Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

[Chesterton]

If you mean the idea that conscious awareness collapses the wavefunction, that's one version of the Copenhagen interpretation, but has so many problems that it's been long-abandoned by the mainstream. The point is that Copenhagen interpretations posit a collapse of the wavefunction, then go looking for possible mechanisms by which it could happen.

When a wave becomes a particle, that represents "collapse of the wavefunction", doesn't it?

You're welcome. No, to date there's no way to empirically distinguish the various interpretations - they all satisfy the quantum formalism. Having said that, Occam's razor suggests that, given equally explanatory hypotheses, the one with fewest assumptions should be selected, which would favour 'Many Worlds' (the many worlds are the result of a single assumption - that the formalism is all there is). However, if the interpretations are (as yet) untestable and unfalsifiable, it's arguable whether they count as scientific hypotheses.

MW requires an infinity of assumptions. Accepting the observer effect merely requires we accept what we consistently experimentally demonstrate.

I watched it up to the Born rule problem description, and it is a mess of misleading or mistaken assertions - in particular, the claim of the central role for an observer, which is only the case for the now defunct 'conscious collapse' version of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Is it really defunct? When you said that in your last post, I dug around. All I could find was a poll of physicists from 1997 where Copenhagen was the most popular, and a later one in 2014 where Copenhagen was more popular by an even greater margin.

However, contrary to what the video says, there is a logical derivation of the Born rule in MWI (which doesn't need 'Many Minds' - this is a red-herring),...

But in your last post you mentioned that "...there will be a superposition of the observer, resulting in a version of that observer for each measurement outcome."

...which involves how a rational observer should assign a credence of being on a particular branch of the wavefunction (i.e. which measurement outcome they'll observe) after the measurement has occurred, but before they become aware of it; IOW, after the interaction between the quantum system being measured and the measuring instrument, but before the observer knows what's happened.

Doesn't the "delayed choice eraser" experiment take care of that?

Physicist Sean Carroll wrote a paper on this called "Many Worlds, the Born Rule, and Self-Locating Uncertainty", but if you find it too technical, he's written a very readable blog post explaining the whole business.

He does the same thing - introduces the possibility of other "branches", other "worlds". There's nothing illogical about it, nothing that can be disproven, but the same can be said of unicorns and mermaids. I don't see how that is science.

Singularities (I take it you mean cosmological singularities, such as black holes?)...

I mean Tipler's Omega Point.

 

[James Redford]

Can you provide a link to an experiment that confirms it? There are many, hundreds, that seem to confirm Copenhagen.

All experiments ever conducted confirm the Many-World's Interpretation.

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.

As well, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the existence of the multiverse. For the details on that, see the following articles:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Vol. 111, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 2014), pp. 11281-11286, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324238111, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/31/11281.full.pdf , WebCite query result .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology", Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Feb. 10, 2012), Art. No. 1250019, 6 pp., doi:10.1142/S0217732312500198, bibcode: 2012MPLA...2750019T, https://webcitation.org/6F9YgJKkD , Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology .

Prof. Frank J. Tipler also points out on p. 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), App. I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", pp. 483-488.

See also the following paper by the leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device):

* David Deutsch, "Comment on Lockwood", British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 47, No. 2 (June 1996), pp. 222-228, doi:10.1093/bjps/47.2.222; also released as "Comment on '"Many Minds" Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics by Michael Lockwood'", 1996, Comment on “‘Many Minds’ Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics” by Michael Lockwood , WebCite query result .

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 Prof. Deutsch writes in The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), Ch. 9: "Quantum Computers", p. 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, Sept. 25, 2008, https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4422 .

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.

 

[James Redford]

You spammed again.

Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.

Further, such a tactic is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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 , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

 

[James Redford]

Copy-past spam to claim he never spammed.

Cool ZERO citations on you non-peer reviewed 186 page homage to Tipler the hack!

Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.

Further, such a tactic is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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 , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.

Further, such a tactic is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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 , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

<sigh>

More spam about spam. You are using a far too limited definition:

"Techopedia explains Spam


The most common form of spam is email spam, but the term also applies to any message sent electronically that is unsolicited and bulk. This includes: instant message spam, search engine spam, blog spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, wiki spam, classified ads spam, Internet forum spam, social media spam, junk fax spam, and so on."

Bolding mine.

What is Spam? - Definition from Techopedia

Now you know that you are spamming the forum.

 

[James Redford]

Not really. There are many interpretations and they all attempt to explain the phenomenology of QM in a manner consistent with the formalism. 'Many Worlds' is the most parsimonious.

In 'Many Worlds', branches of the wavefunction can only interact until decoherence has occurred - which, in normal situations, occurs very rapidly. So once decoherence has occurred, there can be no interactions between branches (strictly, the probability of interaction is negligible).

In QM, particles are excitations of quantum fields, i.e. they're waves. The wavefunction is a function of the quantum state of the system that provides the probabilities of the possible outcomes of interactions between (quantum) systems. This has a well-defined mathematical formalism, but what it means in physically intelligible terms is unclear - which is why there are multiple interpretations. The wavefunction may be a mathematical representation of a physically (objectively) real phenomenon, but there's no requirement that we should be able to conceptualise it in familiar terms.

This does not appear to be consistent with quantum field theory, which is the most successful physical theory we currently have.

But I look forward to the successful confirmation of the novel predictions of the hypothesis you describe and its adoption as a new paradigm

In the Many-World's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, the other particles in the multiverse are every bit as real as they are in this universe. In addition to the resources which I already provided on this, see also the following book by the leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device): The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997).

 

[James Redford]

There is currently no empirical means of distinguishing between interpretations, they're all consistent with the QM formalism which describes the expected results of experiments.

The Copenhagen interpretation, in its various guises, is slowly falling out of favour among physicists who take an interest in the metaphysics of QM as it invokes an unexplained ad-hoc and instantaneous hypothetical physical event, the collapse of the wavefunction, which is not part of the quantum formalism. It's remarkable that it has persisted for so long.

That's a popular misconception, but that is false. Experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the existence of the multiverse. For the details on that, see the following articles:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Vol. 111, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 2014), pp. 11281-11286, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324238111, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/31/11281.full.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6WeupHQoM .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology", Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Feb. 10, 2012), Art. No. 1250019, 6 pp., doi:10.1142/S0217732312500198, bibcode: 2012MPLA...2750019T, https://webcitation.org/6F9YgJKkD , Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology .

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler also points out on p. 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), App. I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", pp. 483-488.

See also the below paper by Prof. Tipler:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates", arXiv:0809.4422, Sept. 25, 2008, Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates .

 

[James Redford]

That's true, 'Many Worlds' doesn't involve collapse of the wavefunction.

I was going by the Omega Point Cosmology summary on Wikipedia:

"Tipler argues that quantum mechanics is inconsistent unless the future of every point in spacetime contains an intelligent observer to collapse the wavefunction, and that the only way for this to happen is if the Universe is closed (that is, it will collapse to a single point) and yet contains observers with a "God-like" ability to perform an unbounded series of observations in finite time."


I don't know if this is a reasonable summary of Tipler's position, or how it can be reconciled with a 'Many Worlds' interpretation. Given James Redford's TLDR posts, I have neither the time nor inclination to find out...

No, it's not an accurate summary. Since you yourself are not interested in studying this issue, then you oughtn't even bother to comment on it. Prof. Murray N. Rothbard noted that "it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters." (See p. 6 of id., "The Anatomy of the State", Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 [Summer 1965], pp. 1-24, https://mises.org/system/tdf/rampart_summer1965_2.pdf?file=1&type=document , WebCite query result .) So your form of disinterest in this subject is nothing rare. Simply be on your way and stop troubling yourself about it.

 

[James Redford]

It seems simple to me. Copenhagen simply describes what is empirically observed, whereas "many worlds" looks at what is empirically observed and says "No wait! There's more to it." But the "more" (the multiverse) is something imaginary to the extent that the scientific method can't even be used on it.

As the leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device) has pointed out, it's precisely anti-realist "interpretations" of Quantum Mechanics such as the Copenhagen Interpretations that have necessarily lead to mystical conceptions surrounding Quantum Mechanics, since it's not at all clear what counts as an "observation" which magically and nonobservationally collapses the wave-function, whereas the Many-World's Interpretation is far more parsimonious, since no collapse of the wave-function is posited.

I tried to look into Tipler when James was posting here some years ago. I seem to remember the observer effect and collapse playing a part in the theory. And I don't remember multiverse being mentioned.

Your memory on this is false, or you were studying something else. However, as it just so coincidentally occurs, an article has been written on this very topic.

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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 , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's a popular misconception, but that is false. Experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the existence of the multiverse. For the details on that, see the following articles:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Vol. 111, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 2014), pp. 11281-11286, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324238111, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/31/11281.full.pdf , WebCite query result .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology", Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Feb. 10, 2012), Art. No. 1250019, 6 pp., doi:10.1142/S0217732312500198, bibcode: 2012MPLA...2750019T, WebCite query result , Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology .

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler also points out on p. 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), App. I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", pp. 483-488.

See also the below paper by Prof. Tipler:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates", arXiv:0809.4422, Sept. 25, 2008, Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates .

Do you have any valid sources? Your articles all seem to the work of a man that is widely acknowledged to be a loon:

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1212: Frank Tipler

 

[James Redford]

Aren't you here admitting the observer effect as the cause of collapse?

I appreciate the thorough reply. Is there a way to scientifically test the MW interpretation?

You mind watching a 16 minute video which objects to MW? (I'm just a layman, I get my dumbed-down information from various sources intended for laymen, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad information.) If not, would you at least watch at the 4:30 mark where a problem with applying the Born rule is discussed.

And for @James Redford - if every wave branches out into many worlds, how can you get a singularity? Branching out is sort of the opposite of converging.

As it just so coincidentally occurs, an article has been written on this very topic.

God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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 , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

Actually I looked around and found Tipler discussing it. My memory must be bad. He is definitely a MW guy. And says the wavefunction is not a probability amplitude, rather is "a relative density in the multiverse amplitude". What?

 

[James Redford]

If you mean the idea that conscious awareness collapses the wavefunction, that's one version of the Copenhagen interpretation, but has so many problems that it's been long-abandoned by the mainstream. The point is that Copenhagen interpretations posit a collapse of the wavefunction, then go looking for possible mechanisms by which it could happen.

You're welcome. No, to date there's no way to empirically distinguish the various interpretations - they all satisfy the quantum formalism. ...

No they don't. That's a popular misconception. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler points out on p. 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), App. I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", pp. 483-488.

Further, non-realist versions of Quantum Mechanics (i.e., those other than the Many-World's Interpretation) violate General/Special Relativity. Experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the existence of the multiverse. For the details on that, see the following articles:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Vol. 111, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 2014), pp. 11281-11286, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324238111, https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/31/11281.full.pdf , WebCite query result .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology", Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Feb. 10, 2012), Art. No. 1250019, 6 pp., doi:10.1142/S0217732312500198, bibcode: 2012MPLA...2750019T, WebCite query result , Nonlocality as Evidence for a Multiverse Cosmology .

See also the below paper by Prof. Tipler:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates", arXiv:0809.4422, Sept. 25, 2008, Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates .

... Having said that, Occam's razor suggests that, given equally explanatory hypotheses, the one with fewest assumptions should be selected, which would favour 'Many Worlds' (the many worlds are the result of a single assumption - that the formalism is all there is). However, if the interpretations are (as yet) untestable and unfalsifiable, it's arguable whether they count as scientific hypotheses.

I watched it up to the Born rule problem description, and it is a mess of misleading or mistaken assertions - in particular, the claim of the central role for an observer, which is only the case for the now defunct 'conscious collapse' version of the Copenhagen interpretation.

However, contrary to what the video says, there is a logical derivation of the Born rule in MWI (which doesn't need 'Many Minds' - this is a red-herring), which involves how a rational observer should assign a credence of being on a particular branch of the wavefunction (i.e. which measurement outcome they'll observe) after the measurement has occurred, but before they become aware of it; IOW, after the interaction between the quantum system being measured and the measuring instrument, but before the observer knows what's happened.

Physicist Sean Carroll wrote a paper on this called "Many Worlds, the Born Rule, and Self-Locating Uncertainty", but if you find it too technical, he's written a very readable blog post explaining the whole business.

Singularities (I take it you mean cosmological singularities, such as black holes?) are unrelated to the branching of the wavefunction - a cosmological singularity is where Einstein's General Relativity equations stop producing sensible answers (they give infinities), which means we don't have a theory to describe what happens there. It's generally assumed that, as quantum effects are expected to dominate in these phenomena, we need a quantum gravity description - but we don't have a formulation of quantum gravity that works in these extreme situations.
As far as Many Worlds is concerned, any or all branches can contain singularities, just as they can contain any other celestial objects.

The wavefunction is often described as a probability density function for measurement outcomes, so if, on measurement, each possible outcome is realised (as in MWI), Tipler's phrase would seem to be an alternative (rather opaque) way to view it, although it does seem to be vague about the timing - as I understand it, those outcome possibilities don't become real branches of the multiverse until a measurement is made, so by Tipler, the wavefunction describes a relative density amplitude of the potential or latent multiverse. But with Tipler, it's hard to tell how much of his description is bafflegab & misdirection to suit his agenda.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68, WebCite query result , https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7k4r80YepnxNjNOX2x0XzBOV00/edit .)

* 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, https://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs . First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C, https://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R, https://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd .

* 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, https://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 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 (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114, https://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T, https://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 .

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

[Continued in a following post.]

 

[James Redford]

[Continued from a previous post.]

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694, WebCite query result . Full proceedings volume: WebCite query result .

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998), WebCite query result .

* 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, Mar. 20, 2000, Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a... . Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T, WebCite query result .

* 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, Apr. 1, 2001, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 . Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T, https://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 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 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://dauns01.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, Apr. 24, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193, https://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp .

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.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--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 website, ca. 2006, https://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , https://archive.is/pKD3y .)

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 much more on these matters, see my previously-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

* Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist, http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.epizy.com , http://theophysics.host56.com .

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated known laws of physics, 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 cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology. 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].)

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.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (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 and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem 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 these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

* * * * *

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the 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.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

 

[James Redford]

<sigh>

More spam about spam. You are using a far too limited definition:

"Techopedia explains Spam


The most common form of spam is email spam, but the term also applies to any message sent electronically that is unsolicited and bulk. This includes: instant message spam, search engine spam, blog spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, wiki spam, classified ads spam, Internet forum spam, social media spam, junk fax spam, and so on."

Bolding mine.

What is Spam? - Definition from Techopedia

Now you know that you are spamming the forum.

Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.

Further, such a tactic is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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 , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

 

[Subduction Zone]

No they don't. That's a popular misconception. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler points out on p. 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), App. I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", pp. 483-488.

There look at that, much better. A simple claim and a source that backs it up. Unfortunately it is from the same loon that is always referred to. In the world of the sciences if one can only find one person with a particular viewpoint, and it is wildly different from the viewpoints of others, and to boot he cannot support it without circular arguments and abuses of terminology, then the odds are enormous that that person is a loon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.

Further, such a tactic is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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 , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

There are no "standard sources". And mainstream sources are often years behind the time. For a technological problem it is best to use a technological source. I could find others for you. Face facts, you are guilty of spamming the thread.

Try to find valid sources. Limit your posts. Don't repeat yourself. When you violate these basic rules time after time you are spamming by modern defintions.

 

[James Redford]

Do you have any valid sources? Your articles all seem to the work of a man that is widely acknowledged to be a loon:

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #1212: Frank Tipler

The author of that blog is himself a loon. See my replies to him in the very blog-post of his which you link to.

To answer your first sentence, physicist and mathematician 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 as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68, WebCite query result , Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip .)

* 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, WebCite query result . First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C, WebCite query result .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R, WebCite query result .

* 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, https://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 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 (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114, https://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T, https://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 .

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694, https://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O . Full proceedings volume: https://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT .

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

* 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, Mar. 20, 2000, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T, https://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, Apr. 1, 2001, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 . Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T, https://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 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 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://dauns01.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, Apr. 24, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193, https://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp .

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.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--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 website, ca. 2006, https://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , https://archive.is/pKD3y .)

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 much more on these matters, see my previously-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

* Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist, http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.epizy.com , http://theophysics.host56.com .

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated known laws of physics, 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 cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology. 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].)

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.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (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 and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem 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 these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

 

[James Redford]

There are no "standard sources". And mainstream sources are often years behind the time. For a technological problem it is best to use a technological source. I could find others for you. Face facts, you are guilty of spamming the thread.

Try to find valid sources. Limit your posts. Don't repeat yourself. When you violate these basic rules time after time you are spamming by modern defintions.

Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.

Further, such a tactic is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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 , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

 

[Subduction Zone]

The author of that blog is himself a loon. See my replies to him in the very blog-post of his which you link to.

To answer your first sentence, physicist and mathematician 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 as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68, WebCite query result , Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip .)

* 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, WebCite query result . First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C, WebCite query result .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R, WebCite query result .

* 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, WebCite query result .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 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 (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114, WebCite query result .

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

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694, https://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O . Full proceedings volume: https://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT .

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

* 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, Mar. 20, 2000, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T, https://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, Apr. 1, 2001, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 . Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T, https://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 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 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://dauns01.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, Apr. 24, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193, https://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp .

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.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--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 website, ca. 2006, https://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , https://archive.is/pKD3y .)

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 much more on these matters, see my previously-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

* Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist, http://theophysics.freevar.com , http://theophysics.epizy.com , http://theophysics.host56.com .

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated known laws of physics, 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 cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology. 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].)

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.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (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 and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem 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 these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

TLDR
Try again without all of the spam.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Never in my life have I posted any spam. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines spam as "unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses". ( Definition of SPAM .) The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines spam as "Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail." ( Yahoo .)

So from these standard lexicographical sources, the idea clearly imparted by these definitions is that spam is bulk electronic advertizement messages for commercial purposes. The idea further imparted is that these bulk messages are not intended for discussion.

You know quite well that my posts are not spam, but you have no rational response in order to attempt to refute them.

I've noticed this jejune tactic by ideologues of various stripes who hold to fallacious worldviews that when their Weltanschauung is veridically challenged they will call those who present correct positions and arguments "spammers" and call their arguments and positions "spam" rather than attempt to do the impossible, i.e., rather than attempt to refute them with rational arguments, since it's not logically possible to refute a correct position which is backed by correct arguments.

Further, such a tactic is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that God's existence is a mathematical theorem within standard physics. Standard physics is the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. This theorem has been given in the form of Prof. Tipler's said Omega Point cosmology. These aforestated known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory.

For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhy...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , WebCite query result .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* 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 , July 30, 2013, Google Groups , Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech:… , WebCite query result .

Of course you have. You spammed in this post of yours as well:

Forum spam - Wikipedia

"Forum spam consists of posts on Internet forums that contains related or unrelated advertisements, links to malicious websites, trolling and abusive or otherwise unwanted information. Forum spam is usually posted onto message boards by automated spambots or manually with unscrupulous intentions with one idea in mind: to get the spam in front of readers who would not otherwise have anything to do with it intentionally.

Bolding is once again mine. Except for the first case. That was from the article.