God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

[brinny]

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.

exactly about the "speculation"...yes, if not believed, it's worth "speculating" on...yes! We must continue "speculating" hopefully till the day we die...we MUST. It's what makes us the curious creatures we are. Our curiousity is a unique, WONDERFUL gift.

I appreciate you saying that.

 

[Cabal]

exactly about the "speculation"...yes, if not believed, it's worth "speculating" on...yes! We must continue "speculating" hopefully till the day we die...we MUST. It's what makes us the curious creatures we are. Our curiousity is a unique, WONDERFUL gift.

I appreciate you saying that.

Again, however, this does not mean that all unsupported arguments are equally as credible as supported ones....

 

[Michael]

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

That's a bizarre attitude IMO. People put "faith" in all kinds of things but they typically would not have faith if they "knew" for a fact that it wasn't so. Atheism can also arise in a lazy individual who cannot be bothered with 'the truth" (TM).

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

Besides the fact that humans have reported having a relationship with God since the dawn of recording civilization and will continue to do so till the end of human civilization?

 

[brinny]

Again, however, this does not mean that all unsupported arguments are equally as credible as supported ones....

yes, i was merely responding to that word "speculation"...it's a wunnerful thing to practice, even if what yer sp[eculating on is something that appears un-believable

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

You say this... using the internet? Tell me, was it man's flawed reason that allowed the internet to be built, or your religious faith? Because, from where I'm sitting, they seem to be apples and oranges. You can have one, the other, both, or neither.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Isn't YHWH supposed to be, oh you know, conscious? Apparently he talks to people and stuff, right? Points of absolute singularity do not talk or have conscious thought. They do not make flaming bushes that do not burn, and they do not have children. Comparing the 'Omega point' to the G-d of the bible is completely pointless.

 

[James Redford]

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:

(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.

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.

So if the known laws of physics are true, then the true probability of the universe's collapse is exactly 1, i.e., certain to happen.

And you have it precisely in reverse: one has to engage in fanciful and anti-rational speculation to avoid the Omega Point cosmology.

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle 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 Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--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.)

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. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For much more on these matters, in additon to my original three posts in this thread, see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resource:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available on Prof. Tipler's website. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (at theophysics.chimehost.net ).

-----

Note:

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

 

[sandwiches]

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).

Show us how the Second Law of Thermodynamics laws is being violated unless this Omega Point exists.

 

[sandwiches]

By the way, I like this little snipplet:

According to George Ellis's review of Tipler's book in the journal Nature, Tipler's book on the Omega Point is "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline"

 

[sandwiches]

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.

So if the known laws of physics are true, then the true probability of the universe's collapse is exactly 1, i.e., certain to happen.

And you have it precisely in reverse: one has to engage in fanciful and anti-rational speculation to avoid the Omega Point cosmology.

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle 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 Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--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.)

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. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For much more on these matters, in additon to my original three posts in this thread, see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resource:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available on Prof. Tipler's website. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (at theophysics.chimehost.net ).

-----

Note:

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

LMAO
I just realized that you've been copy/pasting a comment in the discussion section of the Omega Point (Tipler) article in Wikipedia. Do you actually know what you're saying or are you just parroting and plagiarizing?

Here's the link where he's been copying his argument from:
Talk:Omega Point (Tipler) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, if you know what the comment is saying, can you please explain to us how the Second Law of Thermodynamics necessitates the Omega Point?

 

[Cabal]

I suspect this is a case of "ooh, something that 'proves' my interpretation of God exists! Must defend at all costs!"

 

[James Redford]

Show us how the Second Law of Thermodynamics laws is being violated unless this Omega Point exists.

I already have several times over. See Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available on Prof. Tipler's website. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

For the mathematics and physics of the Omega Point, see pp. 904-905 of Prof. Tipler's above Reports on Progress in Physics paper, which is a fairly layman's description of the physics of the Omega Point. See p. 925 of the paper for the more technical description.

Also see the below resources for said physics:

"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008.

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website at theophysics.chimehost.net ).

And see also the following:

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

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

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

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv, April 24, 2007.

Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007.

Frank Tipler, "The Omega Point and Christianity," Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23.

Frank J. Tipler, "From 2100 to the End of Time," Wired.

----------

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

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

References:

[1] S. W. Hawking, "Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse," Physical Review D, Vol. 14, Issue 10 (November 1976), pp. 2460-2473.
[2] Stephen Hawking's paper which attempts to solve the black hole information issue without the universe collapsing is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). That is, it's based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005). Also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.
[3] Robert M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), ISBN 0226870251, Section 7.3, pp. 182-185.
[4] John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, "The closed-universe recollapse conjecture," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223 (December 1986), pp. 835-844.
[5] G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, "Life at the end of the universe?," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 (July 1994), pp. 731-739.
[6] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0198519494, Appendix C: "The Bekenstein Bound," pg. 410. Said Appendix is reproduced in Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics," arXiv, November 28, 2001, Section 2: "Apparent Inconsistences in the Physical Laws in the Early Universe," Subsection a: "Bekenstein Bound Inconsistent with Second Law of Thermodynamics."
[7] Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007.
[8] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ISBN 0521200164, pp. 217-221.
[9] Malcolm A. H. MacCallum, "On the mixmaster universe problem," Nature--Physical Science, Vol. 230 (March 1971), pp. 112-3.
[10] John D. Barrow, "Chaotic behaviour in general relativity," Physics Reports, Vol. 85, Issue 1 (May 1982), pp. 1-49.
[11] John D. Barrow and Janna Levin, "Chaos in the Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 80, Issue 4 (January 1998), pp. 656-659. Also at arXiv, June 20, 1997.
[12] Neil J. Cornish and Janna J. Levin, "Mixmaster universe: A chaotic Farey tale," Physical Review D, Vol. 55, Issue 12 (June 1997), pp. 7489-7510. Also at arXiv, December 30, 1996.
[13] Adilson E. Motter, "Relativistic Chaos is Coordinate Invariant," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91, Issue 23, Art. No. 231101 (December 2003), four pages. Also at arXiv, December 7, 2003.
[14] Troy Shinbrot, Edward Ott, Celso Grebogi and James A. Yorke, "Using chaos to direct trajectories to targets," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 65, Issue 26 (December 1990), pp. 3215-3218.
[15] Troy Shinbrot, William Ditto, Celso Grebogi, Edward Ott, Mark Spano and James A. Yorke, "Using the sensitive dependence of chaos (the 'butterfly effect') to direct trajectories in an experimental chaotic system," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 68, Issue 19 (May 1992), pp. 2863-2866.
[16] Charles W. Misner, "The Isotropy of the Universe," Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 151 (February 1968), pp. 431-457.
[17] Charles W. Misner, "Quantum Cosmology. I," Physical Review, Vol. 186, Issue 5 (October 1969), pp. 1319-1327.
[18] Charles W. Misner, "Mixmaster Universe," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 22, Issue 20 (May 1969), pp. 1071-1074.
[19] F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, Section 11: "Solution to the cosmological constant problem: the universe and life in the far future." Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv, April 24, 2007.
[20] Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing. But as the following paper demonstrates, there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse: Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 (October 1999), pp. 1453-1459. Also at arXiv, April 1, 1999. The reason for that is because that is dependant on the actions of sapient life in annihilating baryons.

 

[James Redford]

By the way, I like this little snipplet:

Prof. George Ellis is a theist who takes a fideist position. His fideist Weltanschauung also extends to other areas, e.g., he maintains that physics cannot be capable of explaining human consciousness, which is a mystical position known as vitalism. Hence, Ellis dislikes Prof. Tipler's work because it abrogates the type of mystical theism that Ellis desires to believe in.

Notice that in Prof. Ellis's review that he never once states anyplace where Prof. Frank J. Tipler made any type of actual error, whether it be mathematical or physical. All he can resort to is an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy.

In a paper published by Prof. Ellis and Dr. David Coule criticizing Tipler's Omega Point Theory ("Life at the end of the universe?," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739), Ellis and Coule gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Unwittingly, Ellis and Coule thereby actually gave a powerful argument that the Omega Point is required by the laws of physics.

So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and mystically nebulous cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. I find that deliciously ironic. (Ironic though it is, it's the expected result, given that the Omega Point--i.e., God--is required by the known laws of physics.)

Although having said the above, if one still desires the mystical, physics also demonstrates that there is one thing that is mystical. The Cosmological Singularity (of which the Person of the Omega Point is one entity of this triune structure) has all the ineffable qualities one is looking for, and more (indeed, because it's God).

Let me now explain that.

Pertaining to the supernatural: traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates physical law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events that are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world.

Although God is transcendent to the laws of physics, as physical values are at infinity at the cosmological singularity, and hence it is not possible for any form of physics to apply to the actual singularity since one cannot perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on infinity.

In general relativity, singularities are unavoidable with realistic energy conditions (i.e., given any universe with enough matter to contain life): for the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems proving that the universe began in the Big Bang singularity, see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548.

So it's been known for some time that physical law proves the existence of something to which no form of physics can be applied, i.e., something which is transcendent to any form of physics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote in his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), p. 179, "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."

Thus if the term "supernatural" is taken to mean something which transcends any form of physics, but which does not violate physical law, then physical law proves that the supernatural necessarily exists.

 

[James Redford]

LMAO
I just realized that you've been copy/pasting a comment in the discussion section of the Omega Point (Tipler) article in Wikipedia. Do you actually know what you're saying or are you just parroting and plagiarizing?

Here's the link where he's been copying his argument from:
Talk:Omega Point (Tipler) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, if you know what the comment is saying, can you please explain to us how the Second Law of Thermodynamics necessitates the Omega Point?

Since when has a person writing their own words been "plagiarizing"? You definitely have a bizarre conception of plagiarism.

 

[sandwiches]

Since when has a person writing their own words been "plagiarizing"? You definitely have a bizarre conception of plagiarism.

So, are you also Jamie Michelle from getgirlie.com forums?

Sissy School :: View topic - Admit it ladyboys, are you femme and gay?

Or is she copying you?

Seems like you like to spread this nonsense a lot. Even got you or someone with your username banned from Crosswalk Forums:

God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

 

[Cabal]

Can someone explain to me how the universe has "computational power"? My main problems with this are:

1. What is the medium for storing information?
2. Wouldn't the organisation of said medium require something external to the universe (much like how a hard drive has to be prepared by an external organiser)?
3. Wouldn't the increase of information storage by the entire universe violate the second law of thermodynamics?

 

[James Redford]

So, are you also Jamie Michelle from getgirlie.com forums?

Sissy School :: View topic - Admit it ladyboys, are you femme and gay?

Or is she copying you?

Seems like you like to spread this nonsense a lot. Even got you or someone with your username banned from Crosswalk Forums:

God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Are you supposed to be a Christian, or are you one of the pagans or atheists who hang out on this forum? If you claim to be a Christian, then I await your apology for falsely accusing me of plagiarism. And if you are a pagan or atheist, I still await your apology to me.

Regarding your false claim of the physics of God being "nonsense," that's the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Any genuine nonsense can be exposed as such, yet as far as anyone knows, the physics of God is correct.

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle 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 Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--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. iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

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. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For much more on these matters, see my original posts in this thread, and see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resource:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist theophysics.chimehost.net , theophysics.host56.com , theophysics.110mb.com , theophysics.ifastnet.com

-----

Note:

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

 

[James Redford]

So, are you also Jamie Michelle from getgirlie.com forums?

Sissy School :: View topic - Admit it ladyboys, are you femme and gay?

Or is she copying you?

Seems like you like to spread this nonsense a lot. Even got you or someone with your username banned from Crosswalk Forums:

God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

Are you supposed to be a Christian, or are you one of the pagans or atheists who hang out on this forum? If you claim to be a Christian, then I await your apology for falsely accusing me of plagiarism. And if you are a pagan or atheist, I still await your apology to me.

Regarding your false claim of the physics of God being "nonsense," that's the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Any genuine nonsense can be exposed as such, yet as far as anyone knows, the physics of God is correct.

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle 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 Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--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.)

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. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For much more on these matters, see my original posts in this thread, and see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resource:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available on Prof. Tipler's website. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website).

-----

Note:

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

 

[James Redford]

Can someone explain to me how the universe has "computational power"? My main problems with this are:

1. What is the medium for storing information?
2. Wouldn't the organisation of said medium require something external to the universe (much like how a hard drive has to be prepared by an external organiser)?
3. Wouldn't the increase of information storage by the entire universe violate the second law of thermodynamics?

The universe obviously has computational power, because computations are performed in it. Obviously you posted the above with a computer.

Regarding your second question, No. Again, the computer you used in order to post your above response exists within this universe.

Regarding your third question, entropy diverging to infinity is precisely what is required--at least in part--in order to have literal immortality, as entropy is informational complexity. In other words, in order to have infinite hard drive space requires infinite entropy. And infinite memory space is required in order to have immortality, for the reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Poincaré cycle per the Poincaré recurrence theorem. This is very easy to see by considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e., different states), because any finite state will eventually start to repeat.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

So, let's for a minute suppose there was an Omega point. How does this prove that a god exists?