God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

[sandwiches]

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.

So, using that line of thought, the universe speaks English, as there's people in it who speak English. The universe also gets hungry, as there's people who need to eat in it. And don't forget that the universe gets old and dies, as there's people who get old and die within it.

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.

Entropy is NOT information complexity. It's uncertainty levels or randomness. So, since entropy is increasing, information certainty or randomness is increasing. Therefore, at the end of the universe we won't have infinite complexity but pure randomness with an entropy of 1 bit.

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.

This is a nonpoint as given infinite time and lifespan, a normal person could simulate the universe. So what?

 

[sandwiches]

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.

I am not a Christian. I don't apologize until you answer me and tell me if you're Jamie Michelle from that getgirlie link and the person with IP address 67.232.56.99 who posted that comment in the discussion section for the Omega Point in Wikipedia.

Also, please quote me where I claimed that God is nonsense.

PS. Can you please stop spamming your inane babblings about Tipler, please? You've copy/pasted the same nonsense dozens of times in this thread alone and many more in dozens of other forums around the net. You've even been banned for it in several places.

 

[James Redford]

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

This has already been discussed:

As Prof. Frank J. Tipler noted, "Any cosmology with unlimited progress will end in God." (See Anthony Liversidge, "Frank Tipler--physicist--Interview," Omni, Vol. 17, Issue 1 [October 1994], pp. 89 ff.) This means, e.g., that any form of immortality necessarily entails the existence of the capital-G God, in the sense of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal being with infinite computational resources. This is mathematically unavoidable, 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.

Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of the capital-G God, since mathematically, immortality requires the existence of either an infinite computational state or a finite state which diverges to an infinite computational state (i.e., diverging to literal Godhead in all its fullness), thus allowing for states never repeating and hence an infinite number of experiences.

Furthermore, any universal Turing machine is equivalent to any other universal Turing machine, as any universal Turing machine can perfectly emulate any other Turing machine, and indeed, anything that can logically exist. Since one of the traditional quidditative definitions of God is having an infinite mind, then by definition God would be a universal Turing machine, and thus if a universal Turing machine existed, apodictically it would be God.

Regarding the equivalence of God and the Omega Point, Prof. Tipler has published on this equivalence in the following peer-reviewed academic journal, which is the world's leading journal on science and religion: Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253; doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x; available on the Theophysics website.

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-part structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct parts which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

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.

So to recapitulate:

1.) The Omega Point (or, for that matter, the society near the Omega Point) can trivially perform the universal resurrection of the dead, upon which the people resurrected can live eternally in literal heaven, i.e., paradise.
2.) The Omega Point is omniscient.
3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent.
4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent.
5.) The cosmological singularity is a triune structure, of which the Omega Point is one component.
6.) The cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time.
7.) The cosmological singularity is the only achieved (actually existing) infinity.
8.) The Omega Point creates the universe and all of existence.

Those are all the main physical properties that have been claimed for God in traditional Christian theology. There are many other congruities between the Omega Point cosmology and Christianity. Below are listed just some of them:

1.) We are gods: John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6).
2.) We are God and God is us: Matthew 25:31-46.
3.) We live inside of God: Acts 17:24-28.
4.) God is everything and inside of everything: Colossians 3:11; Jeremiah 23:24.
5.) We are members in the body of Christ: Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25.
6.) We are one in Christ: Galatians 3:28.
7.) God is all: Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6.
8.) God is light: 1 John 1:5; John 8:12.
9.) We have existed before the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34; Luke 1:70; 11:50; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Isaiah 40:21.
10.) Jesus has existed before the foundation of the world: John 17:24; Revelation 13:8.
11.) The reality of multiple worlds: John 18:36; Hebrews 1:1,2; 11:3.
12.) God is the son of man: Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:18; 12:32; 12:40; 13:37; 13:41; 16:13; 16:27,28; 17:9; 17:12; 17:22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18; 20:28; 24:27; 24:30; 24:37; 24:39; 24:44; 25:13; 25:31; 26:2; 26:24; 26:45; 26:64. (This is just listing how many times Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man in the Gospel of Matthew, although he refers to himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was the favorite phrase that he used to refer to himself.)

How item Nos. 9 and 10 relate is that within Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory the universe is brought into being by the Omega Point, as the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity (since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity). Another way of stating it is that in the Omega Point cosmology, the Omega Point is the fundamental existential and mathematical entity, from which all of reality derives. Indeed, within the Omega Point Theory, the Big Bang singularity and the Omega Point singularity are actually just different functions of the same singularity. Further, anything which at any time will exist will simply be a subset of what is rendered in the Omega Point.

 

[James Redford]

So, using that line of thought, the universe speaks English, as there's people in it who speak English. The universe also gets hungry, as there's people who need to eat in it. And don't forget that the universe gets old and dies, as there's people who get old and die within it.

The Omega Point itself is the ultimate consciousness. Said state is the perfection of all knowledge.

Entropy is NOT information complexity. It's uncertainty levels or randomness. So, since entropy is increasing, information certainty or randomness is increasing. Therefore, at the end of the universe we won't have infinite complexity but pure randomness with an entropy of 1 bit.

Entropy is exactly conformal to informational complexity. They are one and the same. Entropy does not mean uncertainty. A state can be in a high level of entropy, and yet be perfectly described down to the last bit. Where your confusion on this matter stems from is how entropy (i.e., informational complexity) has been measured within certain systems, such as with human language. How it has been measured in said case is by having people read random passages of text and then having them predict what comes after, e.g., the next letter. What this does is demonstrate what the entropy is per character--this entropy is measured in bits of information, again showing that these concepts are one in the same.

That's how entropy is measured in such systems. Yet each character in such tests is precisely known in advanced by the people conducting the tests! (Indeed, because it's written down.) The entropy for English has been measured by said methods to be between 0.6-1.5 bits per character.

For more on this, see the works on this by mathematician Claude Shannon.

Another way of describing this is that a state of higher entropy is harder to compress, because the next bit in the information stream is harder to predict by the compressor. If a compressor could predict the next character of a language as well as the average human who speaks that language, then that compressor would be sapient, because it would have the ability to reply to a person in a manner that that person expects a sapient person would be able to do. That is, it would be able to convince a person that it has human-level intelligence. Therefore, per the Turing test, it would indeed have human-level intelligence.

To date, no data-compressor exists which can predict the next character of text as well as the average person who speaks the language of the text, and this is the reason we don't currently have sapient man-made machines. But they are continuously getting better, so it is just a matter of time.

This is a nonpoint as given infinite time and lifespan, a normal person could simulate the universe. So what?

They wouldn't be normal in reference to current humanity. And they could only perfectly simulate the universe at any given time finitely, diverging toward infinity. (Which presents no problem in emulating the universe perfectly, since the universe is finite in information within spacetime at any given point in time, itself diverging toward infinite informational complexity.) Only God is infinite. Only God knows the totality of the universe (and indeed, the multiverse) in its entire timeline.

 

[James Redford]

I am not a Christian. I don't apologize until you answer me and tell me if you're Jamie Michelle from that getgirlie link and the person with IP address 67.232.56.99 who posted that comment in the discussion section for the Omega Point in Wikipedia.

Also, please quote me where I claimed that God is nonsense.

PS. Can you please stop spamming your inane babblings about Tipler, please? You've copy/pasted the same nonsense dozens of times in this thread alone and many more in dozens of other forums around the net. You've even been banned for it in several places.

I'm flattered that you think that my writings on the Wikipedia Talk page are so advanced that you can't imagine that such a person could actually exist and be speaking to you here. But I didn't sign-off on that page as Jamie Michelle, so your request here is nihil ad rem.

And you're here mistating what I said. You said, "Seems like you like to spread this nonsense a lot," referring to the Omega Point Theory. And I replied "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."

 

[sandwiches]

I'm flattered that you think that my writings on the Wikipedia Talk page are so advanced that you can't imagine that such a person could actually exist and be speaking to you here. But I didn't sign-off on that page as Jamie Michelle, so your request here is nihil ad rem.

So, someone, other than your, used your ideas and spammed the sissyforums under the name Jamie Mitchelle? Is that what you're saying?

And you're here mistating what I said. You said, "Seems like you like to spread this nonsense a lot," referring to the Omega Point Theory. And I replied "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."

As far as anyone knows? Who's 'anyone?' Are you claiming that every physicist supports this idea? If not, what other physicists support the Omega Point claim?

 

[Meshach]

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

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

Sorry, going through this thread and saw this post and thought I would throw this verse out. Just food for thought , thats all.
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

 

[Cabal]

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

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

Sorry, going through this thread and saw this post and thought I would throw this verse out. Just food for thought , thats all.
Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

So following God, being saved etc has nothing to do with faith?

Compulsion isn't exactly God's style, which is what empirical proof of him would involve.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Hmm I thought this would be a discussion of fine-tuning or something... this just sounds wheird.

 

[James Redford]

So, someone, other than your, used your ideas and spammed the sissyforums under the name Jamie Mitchelle? Is that what you're saying?

I'm also known as Jamie Michelle, as well as Tetrahedron Omega, Sir Nigel Edmond III, Count Lithium von Choride, and other internet handles, under which I make no secret that my positive-law name is James Redford. Indeed, quite the contrary. Under all such handles I tell people what my posite-law name is and direct them to my writings under my positive-law name. My full positive-law name is James Ryan Nelson Redford, and I was born on October 21, 1977 in the Brackenridge hospital in Austin, Texas.

I'm still waiting for your apology to me for falsely accusing me of plagiarism regarding my comments on the Talk page of the Wikipedia article on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory.

As far as anyone knows? Who's 'anyone?' Are you claiming that every physicist supports this idea? If not, what other physicists support the Omega Point claim?

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality (1997). For that, see:

David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. Available on the Theophysics website.

As far as anyone knows, the Omega Point Theory is correct. To date no refutation of it has appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. And the only criticism of it that has appeared in a refereed science paper actually unintentionally greatly strengthened the Omega Point Theory! In a paper published by Prof. George F. R. Ellis and Dr. David H. 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 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 is required by the known laws of physics.)

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 in addition to 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 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 theophysics.chimehost.net , theophysics.host56.com , theophysics.110mb.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, someone, other than your, used your ideas and spammed the sissyforums under the name Jamie Mitchelle? Is that what you're saying?

I'm also known as Jamie Michelle, as well as Tetrahedron Omega, Sir Nigel Edmond III, Count Lithium von Choride, and other internet handles, under which I make no secret that my positive-law name is James Redford. Indeed, quite the contrary. Under all such handles I tell people what my posite-law name is and direct them to my writings under my positive-law name. My full positive-law name is James Ryan Nelson Redford, and I was born on October 21, 1977 in the Brackenridge hospital in Austin, Texas.

I'm still waiting for your apology to me for falsely accusing me of plagiarism regarding my comments on the Talk page of the Wikipedia article on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory.

As far as anyone knows? Who's 'anyone?' Are you claiming that every physicist supports this idea? If not, what other physicists support the Omega Point claim?

The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality (1997). For that, see:

David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. Available on the Theophysics website.

As far as anyone knows, the Omega Point Theory is correct. To date no refutation of it has appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. And the only criticism of it that has appeared in a refereed science paper actually unintentionally greatly strengthened the Omega Point Theory! In a paper published by Prof. George F. R. Ellis and Dr. David H. 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 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 is required by the known laws of physics.)

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 in addition to 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 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 available by searching).

-----

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 following God, being saved etc has nothing to do with faith?

Compulsion isn't exactly God's style, which is what empirical proof of him would involve.

The fact that God has been proven to exist according to the known laws of physics doesn't mean that there's no room for faith. Recall that Jesus Christ in part defined Himself as the truth (John 14:6). Hence, truth, particularly scientific truth, confirms the existence of God and Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity.

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

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

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

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

 

[James Redford]

Hmm I thought this would be a discussion of fine-tuning or something... this just sounds wheird.

That's because the Omega Point Theory concerns the physics of how God is actually able to exist, and how God is required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) to exist. It's not a statistical argument on the extreme improbability of the physical constants being just right in order to support any form of life, let alone sapient life.

 

[Chesterton]

Count Lithium von Choride

Cool name. Made me think of Klaus Flouride.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

This nonsense is still going on? I think the OP must be a turing machine.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

So following God, being saved etc has nothing to do with faith?

Compulsion isn't exactly God's style, which is what empirical proof of him would involve.

I don't know if you agree with this or not, but imo there is a difference between proof and reasonable evidential basis. The former would undermine faith but not the latter.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

That's because the Omega Point Theory concerns the physics of how God is actually able to exist, and how God is required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) to exist. It's not a statistical argument on the extreme improbability of the physical constants being just right in order to support any form of life, let alone sapient life.

That sounds pretty speculative to consitute some kind of absolute final proof.

 

[Beechwell]

That's because the Omega Point Theory concerns the physics of how God is actually able to exist, and how God is required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) to exist. It's not a statistical argument on the extreme improbability of the physical constants being just right in order to support any form of life, let alone sapient life.

I probably shouldn't get caught up in such fruitless discussions, but I have to ask: Why do you keep repeating this section (in at least 3 posts) without any further explanation?
Also, why do fail to mention that even David Deutsch, the only leading scientist to partially endorse Tipler's theories (that I know of) rejects Tipler's theological conclusions of the Omega Point Theory?

I remember reading the beginning of Tiplers omega point book once, and I believe I remember that even he admitted to use certain unproven assumptions in his theory. Unfortunately I don't know what these assumptions are (but most of his collegues seem to deem them as wildly speculative).
Maybe it would be helpful if you could present the fundamentals of Tipler's theory, rather than just post (often it seems copy and post) a bunch of unconnected statements, quotes and references.

 

[James Redford]

That sounds pretty speculative to consitute some kind of absolute final proof.

It's only "speculative" if one is willing to abandon emperical 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.

 

[James Redford]

I probably shouldn't get caught up in such fruitless discussions, but I have to ask: Why do you keep repeating this section (in at least 3 posts) without any further explanation?

The full derivation has been given. 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; available at 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.

Also, why do fail to mention that even David Deutsch, the only leading scientist to partially endorse Tipler's theories (that I know of) rejects Tipler's theological conclusions of the Omega Point Theory?

Prof. David Deutsch does believe that God does exist. But due to his atheistic philosophy, he to date has not been able to admit this.

Prof. Deutsch believes that the Omega Point exists.

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. As well, God should be able to resurrect the dead, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists.

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.

Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

I remember reading the beginning of Tiplers omega point book once, and I believe I remember that even he admitted to use certain unproven assumptions in his theory. Unfortunately I don't know what these assumptions are (but most of his collegues seem to deem them as wildly speculative).

No, what Prof. Tipler said was that at the time (i.e., at the writing of his 1994 book) he didn't have any experimental evidence that the Omega Point Theory was correct. Hence, he said that he still regarded himself as an atheist, and that he would continue to regard himself as an atheist until the Omega Point Theory is experimentally confirmed. The Omega Point Theory has advanced since that time. Since that time it's been shown that the only way to avoid the Omega Point Cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date.

Due to these advancements, Prof. Tipler now regards himself as a theist. And a Christian theist, at that, due to the inherent triune structure of the Omega Point cosmology.

Maybe it would be helpful if you could present the fundamentals of Tipler's theory, rather than just post (often it seems copy and post) a bunch of unconnected statements, quotes and references.

I have many times in this thread and elsewhere already done that. For the physical details of the Omega Point, 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; available at 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.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics 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.)