God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

[HansMustermann]

In Aquinas' time, you only had to SOUND smart. In the twenty-first century, you have to BE smart.

Well, no, not really. Aquinas did apply proper logic there, and the axioms which their "science" was based on. We know those to be false nowadays, but in his time it passed for the truth and for the proper model of the universe.

E.g., nowadays we know that you don't need a "mover" to move the planets around, but back then their aristotelian model said that v not a is proportional to F, and thus basically everything stops when you stop pushing it. Hence, their model actually needed a mover.

E.g., nowadays we see no reason why one (as in, one of anything) must come before two, since for example quarks and gluons must appear at the same time, and there can't possibly be such a thing as a single quark before there are two. But in Aquinas's time it passed for an axiom of their universe model. So it followed very logically that whatever his First Cause would be, it had to be only one.

Aquinas _does_ do the sleight of hand of proving one thing and pretending he proved something else. He gets to one unmoved mover, then he pretends he proved God. But then Tipler does the same. He "proves" that the universe must implode to a singularity, and then just handwaves that that singularity is God.

The difference is that Aquinas at least used good science (for that age!) to prove his one first cause, while Tipler doesn't even have that excuse.

 

[James Redford]

OK, here's where you really lost me. Intelligent life is but a burp in the wind compared to the mechanics of the Universe at large. You may as well say that the path of a hurricane is dependent on bacteria living at the bottom of the sea.

Only there's no way intelligent life could have as much impact on the expansion/contraction of the universe as bacteria have on a hurricane.

The laws of physics require sapient life to expand out and take control over all the resources of the universe.

We are the means by which life perpetuates itself. All life on Earth will be incinerated as the Sun goes off the main sequence in becoming a red giant. If life hadn't found a means in which to shove off terra firma, then life would be obliterated.

The Earth is the womb of life, but its progeny cannot stay within the womb if they are to survive.

 

[PixyMisa]

Having all information in one spot does not equal omniscience. It also requires sentience, which has not been shown. Further, having all energy in one place does not equal omnipotence, since (1) you still need sentience to choose to do something with it and (2) you need some mechanism to make that potential actual.

If anything, having everything confined to a single spot at the end of spacetime would be the opposite of omnipotent.

If you think about it, the Omega Point is equivalent to an infinite multiverse or a single infinitely cycling universe. In either case, every possible organisation of the matter of the universe will occur (infinitely many times).

But this does not imply purpose or even causality; it's just what you get when you have an infinite amount of anything. I'm not sure what logical fallacy Tipler and Teilhard de Chardin fell into here, but I'm sure it has a pretty Latin name.

 

[nescafe]

Depending on the context, using a certain representation may be more useful. For example, in HTML the color red can be stated as #ffffff.

This statement shows why Tipler is wrong -- simple fact checking.

The Universe does not show any signs of ever recollapsing to the point where his Omega Point whould be possible.

#ffffff is white, not red.

 

[PixyMisa]

The laws of physics require sapient life to expand out and take control over all the resources of the universe.

Or we could just sit here and watch reruns of Hogan's Heroes.

We are the means by which life perpetuates itself. All life on Earth will be incinerated as the Sun goes off the main sequence in becoming a red giant. If life hadn't found a means in which to shove off terra firma, then life would be obliterated.

Yes.

The Earth is the womb of life, but its progeny cannot stay within the womb if they are to survive.

Yes.

Of course, ultimately, progeny don't survive.

 

[HansMustermann]

The laws of physics require sapient life to expand out and take control over all the resources of the universe.

Do they? Well, then maybe you should start with that proof.

Also please include how it follows that sapient life would be able to _violate_ the laws of physics, just because Tipler's wishful thinking says so. _If_ he's proven that the universe must implode or unitarity would be violated, that's that. Life, sapient or otherwise, can't force the laws of the universe to stop applying. If the alternatives are either the universe implodes or the unitarity breaks down and reality can't stay coherent any more, any amount of sapient life and wishful thinking won't be able to change that.

We are the means by which life perpetuates itself. All life on Earth will be incinerated as the Sun goes off the main sequence in becoming a red giant. If life hadn't found a means in which to shove off terra firma, then life would be obliterated.

The Earth is the womb of life, but its progeny cannot stay within the womb if they are to survive.

Yes, but that's:

A) unproven

B) wishful thinking

C) some irrelevant appeal to emotion

You haven't even proven so far that life will actually get off the Earth by then, much less that it would become some god-like thing that can rewrite the laws of physics as the universe implodes.

 

[James Redford]

1. For any reasonable sized black hole (i.e., one actually formed by star collapse, not imaginary theoretical constructs) that time is very very very very large. The universe hasn't existed long enough by now for Hawking radiation to even put a dent into any black hole.

E.g., for a black hole of 1 solar mass (and that's much less than the mass needed for a star to actually collapse into a black hole), the time to evaporate would be 2.098 × 10^67 years. That's twenty thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years. (Yes, the word "billion" is 7 times in there.) The age of the universe, by comparison is only 1.373 x 10^10 years.

So you'd be waiting about a thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion times the age of the universe for that to happen. (Yes, you've read that right. The word billion is 6 times in a row there.)

So I don't see how that's even remotely significant for a theory predicting a singularity any day now. If the universe will end in twenty thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years, well, I wouldn't worry yet about what happens after that.

2. I fail to see how unitarity is being violated there. Does Hawking's theory violate unitarity? How on Earth would it be accepted as a theory if it violated something as elementary as that the sum of probabilities must equal one?

3. No, it doesn't follow that the universe must end then. _If_ a theory has a problem at a given domain, basically that it's maths no longer works on that domain -- and that's what it is when probabilities no longer add up to 1.0 -- all it actually says is that we need a better theory at that point. It doesn't mean "the universe ends there."

Basically same as when we reached the limits of Newtonian gravity, it didn't mean the end of the universe, it just meant we needed GR.

4. Even if the universe will end some day (and one way or another it will), I don't see how it follows that there must be some great rapture in its wake. That some godhood moment must follow, is nothing more than BS wishful thinking.



5. So basically he bases the whole BS on what happens when you divide by zero? Heh.

6. Well, that's OK, then because according to cosmology as we know it right now, the universe expansion is actually accelerating. So there will never be a final singularity. Sorry.

7. Again, if a theory fails on a given domain, it just means that we need a better theory there.

Etc.

And most importantly I draw your attention to point 4 again: the universe ending does not prove "God" or anything. It doesn't follow that any omnipotence moment must follow. All you've written there does _not_ prove or even hint at any kind of omnipotence or omniscience arising from that catastrophe.

So basically, I have no time for an idiocy of these proportions. It's so freaking stupid that it makes Aquinas look positively smart by comparison.

Even shorter: yay, another idiot does pseudo-science and broken-logic sleight of hand and pretends that it proves God. Cute, but no banana.

It will be trillions of years before the universe collapses into the Omega Point singularity, so the Omega Point cosmology does not predict the "singularity any day now."

Regarding you second point, Hawking radiation only violates unitarity if the universe doesn't eventually end in finite proper time. Hence, the universe must collapse in finite time in order for the known laws of physics to be consistent. Therefore, your third and seventh points are already handled here.

Concerning your fourth point, see my above post at position #10 above.

Pertaining to your sixth point, some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

 

[wollery]

Of course, all of these arguments are moot, considering that almost every definition of God I've ever heard has God making the Universe, not the Universe making God, which is what is being postulated here.

 

[HansMustermann]

An extremely good point, Wollery.

 

[James Redford]

Do they? Well, then maybe you should start with that proof.

Also please include how it follows that sapient life would be able to _violate_ the laws of physics, just because Tipler's wishful thinking says so. _If_ he's proven that the universe must implode or unitarity would be violated, that's that. Life, sapient or otherwise, can't force the laws of the universe to stop applying. If the alternatives are either the universe implodes or the unitarity breaks down and reality can't stay coherent any more, any amount of sapient life and wishful thinking won't be able to change that.



Yes, but that's:

A) unproven

B) wishful thinking

C) some irrelevant appeal to emotion

You haven't even proven so far that life will actually get off the Earth by then, much less that it would become some god-like thing that can rewrite the laws of physics as the universe implodes.

The laws of physics cannot be violated. That's the point of the Omega Point cosmology.

Regarding your statement about "by then," if you're referring to the Sun going off the main sequence in becoming a red giant, that won't happen for about another five billion years. Whereas with the pace of computer-power progress, combined with the resolution of brain-imaging technologies getting ever finer, we should be able to upload our minds into simulated environments circa 2030: a condition wherein death and poverty will have been abolished and literal heaven on Earth will have been established, since such uploaded minds will never have to experience death again and the simulated environments can consist of anything one can imagine. We already posses matter-antimatter annihilation, which can be used for interstellar travel.

 

[PixyMisa]

It will be trillions of years before the universe collapses into the Omega Point singularity, so the Omega Point cosmology does not predict the "singularity any day now."

As Hans points out, there is no reason to think that the Universe will ever collapse, and every reason to think that the opposite will happen.

Regarding you second point, Hawking radiation only violates unitarity if the universe doesn't eventually end in finite proper time.

Like Hans, I don't see how Hawking radiation violates unitarity at all.

Hence, the universe must collapse in finite time in order for the known laws of physics to be consistent.

The problem with this statement (apart from the fact that I don't consider the the prior statement to be well-founded) is that this appears to be impossible.

Pertaining to your sixth point, some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point).

Indeed. The Universe cannot collapse, unless we have grossly miscalculated the cosmological constant.

But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

Okay, so; without reading the paper (I don't have time right now, but will make time if it becomes apposite) you are arguing not that the collapse will happen, but that it's not impossible that it might happen?

There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

Uh.

That sounds to me like simple (and speculative) proton decay, which according to "mainline physics" will eventually result in a Universe that consists only of low-energy photons. If proton decay does not happen, the Universe's ultimate fate would be lumpier, but just as lifeless. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe)

 

[PixyMisa]

Regarding your statement about "by then," if you're referring to the Sun going off the main sequence in becoming a red giant, that won't happen for about another five billion years. Whereas with the pace of computer-power progress, combined with the resolution of brain-imaging technologies getting ever finer, we should be able to upload our minds into simulated environments circa 2030: a condition wherein death and poverty will have been abolished and literal heaven on Earth will have been established, since such uploaded minds will never have to experience death again and the simulated environments can consist of anything one can imagine.

That's not the Omega Point. That's World of Warcraft.

 

[wollery]

The laws of physics cannot be violated.

Assuming that we understand them correctly.

 

[wollery]

Regarding your statement about "by then," if you're referring to the Sun going off the main sequence in becoming a red giant, that won't happen for about another five billion years. Whereas with the pace of computer-power progress, combined with the resolution of brain-imaging technologies getting ever finer, we should be able to upload our minds into simulated environments circa 2030: a condition wherein death and poverty will have been abolished and literal heaven on Earth will have been established

What utter cobblers.

We don't possess anywhere near the technology to completely map every brain neuron down to the quantum level, which is what would be needed to upload a mind into a computer. And even if we did, what you would have uploaded would be a simulation of a mind, not the mind itself. To do that you'd need a computer that perfectly copied the manner in which neurons work, and even that might not be adequate to completely mimic the way a mind works.

since such uploaded minds will never have to experience death again and the simulated environments can consist of anything one can imagine.

Given the vagaries of computers, I wouldn't want my mind loaded into something that could crash at any given moment. And to suggest that this would be possible for more than just a handful of humans is wishful thinking of the highest order.

We already posses matter-antimatter annihilation, which can be used for interstellar travel.

Yeah, because all that antimatter lying around the physics labs of the world can be stuck in a rocket, it's just a matter of getting the physicists off their arses.

Seriously, do you know how hard it is to make antimatter, then store it, then use it in a controlled way?

 

[James Redford]

Of course, all of these arguments are moot, considering that almost every definition of God I've ever heard has God making the Universe, not the Universe making God, which is what is being postulated here.

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

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.

Yet another way of thinking about it is that existence is an infinite feed-back loop with an infinite number of step between recursion, and with causality flowing in both time directions. God is the Son of Man,[1] just as we are the children of God.[2]

And if we be children of God, what do we grow up to be? Indeed, as children of God, what are we now, even yet before we're fully grown?[3]

Furthermore, the universe is the body of God.[4] All that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist is God.

-----

Notes:

[1] 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.
[2] John 1:12; Romans 8:16,17; 8:21; Philippians 2:15; 1 John 3:1,2; 3:10; 4:4; 5:2.
[3] For the answer, see John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6).
[4] Acts 17:24-28; Colossians 3:11; Jeremiah 23:24; Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6; Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25; Galatians 3:28; Matthew 25:31-46.

 

[James Redford]

As Hans points out, there is no reason to think that the Universe will ever collapse, and every reason to think that the opposite will happen.

Like Hans, I don't see how Hawking radiation violates unitarity at all.

The problem with this statement (apart from the fact that I don't consider the the prior statement to be well-founded) is that this appears to be impossible.

Indeed. The Universe cannot collapse, unless we have grossly miscalculated the cosmological constant.

Okay, so; without reading the paper (I don't have time right now, but will make time if it becomes apposite) you are arguing not that the collapse will happen, but that it's not impossible that it might happen?

Uh.

That sounds to me like simple (and speculative) proton decay, which according to "mainline physics" will eventually result in a Universe that consists only of low-energy photons. If proton decay does not happen, the Universe's ultimate fate would be lumpier, but just as lifeless. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe)

Unitarity cannot be violated, hence the true probability of the collapse of the universe is exactly 1. If the universe didn't collapse in finite proper time, then Hawking radiation would violate unitarity--but that cannot happen, so the collapse of the universe is certain.

Regarding Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner's paper, they point out that there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

The cause of the positive cosmological constant is due to the net baryon number created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. By annihilating baryons (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), this forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. And no, this is not the process of the hypothetical "proton decay," which cannot occur in the Standard Model.

 

[PixyMisa]

Unitary cannot be violated, hence the true probability of the collapse of the universe is exactly 1. If the universe didn't collapse in finite proper time, then Hawking radiation would violate unitarity--but that cannot happen, so the collapse of the universe is certain.

That doesn't address my question.

Regarding Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner's paper, they point out that there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

And that doesn't address my point.

The cause of the positive cosmological constant is due to the net baryon number created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. By annihilating baryons (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), this forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. And no, this is not the process of the hypothetical "proton decay," which cannot occur in the Standard Model.

Yes, proton decay would require a different mechanism to other forms of baryon annhilation. But B-L conservation is also only hypothetical. I don't see how either one can influence the - hypothetical - Higgs field to produce such a result.

Or, indeed, how you get from a long trail of hypotheses, speculation, and equivocation to "God Proven to Exist".

 

[D'rok]

Philosophy dressed up as science. Futile as always. Some conceits never die.

 

[aggle-rithm]

But the Omega Point is indeed equivalent to the descriptions of God given in, e.g., the New Testament. For this equivalence, see my previous post in this thread.

OK, so as I understand it, here is the line of reasoning:

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: 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, althought he refers to himself as this throughout the Gospels. It was the favorite phrase that he used to refer to himself.)
13.) ?????
14.) God == Omega Point

Can you elaborate on step 13?

 

[Bikewer]

Just reading through John Barrow's "The Infinite Book", and it seems to me that Tippler would be mightily dissapointed to find that our universe was only one of an essentially infinite number of universes.....The likelyhood of such being well within current cosmological thinking.