• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics

James Redford

Scholar
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
75
Location
USA
God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God):

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

See also the below resource for further information on the Omega Point Theory:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://geocities.com/theophysics/

Tipler is Professor of Mathematics and Physics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters B, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.

Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on pg. viii in the "Foreword" to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler's Omega Point Theory was described. On pg. ix of said book, Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]."

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

David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. http://geocities.com/theophysics/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to physical theories which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171

That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.

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.

Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper also demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (pp. 49 and 279), "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.
 
James,
You've given some of Tipler's credentials, but you haven't stated his argument.

As I understand it, he believes that human minds, or their descendents, through AI and other advanced technology will become what we may call "God".

Is that correct?
 
I could make apoint about how you misunderstood general negation and use unnesscearily latin phrases, making you sound a lot like a poseur, but that's mean.

Okay, the more correct response is that you made too many logical fallacies for me to fully address on too little sleep and too much time up. To sum it bluntly, there are flaws in his Omega Theory and your appeal to authority doesn't aid it.

If you want a fuller critique, I'll uh.... well, I'll try to get to it tonight. Assuming someone here is foolish enough to beat me to it and sacrifice their brain cells instead of mine.
 
the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God

That is - to me - remarkably circular.

"I define God as X"

"X exists."

"Therefore, God exists."

Congratulation. You've just labeled a random thing as God. Now what? :mgbanghead
 
James,
You've given some of Tipler's credentials, but you haven't stated his argument.

As I understand it, he believes that human minds, or their descendents, through AI and other advanced technology will become what we may call "God".

Is that correct?

Yes. Below are the physics of the argument:

##########

Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point Theory

based on articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler; see:

F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

Frank Tipler, "The Omega Point and Christianity," Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-omega-point-and-christianity.html

Frank J. Tipler, "From 2100 to the End of Time," Wired. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-from-2100-to-the-end-of-time.html
http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/wired.html

----------

Astrophysical black holes (i.e., trapped surfaces) exist, but Hawking [1, 2] and Wald [3] have shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and a fundamental quantum law called "unitarity" will be violated. Unitarity, which roughly says that probability must be conserved, thus requires that the universe must cease to exist after finite proper time, which implies that the universe is closed and has the spatial topology of a 3-sphere [4]. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the amount of entropy--the amount of disorder--in the universe cannot decrease, but Ellis and Coule [5] and Tipler [6] have shown that the amount of entropy already in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence of horizons the Bekenstein Bound implies the universal entropy S is less than or equal that constant (i.e., the Bekenstein Bound) times the radius of the universe squared, and general relativity requires the radius of the universe to go to zero at the final singularity. If there are no horizons then the gravitational shear energy due to the collapse of the universe itself will increase to infinity much faster than the radius of the universe going to zero at the final singularity [6, 7]. The absence of event horizons by definition means that the universe's future c-boundary (causal boundary) is a single point [8], call it the Omega Point. MacCallum [9] has shown that a 3-sphere closed universe with a single point future c-boundary is of measure zero in initial data space (i.e., infinitely improbable acting only under blind and dead forces). Barrow [10, 11], Cornish and Levin [12] and Motter [13] have shown that the evolution of a 3-sphere closed universe into its final singularity is chaotic. Yorke et al. [14, 15] have shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated. Thus life (which near the final state, is really collectively intelligent computers) must be present all the way into the final singularity in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times. Misner [16, 17, 18] has shown in effect that event horizon elimination requires an infinite number of distinct manipulations, so an infinite amount of information must be processed between now and the final singularity. The amount of information stored at any time diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached, since the total entropy of the universe (i.e., S) diverges to infinity there, requiring divergence of the complexity of the system that must be understood to be controlled.

During life's expansion throughout the universe, baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling, which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved) is used for life's energy requirements and for interstellar travel. In the process, the annililation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse [7, 19, 20].

References:

[1] S. W. Hawking, "Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse," Physical Review D, Vol. 14, Issue 10 (November 1976), pp. 2460-2473.
[2] Stephen Hawking's paper which attempts to solve the black hole information issue without the universe collapsing is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). That is, it's based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 (October 2005). Also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
[3] Robert M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), ISBN 0226870251, Section 7.3, pp. 182-185.
[4] John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, "The closed-universe recollapse conjecture," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223 (December 1986), pp. 835-844. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986MNRAS.223..835B
[5] G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, "Life at the end of the universe?," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 (July 1994), pp. 731-739.
[6] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0198519494, Appendix C: "The Bekenstein Bound," pg. 410. Said Appendix is reproduced in Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics," arXiv, November 28, 2001, Section 2: "Apparent Inconsistences in the Physical Laws in the Early Universe," Subsection a: "Bekenstein Bound Inconsistent with Second Law of Thermodynamics." http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111520
[7] Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058
[8] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ISBN 0521200164, pp. 217-221.
[9] Malcolm A. H. MacCallum, "On the mixmaster universe problem," Nature--Physical Science, Vol. 230 (March 1971), pp. 112-3.
[10] John D. Barrow, "Chaotic behaviour in general relativity," Physics Reports, Vol. 85, Issue 1 (May 1982), pp. 1-49.
[11] John D. Barrow and Janna Levin, "Chaos in the Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 80, Issue 4 (January 1998), pp. 656-659. Also at arXiv, June 20, 1997. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9706065
[12] Neil J. Cornish and Janna J. Levin, "Mixmaster universe: A chaotic Farey tale," Physical Review D, Vol. 55, Issue 12 (June 1997), pp. 7489-7510. Also at arXiv, December 30, 1996. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9612066
[13] Adilson E. Motter, "Relativistic Chaos is Coordinate Invariant," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91, Issue 23, Art. No. 231101 (December 2003), four pages. Also at arXiv, December 7, 2003. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0305020
[14] Troy Shinbrot, Edward Ott, Celso Grebogi and James A. Yorke, "Using chaos to direct trajectories to targets," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 65, Issue 26 (December 1990), pp. 3215-3218.
[15] Troy Shinbrot, William Ditto, Celso Grebogi, Edward Ott, Mark Spano and James A. Yorke, "Using the sensitive dependence of chaos (the 'butterfly effect') to direct trajectories in an experimental chaotic system," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 68, Issue 19 (May 1992), pp. 2863-2866.
[16] Charles W. Misner, "The Isotropy of the Universe," Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 151 (February 1968), pp. 431-457. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968ApJ...151..431M
[17] Charles W. Misner, "Quantum Cosmology. I," Physical Review, Vol. 186, Issue 5 (October 1969), pp. 1319-1327.
[18] Charles W. Misner, "Mixmaster Universe," Physical Review Letters, Vol. 22, Issue 20 (May 1969), pp. 1071-1074.
[19] F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, Section 11: "Solution to the cosmological constant problem: the universe and life in the far future." http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
[20] Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing. But as the following paper demonstrates, there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse: Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny," General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 (October 1999), pp. 1453-1459. Also at arXiv, April 1, 1999. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 The reason for that is because that is dependant on the actions of sapient life in annihilating baryons.
 
That is - to me - remarkably circular.

"I define God as X"

"X exists."

"Therefore, God exists."

Congratulation. You've just labeled a random thing as God. Now what? :mgbanghead

Rather, X--the Omega Point--is equivalent to God, therefore X is God.

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

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

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the multiverse in its entirety up to this point in universal history). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

So to recapitulate:

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

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

1.) We are gods: John 10:34 (Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6).
2.) We are God and God is us: Matthew 25:31-46.
3.) We live inside of God: Acts 17:24-28.
4.) God is everything and inside of everything: Colossians 3:11; Jeremiah 23:24.
5.) We are members in the body of Christ: Romans 12:4,5; 1 Corinthians 6:15-19; 12:12-27; Ephesians 4:25.
6.) We are one in Christ: Galatians 3:28.
7.) God is all: Ephesians 1:23; 4:4-6.
8.) God is light: 1 John 1:5; John 8:12.
9.) We have existed before the foundation of the world: Matthew 25:34; Luke 1:70; 11:50; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Isaiah 40:21.
10.) Jesus has existed before the foundation of the world: John 17:24; Revelation 13:8.
11.) The reality of multiple worlds: 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.)

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

It's a real pretty turd.

Still a turd.
 
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.

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.
 
Astrophysical black holes (i.e., trapped surfaces) exist, but Hawking [1, 2] and Wald [3] have shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and a fundamental quantum law called "unitarity" will be violated. Unitarity, which roughly says that probability must be conserved, thus requires that the universe must cease to exist after finite proper time, which implies that the universe is closed and has the spatial topology of a 3-sphere [4].

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.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the amount of entropy--the amount of disorder--in the universe cannot decrease, but Ellis and Coule [5] and Tipler [6] have shown that the amount of entropy already in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence of horizons the Bekenstein Bound implies the universal entropy S is less than or equal that constant (i.e., the Bekenstein Bound) times the radius of the universe squared, and general relativity requires the radius of the universe to go to zero at the final singularity.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

At least, you do in this forum. I'm sure there are others that would be more receptive to the idea.
 
All of the above argument assumes that the Universe will collapse under self gravity, which is extremely unlikely given the most recent cosmology results.

So, no.
 
I see a number of people on this forum are fond of nihil ad rem responses.
Not nihil ad rem, merely concise.

First and foremost: The Tipler Omega Point "God" is a system of unbounded computational capacity, but bears no relation to any god ever conceived by man. So your points 2-4 are essentially correct, but uninteresting.

Second: The Omega Point could and would recreate everything. Not just us as we are, not just us in some imaginary paradise, but also us in some imaginary perpetual torment, and us discussing this exact topic on the Bob Randi forum. That makes your point 1 completely irrelevant. The same would happen in any infinite universe.

Third: All the evidence available tells us that the Universe will keep expanding for ever, leading to an ultimate heat death. This directly contradicts Tipler's argument. Tipler's counter-argument is purely speculative. Put simply, there is no reason to think the Omega Point is possible in our Universe.

Further:

Your point 5 is nonsense.
Your point 6 is simply incoherent.
Your points 7 and 8 are again nonsense.

Your quotes 1-12 are simply irrelevant.

As best we can tell, the Tipler Omega Point cannot and will not happen. However, it is considered cosmologically plausible that we live in an infinite universe among an infinite number of universes. The results are the same as the Tipler Omega Point: Somewhere, some beings identical to you and I in all respects will be resurrected and live in eternal paradise. However, you and I will still be eaten by worms.
 
Last edited:
Please explain the reasoning behind this phrase.

It's standard mathematics. If (2+2) = 4, then (2+2) is 4. That is, saying (2+2) is just a different way of saying 4. It's the law of identity, which all of logic and mathematics is based upon.

Depending on the context, using a certain representation may be more useful. For example, in HTML the color red can be stated as #ffffff. But such a representation would be an enigma to those who lived before the computer age. Likewise, the physics of the Omega Point are a precise way of stating what God is and how God is possible, but for those who are used to thinking of God only according to ancient descriptions--or even worse, according to popular misconceptions (such as an old man sitting on clouds)--then they are liable to find the Omega Point to be a violation of their imprecise expectations of God.

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.
 

Back
Top Bottom