Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

[white gardenia]

I don't know how many of you are familiar with writings of Frank Tipler Frank J. Tipler - Wikipedia but his Omega Point Theory has been really important to me when it comes to understanding the Bible from a strictly scientific perspective. I tell as many people as I can about Tipler because, in a way, his books give you all the information you need to refute the tired old atheist talking points. Some of it gets sort of complicated (especially when he gets into quantum theory and the vagaries of cosmic expansion rates) but the core premise behind the OPT theory is actually fairly simple....If you get a chance please listen to this interview that we did with Frank Tipler from back in 2015...

 

[John Hyperspace]

I remember reading the Physics of Immortality; feels like 10-15 years ago. The video is interesting; the most poignant part being toward the end where the concept of definition of terms comes up. Hopefully one day everyone will come to understand the concept so that we can finally begin to actually communicate with one another in a meaningfully abstract manner. I've brought it up before, over the years and still to this day, but it seems to be the most difficult concept for people to grasp, even though it's so simple, and such a fundamental necessity in efficient communication and mutual understanding.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

his books give you all the information you need to refute the tired old atheist talking points.

Huh? There are "atheist points" to refute?
That's news to me.

Some of it gets sort of complicated (especially when he gets into quantum theory and the vagaries of cosmic expansion rates) but the core premise behind the OPT theory is actually fairly simple....If you get a chance please listen to this interview that we did with Frank Tipler from back in 2015...

Please summarise the main points.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Huh? There are "atheist points" to refute?
That's news to me.



Please summarise the main points.

I stopped listening after 10 minutes as the only argument was "only an idiotic, crazy fool would deny the multi-world hypothesis." Apparently the evidence is overwhelming (although what that evidence is he doesn't say).

 

[USincognito]

There's no such thing as scientific proof. And if there were, it wouldn't be found on You Tube video.

 

[lesliedellow]

Although I haven't read it, the only book of his I might lend any credance to is the one he coauthored with John D Barrow. The latter would have been able to rein in some of his colleague's wilder speculations.

 

[white gardenia]

Please summarise the main points.

Okay here's a brief synopsis...Frank Tipler started out as an atheist, so his first book on this topic (The Physics of Immortality) was an attempt to show that any human, living or dead, could be virtually rendered in a computer simulation. This may have seemed far fetched when the Physics of Immortality was first published but it seems significantly less far fetched now.... especially when respected scientists and researchers like Stephen Hawking are constantly warning us about the dangers of artificial intelligence. The first artificial intelligence will most likely be the first simulated human consciousness. ( ie computers are already more "intelligent" than human...they just cant process the information in any meaningful way) When people talk about artificial intelligence they are actually talking about a computer which is conscious/ self-aware in the way that humans are... most likely reverse engineered from a human. And so once this first simulated consciousness has been developed, we just do every physically possible variation of that simulation and we will have brought back every person who has ever lived (or could possibly have lived)
Tipler points out that we will be able to simulate all possible sets of memories and interactions for these simulated personalities… meaning that you, me and everyone that we know and love, can be brought back, along with all of our shared memories and experiences…..everyone who has ever lived can be reunited in this idealized version of an afterlife…indeed, as Tipler points out, this perfect virtual reality state seems almost indistinguishable from the Judeo -Christian description of heaven.
But then comes the question of how humanity (or whatever humanity evolves into) would be able to facilitate the computational power necessary to make this virtual heaven possible...or how we could make this "heaven" last forever...since the simulation would still be taking place within a finite universe. This is where the concept of an "Omega Point" comes into the picture.
As Wikipedia notes “the supposition of a closed universe evolving towards a
future collapse state is key to Tipler’s Omega Point. Within this universe, Tipler assumes a massive processing capability. As the universe becomes smaller, the processing capability becomes larger” Tipler points out that in the final fleeting moments of universal collapse we will have access to infinite energy and infinite computational power. Within this context we will be able to simulate anything, no matter how complex....and infinite computational power will facilitate infinite subjective time within the simulation....
Yikes I'm starting to realize that this isn't such a short synopsis and I actually have to get back to work....Ill have to explain the second half of this theory at some point t tonight holy:

 

[lesliedellow]

Okay here's a brief synopsis...Frank Tipler started out as an atheist, so his first book on this topic (The Physics of Immortality) was an attempt to show that any human, living or dead, could be virtually rendered in a computer simulation. This may have seemed far fetched when the Physics of Immortality was first published but it seems significantly less far fetched now.... especially when respected scientists and researchers like Stephen Hawking are constantly warning us about the dangers of artificial intelligence. The first artificial intelligence will most likely be the first simulated human consciousness. ( ie computers are already more "intelligent" than human...they just cant process the information in any meaningful way) When people talk about artificial intelligence they are actually talking about a computer which is conscious/ self-aware in the way that humans are... most likely reverse engineered from a human. And so once this first simulated consciousness has been developed, we just do every physically possible variation of that simulation and we will have brought back every person who has ever lived (or could possibly have lived)
Tipler points out that we will be able to simulate all possible sets of memories and interactions for these simulated personalities… meaning that you, me and everyone that we know and love, can be brought back, along with all of our shared memories and experiences…..everyone who has ever lived can be reunited in this idealized version of an afterlife…indeed, as Tipler points out, this perfect virtual reality state seems almost indistinguishable from the Judeo -Christian description of heaven.
But then comes the question of how humanity (or whatever humanity evolves into) would be able to facilitate the computational power necessary to make this virtual heaven possible...or how we could make this "heaven" last forever...since the simulation would still be taking place within a finite universe. This is where the concept of an "Omega Point" comes into the picture.
As Wikipedia notes “the supposition of a closed universe evolving towards a
future collapse state is key to Tipler’s Omega Point. Within this universe, Tipler assumes a massive processing capability. As the universe becomes smaller, the processing capability becomes larger” Tipler points out that in the final fleeting moments of universal collapse we will have access to infinite energy and infinite computational power. Within this context we will be able to simulate anything, no matter how complex....and infinite computational power will facilitate infinite subjective time within the simulation....
Yikes I'm starting to realize that this isn't such a short synopsis and I actually have to get back to work....Ill have to explain the second half of this theory at some point t tonight holy:

People have been forecasting conscious machines as being just around the corner since at least the mid seventies. Wake me up when it happens.

 

[white gardenia]

I stopped listening after 10 minutes as the only argument was "only an idiotic, crazy fool would deny the multi-world hypothesis." Apparently the evidence is overwhelming (although what that evidence is he doesn't say).

Well, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson have all also expressed support for the multi world hypothesis, so there must be some evidence.
Also believing in mwi is not integral to the Omega Point Theory. They are two totally separate theories

 

[lesliedellow]

Well, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson have all also expressed support for the multi world hypothesis, so there must be some evidence.
Also believing in mwi is not integral to the Omega Point Theory. They are two totally separate theories

The reason they entertain the idea is that it is the only alternative explanation, apart from God, for the fact that this universe seems to balanced on a knife edge in terms of the value of its fundamental constants.

 

[Michael]

There's no such thing as scientific proof.

That's very true, but unfortunately even so called "scientists" get overzealous and erroneously use that term as well:

[astro-ph/0608407] A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

Believe it or not, the term "proof" even passed peer review. Of course it turns out that all they "proved' was that their galaxy mass estimation techniques were absolutely atrocious in 2006:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

 

[Strathos]

This again? I believe I've already explained several times how Tipler's ideas don't mesh with my theology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The reason they entertain the idea is that it is the only alternative explanation, apart from God, for the fact that this universe seems to balanced on a knife edge in terms of the value of its fundamental constants.

That's not really the reason. The Everettian Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics was formulated before the cosmological fine tuning argument was a thing; and it's not clear that it really does help with fine tuning, as it's possible the quantum behaviour of our universe is a consequence of its origins just as much as its particular 'tuning' is. Another candidate might be the inflationary multiverse (not necessarily in conflict with the MWI), where instabilities in an expanding 'bulk' produce bubble universes with varying properties, emerging like the bubbles in soda when you unscrew the cap.

But neither was devised to explain the appearence of fine tuning - inflation was devised to explain the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. Almost any multiverse hypothesis can be used to 'explain' fine tuning, but - as yet - they're not significantly more satisfactory than the weak anthropic principle - regardless of causal origins, observers will inevitably observe a universe that can support observers...

 

[lesliedellow]

That's not really the reason. The Everettian Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics was formulated before the cosmological fine tuning argument was a thing; and it's not clear that it really does help with fine tuning, as it's possible the quantum behaviour of our universe is a consequence of its origins just as much as its particular 'tuning' is. Another candidate might be the inflationary multiverse (not necessarily in conflict with the MWI), where instabilities in an expanding 'bulk' produce bubble universes with varying properties, emerging like the bubbles in soda when you unscrew the cap.

But neither was devised to explain the appearence of fine tuning - inflation was devised to explain the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. Almost any multiverse hypothesis can be used to 'explain' fine tuning, but - as yet - they're not significantly more satisfactory than the weak anthropic principle - regardless of causal origins, observers will inevitably observe a universe that can support observers...

The weak anthropic principle is just a trivially true statement. It doesn't begin to cut it as an explanation of cosmological fine tuning.

 

[white gardenia]

People have been forecasting conscious machines as being just around the corner since at least the mid seventies. Wake me up when it happens.

Well again, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Bill Gates...these are all people who say that artificial intelligence is probably imminent..
respected skeptic/ atheist Sam Harris points out that the viability of artificial intelligence (and by extension, “artificial/ simulated history”, ”artificial memories” etc. etc ) all follow logically from an atheistic materialistic worldview “I cant imagine a scientist not granting that- number one, we are going to make progress in computer design [to that extent]…and two- that there is nothing magical about biological material as far as intelligence is concerned”
So Harris is echoing what most scientists believe– that it’s not only possible…it is inevitable (at least in some form).

 

[lesliedellow]

Well again, Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, Bill Gates...these are all people who say that artificial intelligence is probably imminent..
respected skeptic/ atheist Sam Harris points out that the viability of artificial intelligence (and by extension, “artificial/ simulated history”, ”artificial memories” etc. etc ) all follow logically from an atheistic materialistic worldview “I cant imagine a scientist not granting that- number one, we are going to make progress in computer design [to that extent]…and two- that there is nothing magical about biological material as far as intelligence is concerned”
So Harris is echoing what most scientists believe– that it’s not only possible…it is inevitable (at least in some form).

When a pin is stuck in you, there is a huge explanatory gap between brain activity, which anybody can observe on an EEG machine, and the feeling of pain, which only you can experience. Until there is some indication of that explanatory gap being bridged, talk of artificial consciousness is pure bombast.

 

[white gardenia]

The reason they entertain the idea is that it is the only alternative explanation, apart from God, for the fact that this universe seems to balanced on a knife edge in terms of the value of its fundamental constants.

yeah thats part of it....but dawkins and other hardcore atheists are also uncomfortable with the quasi-mystical implications of the copenhagen interpretation...mwi purports to solve the problem by claiming that consciousness triggered wavefunction collapse is not actually a collapse ...that we are actually seeing our universe split into one of countless possible universes

So secular atheist scientists are drawn to mwi because it does away with non-locality and the idea that human consciousness plays any special role in the universe...

but its a double edged sword, because if you believe in mwi you have to believe in some very absurd scenarios. mwi demands that every physically possible scenario is being represented somewhere in the multiversal stack...

 

[white gardenia]

When a pin is stuck in you, there is a huge explanatory gap between brain activity, which anybody can observe on an EEG machine, and the feeling of pain, which only you can experience. Until there is some indication of that explanatory gap being bridged, talk of artificial consciousness is pure bombast.

well perhaps you see it differently from Sam Harris, Stephen Hawkings etc because and they are all atheists and you are a Christian...so you believe that there is a spiritual/ supernatural component to reality....
Harris would obviously see it from a more materialistic perspective... from the atheistic perspective the human brain is simply another kind of machinery...and the resulting consciousness can be achieved by simply putting the right pieces together

 

[lesliedellow]

well perhaps you see it differently from Sam Harris, Stephen Hawkings etc because and they are all atheists and you are a Christian...so you believe that there is a spiritual/ supernatural component to reality....
Harris would obviously see it from a more materialistic perspective... from the atheistic perspective the human brain is simply another kind of machinery...and the resulting consciousness can be achieved by simply putting the right pieces together

In principle, somebody could be an atheist whilst doubting that the current scientific paradigm allows for an explanation of consciousness. In practice, of course, few of today's atheists would allow thmselves to entertain that thought.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay here's a brief synopsis...Frank Tipler started out as an atheist, so his first book on this topic (The Physics of Immortality) was an attempt to show that any human, living or dead, could be virtually rendered in a computer simulation. This may have seemed far fetched when the Physics of Immortality was first published but it seems significantly less far fetched now.... especially when respected scientists and researchers like Stephen Hawking are constantly warning us about the dangers of artificial intelligence. The first artificial intelligence will most likely be the first simulated human consciousness. ( ie computers are already more "intelligent" than human...they just cant process the information in any meaningful way) When people talk about artificial intelligence they are actually talking about a computer which is conscious/ self-aware in the way that humans are... most likely reverse engineered from a human. And so once this first simulated consciousness has been developed, we just do every physically possible variation of that simulation and we will have brought back every person who has ever lived (or could possibly have lived)
Tipler points out that we will be able to simulate all possible sets of memories and interactions for these simulated personalities… meaning that you, me and everyone that we know and love, can be brought back, along with all of our shared memories and experiences…..everyone who has ever lived can be reunited in this idealized version of an afterlife…indeed, as Tipler points out, this perfect virtual reality state seems almost indistinguishable from the Judeo -Christian description of heaven.
But then comes the question of how humanity (or whatever humanity evolves into) would be able to facilitate the computational power necessary to make this virtual heaven possible...or how we could make this "heaven" last forever...since the simulation would still be taking place within a finite universe. This is where the concept of an "Omega Point" comes into the picture.
As Wikipedia notes “the supposition of a closed universe evolving towards a
future collapse state is key to Tipler’s Omega Point. Within this universe, Tipler assumes a massive processing capability. As the universe becomes smaller, the processing capability becomes larger” Tipler points out that in the final fleeting moments of universal collapse we will have access to infinite energy and infinite computational power. Within this context we will be able to simulate anything, no matter how complex....and infinite computational power will facilitate infinite subjective time within the simulation....
Yikes I'm starting to realize that this isn't such a short synopsis and I actually have to get back to work....Ill have to explain the second half of this theory at some point t tonight holy:

Sounds like science fiction to me, infused with some heavy biases.

Having said that, how does any of this tie in with the thread title? How is any of this "scientific proof for the existance of god and heaven"?

It seems to me that, assuming any of this could even be done, it would be the opposite. It would be a computer simulation. Not an actual thing in reality.

If I build a computer model that simulates a unicorn, you wouldn't agree that that simulation is "proof for the existance" of unicorns, right? .... right?