God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

brinny · Oct 25, 2009

Pete Harcoff said:
This is circular. You might as well just say "you'll believe in God when you believe in God".

Except it's not. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

This is just an appeal to future events. You have no idea what is going to happen any more than I do.

Chagrin? Hardly. More like amusement.

To each his own, eh?

Pete Harcoff · Oct 25, 2009

brinny said:
To each his own, eh?

Pretty much. Which goes back to my original point of the futility in "proving" God.

Cabal · Oct 25, 2009

brinny said:
Not all, but some, yes.

Are you claiming to know how God thinks?

Er, no, not really. See the words "I don't think..." in that quote?

However, given what we know of how faith and conversion works, assigning a scientific theory to explain God countermands all of that.

brinny said:
Faith is a "gift". It comes from God. It is given to those that genuinely seek God from their hearts.

Right, and that's pretty different from a scientific theory, an empirical fact, or a logical statement - none of them become true once I start believing in it or not. A scientific theory describing God would not allow for the faith you have just described here, by your own definition.

Evidence that God exists is a given. It will be blazingly clear at His appointed time. In spite of it, there are those who will raise their fists in God's face and curse Him.

And there are those for whom objective evidence would destroy what it is to choose to follow God in a meaningful way.

In the meantime, evidence will present itself, to the chagrin of many, who will scramble to slam it away.

Could you please answer my question now - did you read his posts entirely?

I get the feeling you're agreeing with the OP purely because someone is presenting evidence with a viewpoint you already agreed with.

There are plenty of grounds one can object to this "theory" on, not least of which are the arbitrary designation of the trinity and additionally the fact that an evolving final state God goes against the notion of an unchanging God.

Wiccan_Child · Oct 25, 2009

brinny said:
Faith is a "gift". It comes from God. It is given to those that genuinely seek God from their hearts. Evidence that God exists is a given. It will be blazingly clear at His appointed time. In spite of it, there are those who will raise their fists in God's face and curse Him.

In the meantime, evidence will present itself, to the chagrin of many, who will scramble to slam it away.

If there's evidence, where is it?
If there's evidence, one can't have faith (since it's belief without evidence), so just what is God giving us?
Why would God intentionally hide his existence from the majority of people? Surely he must realise the countless wars religion has caused?

James Redford · Oct 25, 2009

Dark_Lite said:
And what about heaven in the past and present?

The bible states that in our present timeline, Heaven (in the sense of the Kingdom of God, as opposed to the the sky and outer space, as the bible uses both senses of the word) doesn't exist for us (Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:1). But when we die, from our perspective we are immediately resurrected (Luke 23:43), due to us experiencing no passage of time when dead.

If Heaven already existed in our present timeline and if people went there right now when they died, then there would be no need for the two resurrection events spoken of in the bible. (That is, the first resurrection, which is the foundation of Christ's Heaven on Earth, when mankind becomes immortal, but in order to become immortal they will have to be transformed, taking on bodies which do not decay, and hence will have to be born again. And the second resurrection, which is the universal resurrection of all who have ever died. As it is said, the first shall be last and the last shall be first, which is precisely what physics tells us.)

This isn't to say that people's so-called near-death experiences (or perhaps after-death experiences would be a better term, since many of these people experience clinical death) aren't real. But they're a preview of things to come, i.e., a message from God (for those genuine events).

Ok. That fits many religions' definition of God.

Indeed, and that only fits the definition of God. Any object which fit these definitions would by definition be God.

Additionally, per the Church-Turing thesis, any universal Turing machine is equivalent to any other universal Turing machine.

And is nothing like the Trinity described in the Bible. This is a stretch. The trinity is extant throughout eternity.

As is the Cosmological Singularity, of which consists eternally of three hypostases in a triune homoousian. The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the Cosmological Singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the Cosmological Singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the Cosmological Singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

God is entirely transcendent of his creation the last time I checked. He came fully into the world as Jesus, though.

You just said the same thing I said, but using different words. As Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221). So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.

Of course, all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist is God (Acts 17:24-28; Colossians 3:11; Jeremiah 23:24; Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6). Yet everything that will ever exist is also merely a subset of what will be rendered at the Omega Point, i.e., God the Father, or the First Person of the Trinity.

What's your definition of "exist?" Infinite sums "exist" in a sense...

To say that "Infinite sums 'exist' in a sense" is to say that they're comprehended. They do exist in a real sense only because God exists. To say that something exists means that it has effects upon reality.

As do plenty of other deities...

Not so. Only an infinite being can create all of existence. There are creatures, and then there is the Creator. Creatures can only transform the matter and energy that only God alone created.

MrGoodBytes · Oct 25, 2009

I've read what you posted plus the Wiki article, and from what I understand, the Omega point is supposed to be some hypothetical future state of the universe, just before the Big Crunch (assuming that happens) - doesn't that mean God doesn't even exist yet?

laconicstudent · Oct 25, 2009

MrGoodBytes said:
I've read what you posted plus the Wiki article, and from what I understand, the Omega point is supposed to be some hypothetical future state of the universe, just before the Big Crunch (assuming that happens) - doesn't that mean God doesn't even exist yet?

Yes. Or God did exist prior to our own Big Bang, but no longer does. Its an interesting theory. I actually have Teilhard de Chardin's Phenomenon of Man sitting here on my desk now. I really need to find the time to read it sometime. ^_^

Pete Harcoff · Oct 25, 2009

MrGoodBytes said:
I've read what you posted plus the Wiki article, and from what I understand, the Omega point is supposed to be some hypothetical future state of the universe, just before the Big Crunch (assuming that happens) - doesn't that mean God doesn't even exist yet?

On the subject of the Big Crunch, the discovery that everything is actually accelerating away from each other falsified the idea of the Omega Point. But apparently we can still cause it as long as we use spacecraft powered via Baryon annihilation for interstellar travel.

I wish I was making this up.

James Redford · Oct 25, 2009

MrGoodBytes said:
I've read what you posted plus the Wiki article, and from what I understand, the Omega point is supposed to be some hypothetical future state of the universe, just before the Big Crunch (assuming that happens) - doesn't that mean God doesn't even exist yet?

Different times are merely examples of different universes in the multiverse. According to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), the Omega Point is logically required to exist in order to avoid their violation (such as unitarity being violated, or entropy decreasing). So if the known laws of physics are true descriptions of the world (and there exists no rational reason to think that they aren't, as they have been confirmed by every experiment to date), then the Omega Point exists apodictically. That is to say, if the known laws of physics are true, then existence could not exist in the first place without the Omega Point existing.

The Omega Point is the Final Singularity. This is God the Father, or the First Person of the Trinity. It consists of infinite entropy and infinite information. Another way of thinking of it is God in all His fulness, since, given that it has infinite computational resources, anything that will ever exist will be perfectly rendered on some level of implementation at this Final Singularity. It knows all that can logically be known.

The All-Presents Singularity exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse. This is God the Son, or the Second Person of the Trinity; or God in the world. Its entropy and information goes from zero to infinity.

The Initial Singularity was the start of the Big Bang. If one desires, one can also call it the Alpha Point. This is God the Holy Spirit, or the Third Person of the Trinity. It started at zero entropy and zero information. Think of it as a guiding influence upon all of existence, since the laws of physics come from it (going by the usual way in which humans think of causation, since the Initial Singularity exists in our past--although in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity).

In classical (i.e., relativistic) cosmology, the Initial Singularity and the Final Singularity are permanently separate and distinct singularities. But in quantum cosmology, the Initial and the Final Singularities are connected by a third singularity: the All-Presents Singularity, since all sizes of universes are obtained in the multiverse, which means that there are a class of universes which don't expand out from the Big Bang singularity at all, but remain as a singularity. In the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article at Wikipedia, there exists a diagram I created that shows this process, which is also at my Theophysics website.

These three distinct parts which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually One Singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse: the Cosmological Singularity, of which consists eternally of three hypostases in a triune homoousian.

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the Cosmological Singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the Cosmological Singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the Cosmological Singularity (i.e., with its Three-in-One structure) has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime. So each Person of the Trinity at all times has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

James Redford · Oct 25, 2009

Pete Harcoff said:
On the subject of the Big Crunch, the discovery that everything is actually accelerating away from each other falsified the idea of the Omega Point. But apparently we can still cause it as long as we use spacecraft powered via Baryon annihilation for interstellar travel.

I wish I was making this up.

Your first sentence is factually incorrect. That was already addressed in my first post in this thread:

""
Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.
""

In physics, an energy transformation process can be reversed. While you attempt sardonicism, I can assure you the laws of physics remain unflapped. The problem with your sardonicism is that you're taking a preschool, "commonsense" conception of the world that we all developed from early childhood and are attempting to shoehorn reality to fit your Weltanschauung. But what physics demonstrates is that commonsense is nonsense. All the greatest discoveries in physics have been completely and utterly counter to the everyday conception of the world that people form from childhood (indeed, if they weren't, then they would already have been discovered long ago). Even within Newtonian mechanics, gravity is curvature, which is an idea that is altogether queer to the pedestrian conception of reality.

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.

That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.

Contrast that ad libitum approach to doing physics with that of Prof. Frank J. Tipler, who bases his Omega Point Theory and the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/extended Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) strictly on the known laws of physics, and that of Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work). They both believe we have to take the known laws of physics seriously as true explanations of how the world works, unless said physics are experimentally, or otherwise, refuted.

laconicstudent · Oct 25, 2009

Interesting posts, James.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 25, 2009

James Redford said:
Your first sentence is factually incorrect.

Actually it's not. The original Omega Point theory was dependent on the Big Crunch. And it's been modified to include space craft as you demonstrate in the following:

But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

(emphasis mine)

Which is exactly what I said. Basically, the Omega Point (assuming the theory is correct to begin with) is dependent on us inventing space craft with a specific type of propulsion. And at which point, we're off in speculative la-la land.

Seriously, how can you not see how utterly ridiculous all this is? It's science fiction at best. Or Dan Brown fiction at worst.

laconicstudent · Oct 25, 2009

Pete Harcoff said:
Seriously, how can you not see how utterly ridiculous all this is? It's science fiction at best. Or Dan Brown fiction at worst.

True, but while its rather unfounded, its an interesting speculation to be sure.

And I submit that Dan Brown, that hack, could never come up with such a fascinating idea.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 25, 2009

laconicstudent said:
True, but while its rather unfounded, its an interesting speculation to be sure.

Agreed. I think the fact that I find both religion and sci-fi interesting is why I find all this stuff interesting to read about.

But at the same time, it's quite a stretch to claim this stuff is factual.

And I submit that Dan Brown, that hack, could never come up with such a fascinating idea.

Fair enough.

Thistlethorn · Oct 25, 2009

Man, what a let down. "God proven", yeah right...

Chesterton · Oct 26, 2009

Do Tipler's ideas imply Universalism?

Gracchus · Oct 26, 2009

brinny said:
Faith is a "gift".

Unless it is a delusion.

It comes from God.

Unless it comes from reason.

It is given to those that genuinely seek God from their hearts.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." It arises in fearful and lazy persons who cannot be bothered with the truth.

Evidence that God exists is a given.

What verifiable conclusions can be derived from this "given"?

It will be blazingly clear at His appointed time.

That remains to be seen.

In spite of it, there are those who will raise their fists in God's face and curse Him.

Considering the horrors of the world, the pain and injustice, there would be some justification for such behavior.

In the meantime, evidence will present itself, to the chagrin of many, who will scramble to slam it away.

Well, I guess I will just have to eat worms and wait for it with baited breath.

:wave:

MrGoodBytes · Oct 26, 2009

James Redford said:
Different times are merely examples of different universes in the multiverse. According to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), the Omega Point is logically required to exist in order to avoid their violation (such as unitarity being violated, or entropy decreasing). So if the known laws of physics are true descriptions of the world (and there exists no rational reason to think that they aren't, as they have been confirmed by every experiment to date), then the Omega Point exists apodictically. That is to say, if the known laws of physics are true, then existence could not exist in the first place without the Omega Point existing.

The Omega Point is the Final Singularity. This is God the Father, or the First Person of the Trinity. It consists of infinite entropy and infinite information. Another way of thinking of it is God in all His fulness, since, given that it has infinite computational resources, anything that will ever exist will be perfectly rendered on some level of implementation at this Final Singularity. It knows all that can logically be known.

The All-Presents Singularity exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse. This is God the Son, or the Second Person of the Trinity; or God in the world. Its entropy and information goes from zero to infinity.

The Initial Singularity was the start of the Big Bang. If one desires, one can also call it the Alpha Point. This is God the Holy Spirit, or the Third Person of the Trinity. It started at zero entropy and zero information. Think of it as a guiding influence upon all of existence, since the laws of physics come from it (going by the usual way in which humans think of causation, since the Initial Singularity exists in our past--although in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity).

In classical (i.e., relativistic) cosmology, the Initial Singularity and the Final Singularity are permanently separate and distinct singularities. But in quantum cosmology, the Initial and the Final Singularities are connected by a third singularity: the All-Presents Singularity, since all sizes of universes are obtained in the multiverse, which means that there are a class of universes which don't expand out from the Big Bang singularity at all, but remain as a singularity. In the "Omega Point (Tipler)" article at Wikipedia, there exists a diagram I created that shows this process, which is also at my Theophysics website.

These three distinct parts which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually One Singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse: the Cosmological Singularity, of which consists eternally of three hypostases in a triune homoousian.

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the Cosmological Singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the Cosmological Singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the Cosmological Singularity (i.e., with its Three-in-One structure) has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime. So each Person of the Trinity at all times has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume that this is real physics that's way out of my league instead of a wall of sokalesque technobabble. Could the resident physicists maybe review this?

brinny · Oct 26, 2009

Gracchus said:
Unless it is a delusion.

Unless it comes from reason.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." It arises in fearful and lazy persons who cannot be bothered with the truth.

What verifiable conclusions can be derived from this "given"?

That remains to be seen.

Considering the horrors of the world, the pain and injustice, there would be some justification for such behavior.

Well, I guess I will just have to eat worms and wait for it with baited breath.

My friend, "faith" and man's finite and flawed "reason" are the antithesis of each other.

WilliamduBois · Oct 26, 2009

brinny said:
My friend, "faith" and man's finite and flawed "reason" are the antithesis of each other.

Except that reason has brought you the comfort in which you live, while faith seems to bring you to ignorant statements.

God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Lux et veritas et libertas

Seeker for life, probably

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Lux et veritas et libertas

Lux et veritas et libertas

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Defeated dad.

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Senior Veteran

Seeker for life, probably

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

BenderBendingRodriguez

Similar threads