I don't understand how anyone can watch this and draw the conclusions you do. ...
Hi, WilbertK. In order to better understand the mathematically-unavoidable conclusion of the Omega Point TOE per the known laws of physics, I provide helpful notes and commentary for the following video to which you refer:
Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss, Michael Shermer (Producer), A Great Debate: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity? (prod. co.: Skeptics Society [Altadena, Cal.]), run time: 2:13 h:min. Video of a debate held at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech; Pasadena, Cal.) on June 3, 2007.
Again, for that, see:
James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", net.science.misc, Message-ID:
tve0m8tnsr38g51tuj428k1olms444l7r0@4ax.com , 06 Apr 2013 11:18:59 -0400
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/net.science.misc/8sAF9oZevLo
Since the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) is mathematically required by the known laws of physics, of which said physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, the only way Krauss could have actually argued against Tipler is to argue that the known laws of physics might be wrong. But because those physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, there exists no rational reason to think that they are wrong. Hence, Krauss's irrelevant arguments (or bare assertions, as Krauss also engaged in) against Tipler were unavoidable, since Krauss set himself a logically-impossible task.
For details on the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see the following paper by Prof. Tipler:
* 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://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as Frank J. Tipler, "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
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point 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.
http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )
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.
The following is the first article on the Omega Point TOE:
* Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics", arXiv:astro-ph/0111520, Nov. 28, 2001.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111520 For images that go with the article, see "Frank J. Tipler, Diagrams", Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist.
http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/tipler-diagrams.html
... The scientists on which Tipler bases his arguments don't agree with his interpretation of their research. ...
Prof. Tipler simply bases the the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE on the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. The only way to avoid the Omega Point TOE is to reject the known laws of physics, and hence to reject empirical science. Tipler cites the work of others, but he is citing results which are required by experiment and by mathematical necessity.
At 1:00:52 h:min:sec ff. of the aforecited video, Krauss provides a quote from Gerardus 't Hooft, but as with Krauss's discussion of probabilities, 't Hooft's remarks are irrelevant to Tipler's actual argument, since 't Hooft is assuming boundary conditions on the universe which are inconsistent with quantum field theory rather than the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE boundary conditions which makes all the laws of physics mutually mathematically consistent with each other.
At 1:02:01 h:min:sec ff. of said video, Krauss provides a quote from Steven Weinberg, of which again is irrelevant to Tipler's actual argument, since as with 't Hooft, Weinberg is assuming inconsistent boundary conditions.
Krauss, 't Hooft, and Weinberg are all particle physicists. Whereas Tipler is not only an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) but also an expert in Global General Relativity and computer theory. Furthermore, neither Krauss, 't Hooft, nor Weinberg display any awareness of Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper which presents the technical details of the Omega Point TOE.
... Now in and of itself this is not a problem. But I point this out because the physics and maths required to understand these theories aren't accessible to most people on these forums. This means we have to rely on experts in order to make informed decisions. And the experts aren't on Tipler's side. Even the experts he uses to make his points disagree with him.
Most physicists haven't commented on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and are almost certainly unaware of it. Far more physicists have endorsed Tipler's Omega Point cosmology in the form of being approving peer-reviewers of his papers on the Omega Point cosmology than have criticized it.
To date only two physicists have criticized Tipler's Omega Point cosmology using the Scientific Method's process of peer-review, they being physicists Prof. George Ellis and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the 1994 paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.
I pointed out in my commentary for the aforementioned video that Krauss has also ironically published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that's the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics.
As Krauss points out, Tipler is stretching theories far beyond their breaking point, and can't support his conclusions with evidence. He is describing what the universe would have to be like in order to allow for his preconceived ideas. To claim that this description of the universe is proven to be fact is nonsense. And I would like to point out that I think that Tipler wouldn't defend that claim himself.
The Omega Point TOE is a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. 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].)
Since the Omega Point TOE is mathematically required by the known laws of physics, of which said physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, the only way Krauss could have actually argued against Tipler is to argue that the known laws of physics might be wrong. But because those physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, there exists no rational reason to think that they are wrong. Hence, Krauss's irrelevant arguments (or bare assertions, as Krauss also engaged in) against Tipler were unavoidable, since Krauss set himself a logically-impossible task.
For much more regarding the above matters, see my following article:
James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708,
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 ,
http://archive.org/download/ThePhys...TheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf ,
http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf ,
http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf ,
http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
