God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

[James Redford]

Yes, that's rather my point.


Correct, however, we know that they are mutually exclusive.

Consider the state of physics 200 years ago. Suppose someone proposed the theory of quantum mechanics. Both classical and quantum mechanics would both explain all the data, and all experiments to day (i.e., 1813) would verifiy both theories. But, the two theories are still mutually exclusive.

This is because they both make predictions about as-yet untested situations (principally, the mechanics of small things), at least, untested in the year 1813.

General Relativity is the unique specialization (i.e., subset; special case) of Newtonian mechanics with the specification imposed that Newtonian mechanics be consistent with the speed of light being the same for all observers. The speed of light being the same for all observers is an automatic consequence of Maxwell's Equations, which was first shown by Hendrik Lorentz and then Albert Einstein.

James Clerk Maxwell obtained his Equations because there were five fundamental laws coming from experiment: Faraday's Law; Gauss's Law; Ampère's Law; No Magnetic Monopoles; and Conservation of Electric Charge. Maxwell realized that these laws were mutually mathematically inconsistent: the Conservation of Electric Charge directly contradicts Ampère's Law. So what Maxwell did was add a term to Ampère's Law which made it consistent with the other equations. Maxwell was left with only four equations, but the Conservation of Electric Charge could be derived from them. However, Maxwell's Equations meant that the speed of light had to be the same for all observers.

Elie Cartan showed that in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is curvature of time only; whereas in General Relativity, gravity is curvature of space and time, i.e., spacetime (cf. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity [New York: Doubleday, 2007], p. 33; and pp. 79-80 of Frank J. Tipler, "Albert Einstein: A Scientific Reactionary", pp. 73-83, in John Brockman [Ed.], My Einstein [New York: Vintage Books, 2007; orig. pub. 2006]). When Lorentz and Einstein's insight regarding the speed of light being the same for all observers is combined with Newtonian mechanics, then the Newton equations automatically become the Einstein equations.

As was independently shown by Lev Landau and David Bohm, Quantum Mechanics is the unique specialization of Newtonian mechanics in its most powerful formulation, the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation, with the specification imposed that determinism is maintained: since the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation is indeterministic, because when particle trajectories cross paths a singularity is produced (i.e., the values in the equations become infinite) and so it is not possible to predict (even in principle) what happens after that (cf. id., The Physics of Christianity, pp. 48-49; and 7:17 min:sec ff. of Casey Luskin, interview of Frank Tipler, "Part 1: Einstein Vs. Darwin", Intelligent Design the Future, Feb. 13, 2013, audio run time: 17:25 min:sec).

Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity is the unique quantization of General Relativity, i.e., it's the only way to quantize General Relativity, since quantizing a spin-2 field requires it to be a spacetime metric and imposes the full GL(4, R) symmetry group. Gravity in General Relativity is a spin-2 field, and General Relativity is a spacetime metric and possesses the full GL(4, R) symmetry group.

(In the above, "unique" means the only one mathematically possible within the context of parsimony, as one can always add arbitrary yet small terms which change the output so insignificantly that no current instruments can measure the difference, and hence it would presently still conform to experiment, but such arbitrary terms would not then be parsimonious, since they are not justified by mathematical necessity [i.e., in order to obtain a mathematically-consistent theory] nor are they experimentally justified.)

For these reasons--the fact that the history of physics since Newton has been a series of specializations, rather than generalizations, of fundamental physics--we can be confident that we have the correct Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics and that there is not going to be any new physics that comes along to displace the current known laws of physics. That is, since after Newton's physics, there has been no "revolution" in physics (e.g., such as with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, etc.), but instead an evolution of physics: the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. So in over 300 years we have never left the realm of Newton's physics. And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

This is the case today with QM and GR: though they both enjoy enormous empirical support, they do overlap in some areas, namely, high mass and small scale. That is to say, a black hole. QM and GR disagree about what happens at the core of a black hole - GR says the mass is infinitely dense, QM says the mass is of finite (albeit enormous) density. One or both have to be wrong - ergo, QM and GR are mutually exclusive.

That's a result of using boundary conditions that contradict observations and quantum field theory. The singularity is actually *more* inevitable in Quantum Mechanics than it is in General Relativity, because the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas no additional assumptions are required for the singularity to exist in Quantum Mechanics.

One way of stating Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis is that all analytic functions (i.e., holomorphic functions) other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity (i.e., at the boundary of the complex plane), which is analogous to what occurs with the universe: the only way to avoid infinities in spacetime (consequently causing the instantaneous collapse of the entire universe) is for the universe to begin and end at singularities. Moreover, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. As Profs. Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See:

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 (Jan. 7, 1988), pp. 31-34. Also released as "The Finite Action Principle; or, Singularities without Singularities", an entry in the Gravity Research Foundation's 1987 essay competition. http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1987/barrow_tipler.pdf

And see:

Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 (Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987), pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986LIACo..26..339T

 

[WilbertK]

Hi, WilbertK.

Hi.

Since the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) is mathematically required by the known laws of physics

It isn't. That's the essence of the problem. I watched the two hour video and did some research on the sources. If you take the known laws of physics to be exact then the Omega Point is the logical conclusion. Problem is: we KNOW that the known laws of physics are approximations. So although Tipler's conclusions may be logically valid, they don't apply to the real world.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For these reasons--the fact that the history of physics since Newton has been a series of specializations, rather than generalizations, of fundamental physics--we can be confident that we have the correct Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics and that there is not going to be any new physics that comes along to displace the current known laws of physics.

The following remark, tentatively ascribed to Lord Kelvin, springs to mind:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." - c. 1900

Your comments smack of someone sticking to a paradigm because it creates a conclusion they like - in this case, the Omega point and your equating it with the God of Christianity.

That is, since after Newton's physics, there has been no "revolution" in physics (e.g., such as with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, etc.), but instead an evolution of physics: the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. So in over 300 years we have never left the realm of Newton's physics.

Nor have we left the fields of spontaneous generation, humorism, and alchemy - we've just refined and evolved beyond them.

For someone evidently educated in the history of physics, I'm surprised you make such schoolboy errors in your analyses.

 

[James Redford]

Hi.

It isn't. That's the essence of the problem. I watched the two hour video and did some research on the sources. If you take the known laws of physics to be exact then the Omega Point is the logical conclusion. Problem is: we KNOW that the known laws of physics are approximations. So although Tipler's conclusions may be logically valid, they don't apply to the real world.

Hi, WilbertK. Apparently you're referring to the idea that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are mathematically incompatible.

Howbeit, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't known to be incompatible per se. They are incompatible if one attempts to artificially eliminate the arbitrarily higher number of terms within the quantum gravitational Lagrangian and if one does not use the proper boundary conditions on the universe. For the details on that, see Sec. 3.2: "The Omega Point and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", pp. 19 and 23-24 of 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

 

[James Redford]

The following remark, tentatively ascribed to Lord Kelvin, springs to mind:

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." - c. 1900

Your comments smack of someone sticking to a paradigm because it creates a conclusion they like - in this case, the Omega point and your equating it with the God of Christianity.

The known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, since the Omega Point TOE is a mathematical theorem per said known physical laws, the only way to reject the Omega Point TOE is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Nor have we left the fields of spontaneous generation, humorism, and alchemy - we've just refined and evolved beyond them.

For someone evidently educated in the history of physics, I'm surprised you make such schoolboy errors in your analyses.

Again, the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

 

[WilbertK]

Hi, WilbertK. Apparently you're referring to the idea that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are mathematically incompatible.

No. I'm saying that the available evidence does not imply that the resolutions to the apparent incompatibility of the theories provided by Tipler are correct.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, have been confirmed by every experiment to date.

Key phrase: to date. The laws espoused in Newton's Principia also held up to every experiment to date... until they didn't. It's fallacious (and anathema to science) to assert that a theory that hasn't been proven yet will never be proven.

Hence, since the Omega Point TOE is a mathematical theorem per said known physical laws, the only way to reject the Omega Point TOE is to reject empirical science.

If the Omega Point idea does indeed follow from the current laws of physics, yes. But that's neither been established (though I daresay you'll disagree), nor is it an epistemological certainty. The known laws of physics change, inasmuch as human knowledge is ever improving.

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].)

You're conflating mathematical theorems with empirical observations.

Again, the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other.

I.e., a completely different theory. QM is a special case of CM in the same way that abiogenesis is a special case of spontaneous generation - that is to say, it's not.

Quantum mechanics builds from mathematical premises that correspond to Newtonian mechanics at human scales (low speeds, etc), but the mechanics are fundamentally different. QM posts a waveform obeying the Schrödinger equation - where is this found in Newtonian mechanics?

And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

Then tell me the density of the core of a black hole: finite, or infinite.

 

[James Redford]

...

Your comments smack of someone sticking to a paradigm because it creates a conclusion they like - in this case, the Omega point and your equating it with the God of Christianity.

...

Just to correct you, Wiccan_Child, on another error that you made in your foregoing post:

Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occured after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661 http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs ). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, No. 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460 http://webcitation.org/5uLtsw18V ).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on an emulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the emulation).

Regarding myself, I was also an atheist before realizing that there was no way logically around Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology if the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) are correct. Since said physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, I would have to be an antiscientific irrationalist in order to avoid the Omega Point cosmology. Hence, I then had no honest choice but to become a theist.

Regarding the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity:

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. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

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 [Cambridge: 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. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity (i.e., the uncaused cause of all causes) is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

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 powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). 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.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics through baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

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

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

For much more on the above, 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

 

[James Redford]

The irony of this thread is hilarious... Religious people have ALWAYS co-opt the cutting edge science of the day it order to "prove" the existence of their deity.

What you are doing now with quantum theory and "omega point cosmology" is no different than what Thomas Aquinas did in 1270. Except at that time, the laws of motion were the big hot topic science of the day. So he said that the laws of motion prove the existence of God because there must be a "prime mover" to start the motion!

We now of course know that the universe exists with zero sum energy so motion has nothing to do with it.

It's all one big "god of the gaps" argument. You try to squeeze your god into every crack that science has yet to fill while also relying on the personal incredulity of people who don't actually understand the science in order to thrust in your god hypothesis.

Hi, DaneaFL.

The Omega Point cosmology is not a "[G]od of the gaps" argument. A God of the gaps argument asserts that because we don't possess knowledge on how some phenomena occur, God therefore must be responsible for said phenomena--hence, that God exits.

Whereas the Omega Point cosmology is an argument from knowledge, rather than an argument from ignorance. It says we do know how God's existence is possible according to the known laws of physics, and indeed that said laws of physics actually mathematically force God to exist. That is to say, the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require the universe to diverge to infinite computational power (in terms of both processor speed and memory storage), wherein this computational power becomes actually infinite at a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The Omega Point is a solitary-point final singularity in the Penrose c-bounardy construction, and it is actually a different aspect of the Big Bang intitial singularity (i.e., the first cause, a.k.a. the prime mover). The multiverse also has its own singularity, which again is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity. The cosmological singularity is not a part of spacetime, and hence is not subject to time, i.e., it is eternal. As you point out above, the traditional Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is also correct, as the universe was not made from the divine substance (i.e., the singularity), but instead the matter in the universe came into being with the universe. As you pointed out, the entire energy of the universe sums to exactly zero. Another way of putting it is that everything is contained in nothingness, mathematically speaking. Thus:

0+0 = 0

-1+1 = 0

-2+2 = 0

-3+3 = 0

-4+4 = 0

And so on. For the physics details of this, see the excerpt of Prof. Stephen Hawking on p. 16 of 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

Yet in spacetime, everything is strictly finite, and hence the divine substance (i.e., the singularity) is fundamentally different from anything in spacetime (i.e., creation), as the cosmological singularity is intrinsically infinite. Because physical values are at infinity at the cosmological singularity, it is quite literally supernatural, because no possible form of physics can apply to the singularity, as arithmetic cannot be usefully applied those physical values in order to derive physical results.

Moreover, Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661 http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs ). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, No. 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460 http://webcitation.org/5uLtsw18V ).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on an emulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the emulation).

Regarding myself, I was also an atheist before realizing that there was no way logically around Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology if the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) are correct. Since said physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, I would have to be an antiscientific irrationalist in order to avoid the Omega Point cosmology. Hence, I then had no honest choice but to become a theist.

Concerning the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity:

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. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

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 [Cambridge: 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. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity (i.e., the uncaused cause of all causes) is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

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 powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). 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.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics through baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

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

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

For much more on the above, see my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

 

[James Redford]

No. I'm saying that the available evidence does not imply that the resolutions to the apparent incompatibility of the theories provided by Tipler are correct.

Again, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't known to be incompatible per se. They are incompatible if one attempts to artificially eliminate the arbitrarily higher number of terms within the quantum gravitational Lagrangian and if one does not use the proper boundary conditions on the universe. For the details on that, see Sec. 3.2: "The Omega Point and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", pp. 19 and 23-24 of 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

 

[WilbertK]

I never claimed that QM an GR were incompatible. I only said that there was an apparent incompatibility. I realize that there are mathematical solutions to this problem. But so long as these solutions remain untested, it's nonsense to call them factual.

 

[James Redford]

Key phrase: to date. The laws espoused in Newton's Principia also held up to every experiment to date... until they didn't. It's fallacious (and anathema to science) to assert that a theory that hasn't been proven yet will never be proven.

Perhaps the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) are wrong. Yet they have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so there exists no rational reason to think that they are wrong. Hence also, the only way to avoid the Omega Point TOE--since it is mathematically unavoidable if said physical laws are true--is to reject empirical science.

Furthermore, because the history of physics since Newton has been a series of specializations, rather than generalizations, of fundamental physics, we can be confident that we have the correct Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics and that there is not going to be any new physics that comes along to displace the current known laws of physics, as all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

If the Omega Point idea does indeed follow from the current laws of physics, yes. But that's neither been established (though I daresay you'll disagree), nor is it an epistemological certainty. The known laws of physics change, inasmuch as human knowledge is ever improving.


You're conflating mathematical theorems with empirical observations.

Not at all. Perhaps the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) are wrong. Yet they have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so there exists no rational reason to think that they are wrong. Hence also, the only way to avoid the Omega Point TOE--since it is mathematically unavoidable if said physical laws are true--is to reject empirical science.

I.e., a completely different theory. QM is a special case of CM in the same way that abiogenesis is a special case of spontaneous generation - that is to say, it's not.

General Relativity is the unique specialization (i.e., subset; special case) of Newtonian mechanics with the specification imposed that Newtonian mechanics be consistent with the speed of light being the same for all observers. The speed of light being the same for all observers is an automatic consequence of Maxwell's Equations, which was first shown by Hendrik Lorentz and then Albert Einstein.

James Clerk Maxwell obtained his Equations because there were five fundamental laws coming from experiment: Faraday's Law; Gauss's Law; Ampère's Law; No Magnetic Monopoles; and Conservation of Electric Charge. Maxwell realized that these laws were mutually mathematically inconsistent: the Conservation of Electric Charge directly contradicts Ampère's Law. So what Maxwell did was add a term to Ampère's Law which made it consistent with the other equations. Maxwell was left with only four equations, but the Conservation of Electric Charge could be derived from them. However, Maxwell's Equations meant that the speed of light had to be the same for all observers.

Elie Cartan showed that in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is curvature of time only; whereas in General Relativity, gravity is curvature of space and time, i.e., spacetime (cf. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity [New York: Doubleday, 2007], p. 33; and pp. 79-80 of Frank J. Tipler, "Albert Einstein: A Scientific Reactionary", pp. 73-83, in John Brockman [Ed.], My Einstein [New York: Vintage Books, 2007; orig. pub. 2006]). When Lorentz and Einstein's insight regarding the speed of light being the same for all observers is combined with Newtonian mechanics, then the Newton equations automatically become the Einstein equations.

As was independently shown by Lev Landau and David Bohm, Quantum Mechanics is the unique specialization of Newtonian mechanics in its most powerful formulation, the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation, with the specification imposed that determinism is maintained: since the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation is indeterministic, because when particle trajectories cross paths a singularity is produced (i.e., the values in the equations become infinite) and so it is not possible to predict (even in principle) what happens after that (cf. id., The Physics of Christianity, pp. 48-49; and 7:17 min:sec ff. of Casey Luskin, interview of Frank Tipler, "Part 1: Einstein Vs. Darwin", Intelligent Design the Future, Feb. 13, 2013, audio run time: 17:25 min:sec).

Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity is the unique quantization of General Relativity, i.e., it's the only way to quantize General Relativity, since quantizing a spin-2 field requires it to be a spacetime metric and imposes the full GL(4, R) symmetry group. Gravity in General Relativity is a spin-2 field, and General Relativity is a spacetime metric and possesses the full GL(4, R) symmetry group.

(In the above, "unique" means the only one mathematically possible within the context of parsimony, as one can always add arbitrary yet small terms which change the output so insignificantly that no current instruments can measure the difference, and hence it would presently still conform to experiment, but such arbitrary terms would not then be parsimonious, since they are not justified by mathematical necessity [i.e., in order to obtain a mathematically-consistent theory] nor are they experimentally justified.)

Quantum mechanics builds from mathematical premises that correspond to Newtonian mechanics at human scales (low speeds, etc), but the mechanics are fundamentally different. QM posts a waveform obeying the Schrödinger equation - where is this found in Newtonian mechanics?

The Schrödinger Equation is simply Newtonian mechanics in its most powerful formulation (i.e., its wave/particle formulation), the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation, with the specification imposed that determinism is maintained: since the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation is indeterministic, because when particle trajectories cross paths a singularity is produced (i.e., the values in the equations become infinite) and so it is not possible to predict (even in principle) what happens after that (cf. id., The Physics of Christianity, pp. 48-49; and 7:17 min:sec ff. of Casey Luskin, interview of Frank Tipler, "Part 1: Einstein Vs. Darwin", Intelligent Design the Future, Feb. 13, 2013, audio run time: 17:25 min:sec).

For the details regarding how modern physics (i.e., General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are simply special cases of classical mechanics (i.e., Newtonian mechanics, particularly in its most powerful formulation of the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation), see the following articles:

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Oct. 26, 2008, 45 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1271310. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271310

* Maurice J. Dupré and Frank J. Tipler, "General Relativity as an Æther Theory", International Journal of Modern Physics D, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Feb. 2012), Art. No. 1250011, 16 pp., doi:10.1142/S0218271812500113, bibcode: 2012IJMPD..2150011D. http://worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271812500113 Also at arXiv:1007.4572, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572

* Frank J. Tipler, "Hamilton-Jacobi Many-Worlds Theory and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", arXiv:1007.4566, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4566

Then tell me the density of the core of a black hole: finite, or infinite.

The density at the innermost part of a black hole is infinite. The singularity inside of black holes is actually just a component of the Omega Point final singularity. See the second sentence of Sec. 6 of the following paper.

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB

Black hole event horizons are eventually eliminated via the trapped surfaces of today's black holes merging with the future trapped surfaces of the collapsing universe. See App. H: "The Classical Omega Point Universe: Mathematical Details", pp. 478-479 of Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1994).

 

[James Redford]

I never claimed that QM an GR were incompatible. I only said that there was an apparent incompatibility. I realize that there are mathematical solutions to this problem. But so long as these solutions remain untested, it's nonsense to call them factual.

The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory has been extensively tested and verified. There have been thousands upon thousands of experimental confirmations for both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity is the unique quantization of General Relativity, i.e., it's the only way to quantize General Relativity, since quantizing a spin-2 field requires it to be a spacetime metric and imposes the full GL(4, R) symmetry group. Gravity in General Relativity is a spin-2 field, and General Relativity is a spacetime metric and possesses the full GL(4, R) symmetry group. (Herein "unique" means the only one mathematically possible within the context of parsimony, as one can always add arbitrary yet small terms which change the output so insignificantly that no current instruments can measure the difference, and hence it would presently still conform to experiment, but such arbitrary terms would not then be parsimonious, since they are not justified by mathematical necessity [i.e., in order to obtain a mathematically-consistent theory] nor are they experimentally justified.)

 

[WilbertK]

The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory has been extensively tested and verified. There have been thousands upon thousands of experimental confirmations for both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Testing QM and GR separately isn't the same as testing OP. If you want to test OP you have to predict what happens where QM and GR meet, and test that. These predictions have to be predictions that cannot be made by QM or GR. Only if you do that, you are testing OP. If you don't do that, you're just speculating.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Perhaps the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) are wrong. Yet they have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so there exists no rational reason to think that they are wrong. Hence also, the only way to avoid the Omega Point TOE--since it is mathematically unavoidable if said physical laws are true--is to reject empirical science.

Which nevertheless takes thrust out of your claim that God has been proven to exist according to mainstream physics. Rather, h

Furthermore, because the history of physics since Newton has been a series of specializations, rather than generalizations, of fundamental physics, we can be confident that we have the correct Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics and that there is not going to be any new physics that comes along to displace the current known laws of physics, as all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

Which contradicts your earlier statement that the laws of physics may well be wrong. Even if you were right that post-Newtonian physics is simply a specialisation (and not, as is actually the case, a generalisation) of Newtonian physics, that is no way epistemologically proves that Newtonian physics is a complete full and exhaustive description of the natural laws, nor does it even substantiate the claim that nothing new is left to discover in physics.

General Relativity is the unique specialization (i.e., subset; special case) of Newtonian mechanics with the specification imposed that Newtonian mechanics be consistent with the speed of light being the same for all observers.

If GR is a special case of CM, then the conclusions of GR are necessarily found within CM. They're not (qv. the precession of the perihelion of Mercury), and in fact you've got it exactly backwards: GR is the most general case, SR is GR under the limit of flat spacetime, and CM is SR (and thus GR) under the limit of slow speeds and small scales. CM approximates gravity as originating with mass, while under SR mass is treated more generally as the energy-momentum tensor.

The speed of light being the same for all observers is an automatic consequence of Maxwell's Equations, which was first shown by Hendrik Lorentz and then Albert Einstein.

James Clerk Maxwell obtained his Equations because there were five fundamental laws coming from experiment: Faraday's Law; Gauss's Law; Ampère's Law; No Magnetic Monopoles; and Conservation of Electric Charge. Maxwell realized that these laws were mutually mathematically inconsistent: the Conservation of Electric Charge directly contradicts Ampère's Law. So what Maxwell did was add a term to Ampère's Law which made it consistent with the other equations. Maxwell was left with only four equations, but the Conservation of Electric Charge could be derived from them. However, Maxwell's Equations meant that the speed of light had to be the same for all observers.

Elie Cartan showed that in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is curvature of time only; whereas in General Relativity, gravity is curvature of space and time, i.e., spacetime (cf. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity [New York: Doubleday, 2007], p. 33; and pp. 79-80 of Frank J. Tipler, "Albert Einstein: A Scientific Reactionary", pp. 73-83, in John Brockman [Ed.], My Einstein [New York: Vintage Books, 2007; orig. pub. 2006]). When Lorentz and Einstein's insight regarding the speed of light being the same for all observers is combined with Newtonian mechanics, then the Newton equations automatically become the Einstein equations.

I.e., a new mathematical framework for physical mechanics, and therefore not Newtonian mechanics.

The density at the innermost part of a black hole is infinite.

Which contradicts QM, which says the density is finite.

 

[Michael]

Originally Posted by James Redford

The density at the innermost part of a black hole is infinite.​

​

Which contradicts QM, which says the density is finite.

Wouldn't that necessarily imply "infinite mass" as well?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wouldn't that necessarily imply "infinite mass" as well?

Not necessarily. Density is mass divided by volume. If an object has a fixed and finite mass, but its volume decreases, its density will therefore increase. As the volume tends to zero, the density tends to infinity.

The mass that is a black hole is a large but ultimately finite mass. According to QM, this mass has been crushed to a point - it occupies zero volume. So, it's density is basically infinite.

 

[Michael]

Not necessarily. Density is mass divided by volume. If an object has a fixed and finite mass, but its volume decreases, its density will therefore increase. As the volume tends to zero, the density tends to infinity.

The mass that is a black hole is a large but ultimately finite mass. According to QM, this mass has been crushed to a point - it occupies zero volume. So, it's density is basically infinite.

Now I am unclear on how you and James differ in your positions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Now I am unclear on how you and James differ in your positions.

Woops, I meant to say 'GR' instead of 'QM'. QM says mass cannot be crushed to arbitrarily small volumes, implying an upper density limit. GR doesn't pose such a limit.

 

[Michael]

Woops, I meant to say 'GR' instead of 'QM'. QM says mass cannot be crushed to arbitrarily small volumes, implying an upper density limit. GR doesn't pose such a limit.

Ok. Apparently I'm in the QM camp. FYI, there has been further support of this Pauli-exclusion oriented view in studies of the neutron structure itself. Apparently it's more like an oreo cookie with a negative shell and negative core, with a positively charged layer in between.

Discovery Changes Understanding of Neutrons | LiveScience