Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

James Redford

Lux et veritas et libertas
Oct 24, 2009
215
15
USA
Visit site
✟2,386.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

Humans are mentally-retarded apes. Humans are apes, and so act as apes. That humans are a great deal brighter than their closest Great Ape cousins, the chimpanzees, still doesn't diminish that humans are severely mentally-retarded creatures--as compared to what truth is. Humans are ornery goats against the truth--i.e., Jesus Christ--and docile lambs to horrifically-destructive lies.

Humans are vicious and malicious; violent and pernicious. Humans are truly sick and vile creatures. And that's the supposed "good" ones--other than the immortal Messiah.

In Christian theology, this is known as original sin.

Further, you could use an eye-checkup, as I've posted the following a number of times:

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.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Humans are mentally-retarded apes. Humans are apes, and so act as apes. That humans are a great deal brighter than their closest Great Ape cousins, the chimpanzees, still doesn't diminish that humans are severely mentally-retarded creatures--as compared to what truth is. Humans are ornery goats against the truth--i.e., Jesus Christ--and docile lambs to horrifically-destructive lies.

Humans are vicious and malicious; violent and pernicious. Humans are truly sick and vile creatures. And that's the supposed "good" ones--other than the immortal Messiah.

In Christian theology, this is known as original sin.

Further, you could use an eye-checkup, as I've posted the following a number of times:

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, 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, WebCite query result .

* 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.
I tell you what, if you can post without endless spam I will discuss your beliefs seriously with you. But first you need to be honest and apologize for all of the endless spam.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,290
8,067
✟328,000.00
Faith
Atheist
When a wave becomes a particle, that represents "collapse of the wavefunction", doesn't it?
Not really, no. As I mentioned, all particles are really waves - excitations of quantum fields. You may be thinking of the collapse of the wavefunction in the Copenhagen interpretation, but this is when the wavefunction, which describes the probability of observing a particle, collapses when a measurement is made, to a particular outcome - a particle is observed in a particular state at a particular location. Under the Copenhagen interpretation, nothing can be said about what happens between observations - it's now generally accepted that the concept of particle properties is meaningless until a measurement.

MW requires an infinity of assumptions. Accepting the observer effect merely requires we accept what we consistently experimentally demonstrate.
This is a common misconception - MWI only assumes that any measuring instrument or observer is a quantum system. The quantum formalism, left to itself, specifies the branching of the wavefunction; IOW 'Many Worlds' is a prediction of the quantum formalism, you have to introduce an ad-hoc wavefunction collapse to get rid of it.

The observer effect is common to all quantum measurements or observations - observation requires an interaction with the quantum system being measured, which influences it. Different interpretations explain the results in different ways. You may be confusing the observer effect with wavefunction collapse (Copenhagen interpretations).

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.
As I said, the Copenhagen interpretation is really a collection of interpretations that have the concept of wavefunction collapse in common. What is defunct is the 'conscious collapse' version that requires a conscious observer to collapse the wavefunction. Other versions invoke gravity, electromagnetism, scale, decoherence, etc., and the most common one (among physicists who just use the quantum formalism in their work) is called "shut up and calculate!", meaning simply that the mathematics of the quantum formalism works, so the metaphysics are pointless.

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."
Sure. In MWI, the wavefunction of the universe branches, and this will, of course, involve the observer, who is part of the wavefunction of the universe.

Doesn't the "delayed choice eraser" experiment take care of that?
If you mean does the delayed choice quantum eraser present a problem for MWI, no - why should it? The wavefunction keeps smoothly evolving according to the Schrodinger equation, and the observer and observed become entangled as the experiment progresses.

He does the same thing - introduces the possibility of other "branches", other "worlds".
Yes - he's an expert in the field who thinks the MWI is probably the correct formulation (his blog is very readable).

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.
MWI is quite different from unicorns and mermaids - it simply follows the quantum formalism. The 'wavefunction collapse' interpretations (Copenhagen) add the extra assumption that at some point the wavefunction somehow 'collapses' to a single outcome and all the other possible outcomes it represented instantaneously vanish. That could be seen as magical.

I mean Tipler's Omega Point.
OIC. Singularities of that kind are also independent of the branching of the wavefunction - Tipler suggests that the Omega Point is inevitable (which is a big claim), so in the future he envisages every branch (world) will reach an Omega Point. OTOH if you think an Omega Point is unlikely or impossible, very few branches, or none, will reach an Omega Point.
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
28,166
19,617
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟495,577.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
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 .
And another spam.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,290
8,067
✟328,000.00
Faith
Atheist
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 .
I can't help but notice they're all papers by Frank Tipler. Is he a voice crying in the wilderness, or are others in the field supporting his views?

I know supporters of quantum multiverse interpretations like EQM ('Many Worlds') are increasing, but I've not heard any of them claiming non-locality provides empirical evidence of them.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,290
8,067
✟328,000.00
Faith
Atheist
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.
Well there's a relief; for a moment, I thought you were going dragoon me into the intellectual elite ;)

It's a big world, and there's only so much time to go around. Fringe ideas inevitably get shorter shrift. But it's nice to see Tipler has devoted followers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,695
5,247
✟302,383.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Never in my life have I posted any spam...

And yet this is the third time at least that I have seen a practically identical post from you denying that you post spam.

Sure seems like spam to me.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,965
20,304
Flatland
✟875,526.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Other versions invoke gravity, electromagnetism, scale, decoherence, etc., and the most common one (among physicists who just use the quantum formalism in their work) is called "shut up and calculate!", meaning simply that the mathematics of the quantum formalism works, so the metaphysics are pointless.
I'd prefer that last one, and I didn't really intend to get into debating unscientific metaphysics. I want to ask about one thing, though. In his blog, Carroll says the "apparatus", an object in the macro world, can be in superposition. Does he mean when no one's looking at it, or what?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,290
8,067
✟328,000.00
Faith
Atheist
In his blog, Carroll says the "apparatus", an object in the macro world, can be in superposition. Does he mean when no one's looking at it, or what?
Not exactly. It means that measurement apparatus, whether it's an electronic instrument or an observer's eyeball, is also a quantum system, and so can be in a superposition of states.

When the observation (a quantum interaction) is made, the measuring apparatus is entangled with the quantum system being observed, joining its superposition - e.g. apparatus measures spin-up + apparatus measures spin-down, or eye sees spin-up + eye sees spin-down. As the environment (for example, the rest of the observer) interacts with the measurement apparatus, this superposition spreads out into it extremely rapidly, creating effectively separate branches of the wavefunction.

So when the observer observes a quantum system, they rapidly become entangled in a superposition of all the possible observation states of that system as defined by its wavefunction. This is what the rules of quantum mechanics specify.

However, you, as an observer, only ever see one aspect of that superposition because the you that made the observation is now a superposition of you's, each of which sees the single outcome corresponding to a particular state of the superposition. The spreading of the superposition out into the environment, including the whole observer, is called decoherence, and establishes the separate branches of the universal wavefunction, e.g. a branch where a particle was observed to be spin-up, and a branch where it was observed to be spin-down.

So when you observe an apparatus, in a superposition of measurement states, you join that superposition and become 'versions' of you that each see one of those states as the result of the observation. IOW we're all quantum systems obeying the rules of quantum mechanics, and we're all part of the universe's wavefunction which is branching all the time.

It's been empirically demonstrated that you can put even relatively large objects into identifiable superpositions, by isolating them from quantum interactions and making indirect tests of the object state. But as soon as an object interacts and becomes entangled with the environment, which the lab experimenters are part of, the object's superposition appears to go away, because now the experimenters are part of it and each 'version' of their superposition only sees a single state rather than a superposition of states.

That's (roughly) how the 'Many Worlds' interpretation describes things.

The Copenhagen interpretations say that at some undefined point before it reaches the 'macro' scale, the wavefunction collapses and a single state in the superposition is somehow selected to become real, with a probability described by the wavefunction.

Another interpretation, Bohmian mechanics (or the 'pilot-wave' model) avoids the whole business by proposing that the particle is real the whole time and is guided by a real wave that accompanies it and causes the appearance of wave behaviour by the particle.

Pick whichever interpretation you prefer.

[I'm not an expert in this, so some of the details may not be entirely correct]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

James Redford

Lux et veritas et libertas
Oct 24, 2009
215
15
USA
Visit site
✟2,386.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well there's a relief; for a moment, I thought you were going dragoon me into the intellectual elite ;)

It's a big world, and there's only so much time to go around. Fringe ideas inevitably get shorter shrift. But it's nice to see Tipler has devoted followers.

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, https://webcitation.org/6GjhT6t52 , 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.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I tell you what, if you can post without endless spam I will discuss your beliefs seriously with you. But first you need to be honest and apologize for all of the endless spam.
Wait for it.....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Well, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson have all also expressed support for the multi world hypothesis, so there must be some evidence.
Also believing in mwi is not integral to the Omega Point Theory. They are two totally separate theories

Just because three prominent atheists express support for something doesn't mean it's true.

When there is evidence that would justify belief, then that's the time to believe it.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,965
20,304
Flatland
✟875,526.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
However, you, as an observer, only ever see one aspect of that superposition because the you that made the observation is now a superposition of you's, each of which sees the single outcome corresponding to a particular state of the superposition.
Right. It seems to me saying "you as observer only ever see one aspect of that superpositon" is, for scientific or any other purpose, saying "you see the only possible reality you will ever see in this universe". Imagining other possible universes is fine, but I don't think it's science.

Let me ask one other thing though, in regard to Schrodinger's Cat and MW. His thought experiment presents a binary outcome - decay or no decay, cat dead or cat alive. (Unless the cat has an exceptionally strong constitution, and merely gets sick from the poison. ;)) This would require the universe split in two, as Carroll says.

So what if, instead of a cat, a "wheel of fortune" (as on the TV game show) was in the box, and the wheel was being spun electrically. Then if the monitor detects radioactivity, instead of releasing a poison, it shuts off power to the wheel, which causes it to stop spinning. Let's say there are 360 slots on the wheel, and only one can be "landed on". Would this require 361 universes created/devoted to this event? (One additional for "no decay".)
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,290
8,067
✟328,000.00
Faith
Atheist
Right. It seems to me saying "you as observer only ever see one aspect of that superpositon" is, for scientific or any other purpose, saying "you see the only possible reality you will ever see in this universe". Imagining other possible universes is fine, but I don't think it's science.
Well, the corollary to that is that you as a superposition of observers see every possible outcome. The 'many worlds' are all part of the same universe, they're non-interacting branches of the universal wavefunction - they're predicted by the quantum formalism, so they're not really imaginary - much as black holes and the Higgs boson were predicted by General Relativity (or even Newtonian gravity) and the Standard Model of particle physics, respectively. It's hard to see how the QM interpretation with the simplest ontology, the unitary evolution of the wavefunction according to Schrodinger's equation, can be criticised as not being science without calling QM itself unscientific... it is what it is.

As with any multiverse hypothesis, the separate worlds or universes themselves are inaccessible by definition, but it's a mistake to think that therefore they can't be scientific or real - model prediction together with indirect and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to establish inaccessible entities; black holes are a canonical example. But you're right that there is a philosophical debate about precisely what the criteria for the label 'science' should be. In practice, scientists just use whatever model works for their purposes, and in the case of QM interpretations, they use the interpretation they feel most comfortable with, or none at all. They're just different interpretations consistent with the formalism.

Of course, it's possible that the QM formalism is incomplete - maybe a wavefunction collapse mechanism will be discovered and verified, or pilot waves will be found to be real, or some other interpretation. But for now, that's not the case. Copenhagen (wavefunction collapse) and other interpretations are the ones that add speculative mechanisms to the formalism, so if you want interpretations that involve imagination, choose one of them rather than MWI.

So what if, instead of a cat, a "wheel of fortune" (as on the TV game show) was in the box, and the wheel was being spun electrically. Then if the monitor detects radioactivity, instead of releasing a poison, it shuts off power to the wheel, which causes it to stop spinning. Let's say there are 360 slots on the wheel, and only one can be "landed on". Would this require 361 universes created/devoted to this event? (One additional for "no decay".)
If the wavefunction of the system to be observed describes multiple possible measurement outcomes, a measurement will produce a branch of the wavefunction for every possible outcome.

Branches of the wavefunction are described by vectors in Hilbert space. It isn't clear whether the Hilbert space containing the universal wavefunction can accommodate an infinite number of branches or not (in theoretical work, they're usually taken to be infinite), but, in any case, if the universe is spatiotemporally finite, it will have a finite number of particles and the number of ways all its particles can be arranged will be finite. If the universe is spatiotemporally infinite, one would expect its Hilbert space to be infinite (although even if not, one could speculate that a consequent 'quantisation' could mean that extremely low probability outcomes are simply not represented).

To paraphrase Sean Carroll, "Hilbert space has plenty of room"; here's a blog post that explains how Hilbert space is involved.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums