universe must cease to exist after finite proper time, which implies that the universe is closed and has the spatial topology of a 3-sphere [4]. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the amount of entropy--the amount of disorder--in the universe cannot decrease, but Ellis and Coule [5] and Tipler [6] have shown that the amount of entropy already in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence of horizons the Bekenstein Bound states the universal entropy S is less than or equal that constant (i.e., the Bekenstein Bound) times the radius of the universe squared, and general relativity requires the radius of the universe to go to zero at the final singularity. If there are no horizons then the gravitational shear energy due to the collapse of the universe itself will increase to infinity much faster than the radius of the universe going to zero at the final singularity [6, 7]. The absence of event horizons by definition means that the universe's future c-boundary (causal boundary) is a single point [8], call it the Omega Point. MacCallum [9] has shown that a 3-sphere closed universe with a single point future c-boundary is of measure zero in initial data space (i.e., infinitely improbable acting only under blind and dead forces). Barrow [10, 11], Cornish and Levin [12] and Motter [13] have shown that the evolution of a 3-sphere closed universe into its final singularity is chaotic. Yorke et al. [14, 15] have shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated. Thus life (which near the final state, is really collectively intelligent computers) must be present all the way into the final singularity in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times. Misner [16, 17, 18] has shown in effect that event horizon elimination requires an infinite number of distinct manipulations, so an infinite amount of information must be processed between now and the final singularity. The amount of information stored at any time diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached, since the total entropy of the universe (i.e., S) diverges to infinity there, requiring divergence of the complexity of the system that must be understood to be controlled.

    During life's expansion throughout the universe, baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling, which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved) is used for life's energy requirements and for rocket propulsion for interstellar travel. In the process, the annililation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse [7, 19, 20].

    References:

    [1] S. W. Hawking, "Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse," Physical Review D, Vol. 14, Issue 10 (November 1976), pp. 2460-2473.
    [2] Stephen Hawking's paper which attempts to solve the black hole information issue without the universe collapsing is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). That is, it's based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005). Also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
    [3] Robert M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), ISBN 0226870251, Section 7.3, pp. 182-185.
    [4] John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, "The closed-universe recollapse conjecture," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223 (December 1986), pp. 835-844. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.223..835B
    [5] G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, "Life at the end of the universe?," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 (July 1994), pp. 731-739.
    [6] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0198519494, Appendix C: "The Bekenstein Bound," pg. 410. Said Appendix is reproduced in Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics," arXiv, November 28, 2001, Section 2: "Apparent Inconsistences in the Physical Laws in the Early Universe," Subsection a: "Bekenstein Bound Inconsistent with Second Law of Thermodynamics." http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111520
    [7] Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. http://theophysics.chimehost.net/pdf/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058
    [8] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ISBN 0521200164, pp. 217-221.
    [9] Malcolm A. H. MacCallum, "On the mixmaster universe problem," Nature--Physical Science, Vol. 230 (March 1971), pp. 112-3.
    [10] John D. Barrow, "Chaotic behaviour in general relativity," Physics Reports, Vol. 85, Issue 1 (May 1982), pp. 1-49.
    [11] John D. Barrow and Janna Levin, "Chaos in the Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 80, Issue 4 (January 1998), pp. 656-659. Also at arXiv, June 20, 1997. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9706065
    [12] Neil J. Cornish and Janna J. Levin, "Mixmaster universe: A chaotic Farey tale," Physical Review D, Vol. 55, Issue 12 (June 1997), pp. 7489-7510. Also at arXiv, December 30, 1996. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9612066
    [13] Adilson E. Motter, "Relativistic Chaos is Coordinate Invariant," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91, Issue 23, Art. No. 231101 (December 2003), four pages. Also at arXiv, December 7, 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0305020
    [14] Troy Shinbrot, Edward Ott, Celso Grebogi and James A. Yorke, "Using chaos to direct trajectories to targets," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 65, Issue 26 (December 1990), pp. 3215-3218.
    [15] Troy Shinbrot, William Ditto, Celso Grebogi, Edward Ott, Mark Spano and James A. Yorke, "Using the sensitive dependence of chaos (the 'butterfly effect') to direct trajectories in an experimental chaotic system," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 68, Issue 19 (May 1992), pp. 2863-2866.
    [16] Charles W. Misner, "The Isotropy of the Universe," Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 151 (February 1968), pp. 431-457. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...151..431M
    [17] Charles W. Misner, "Quantum Cosmology. I," Physical Review, Vol. 186, Issue 5 (October 1969), pp. 1319-1327.
    [18] Charles W. Misner, "Mixmaster Universe," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 22, Issue 20 (May 1969), pp. 1071-1074.
    [19] 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, Section 11: "Solution to the cosmological constant problem: the universe and life in the far future." 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, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
    [20] Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing. But as the following paper demonstrates, there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse: Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 (October 1999), pp. 1453-1459. Also at arXiv, April 1, 1999. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 The reason for that is because that is dependant on the actions of sapient life in annihilating baryons.
     
  13. Nostromo

    Nostromo Brian Blessed can take a hike

    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Atheist
    I'm pretty sure he did too much LSD back in the day.
     
  14. Chesterton

    Chesterton Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

    Messages:
    8,293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Back in the day? I think he's still truckin'. :D
     
  15. LittleLambofJesus

    LittleLambofJesus I AM WHAT I AM

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    2,024
    Gender:
    Male
    Faith:
    Christian-Seeker
    Ahhh.......those were the days [not that I did LSD mind ya] :p

    YouTube - Eddie Kendricks - Keep on Truckin
     
  16. Chesterton

    Chesterton Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

    Messages:
    8,293
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Eastern-Orthodox
    Actually Tipler reminds me of this song. I think his physics are informed by Hawkwind and hallucinogens. :)

    Some YouTube comment said "my second son was born to this song". (NOT RECOMMENDED.)

    YouTube - Hawkwind - Born To Go (1971)
     
  17. Exiledoomsayer

    Exiledoomsayer Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this

    Messages:
    2,188
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Okay I read it again, thanks for that it was quite nice to be able to read aswell as listen.

    However I still do not quite see where my summary differs from what he is saying.

    Perhaps you could in your own words sum up what the arguement is.
    And after that show me where I went wrong?
     
  18. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    Messages:
    17,616
    Likes Received:
    115
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    A lot of his "proofs" seem to be nothing but assertions. For example, he claims that since we communicate with each other that when the biosphere engulphs the universe that we will be able to communicate over its entire breath. That makes no sense. Is he talking about communicating in real time? Were the Aztecs able to communicate with the Chinese? Did the Mississipians of North America communicate with the English? No.
     
  19. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    Messages:
    17,616
    Likes Received:
    115
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Is TEDx an acronym of something?
     
  20. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    Messages:
    17,616
    Likes Received:
    115
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Two more questions:

    Will all this occur before Heat Death of the universe?

    How does this guy know our species will not become extinct before we leave the solar system? For example, if a star goes supernova too close to us, the resulting gamma radiation will kill us off. What is preventing such a situation from occurring?
     
Loading...