"A Professor Proves God Exists with Science"

Started by Will, February 17, 2009, 07:12:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

jrredford

Quote from: "Will"
Quote from: "jrredford"Regarding your comment that "Infinite complexity would require infinite time to develop," that's true in experiential time (within spacetime), i.e., computer processor cycle time--but due to the universe collapsing to a single point of zero volume within a finite proper time, infinite entropy (i.e., informational complexity) is reached within a finite proper time; also due to this, an infinite number of particle traversals across the entire distance of the universe will occur within a finite proper time: since the distance required in order for a particle to make a complete traversal across the universe will be getting shorter and shorter, the time required in order to make such a traversal will also be getting shorter and shorter. In other words, at the same time that hard drive space is diverging to infinite memory, so also processor speed will be diverging to infinitely fast, with both becoming infinite at the end of a finite proper time. In experiential time the end will never be reached--one will always just be embarking upon an infinite journey, with infinitely more to do, learn, discover, create and experience than has ever come before--since due to processor speed diverging to infinitely fast, an infinite number of thoughts will occur within proper time.

You don't understand infinity. Infinite entropy cannot occur in a finite amount of time or space by it's very definition. You seem to be confusing "a great number" with "infinity". Unless we are a part of a universe has infinite size and infinite particles, which would be impossible assuming the big bang, you're quote is wrong that an infinite number of particle traversals can occur. Even if the number of particles is 1 x 10 to the quintillionth power, it's still not infinity because infinity can never be reached.

Tipler, in his grand theory to prove god, assumes that human built robots will take over the galaxy (something no one outside of science fiction could say with any sort of confidence today), he then assumes that they will not only have the power to control parts of the big crunch (btw, based on what we know today, the big crunch won't happen), but the robots will somehow devote themselves to "love"? Omega is poorly conceived science fiction at best.

Your present post demonstrates why you're not a professional mathematician or a professional physicist.

In general relativity, singularities (i.e., a true physical geometric point with infinite density) are unavoidable with realistic energy conditions: for the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems proving that the universe began in the Big Bang singularity, see S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London; Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 314, No. 1519 (January 27, 1970), pp. 529-548. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2416467

You have the unfortunate habit of engaging in the logical fallacy of bare assertion, and that on matters which no actual professional mathematician or physicist would agree with you, and wherein straightforward logic demonstrates that your said assertions are erroneous.

For example, pertaining to the traversal of a particle across the universe: during the universe's collapse, the distance in order to make a complete traversal across the universe becomes shorter and shorter, and so the time required in order to make such a traversal becomes shorter and shorter. At zero distance, one can posit any speed (however slow, just so long as there is some movement) and an infinite number of complete traversals will occur in an instant. This is easy to see mathematically: since with zero distance the time it takes for a moving object to make a traversal is a measure of zero time, and hence the addition of any amount of such zeros is still a measure of zero time.

And as I detailed in my previous response to you above, 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 Theory which occured after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [pg. 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). 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, Issue 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460 http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt ).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (pg. 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 the Big Crunch, as I said in my original post in this thread, 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 B - L [baryon number minus lepton number] 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.
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), February 13, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html

"

jrredford

Quote from: "Recusant"
Quote from: "jrredford"Prof. Frank J. Tipler is quite correct...

I freely admit I'm not a physicist, but here is what I've gotten so far:  The Omega Point theory seems to require that life evolve into computers/machines with infinite computational capacity and nearly infinite capability to manipulate large (galaxy-sized, or even larger?) conglomerations of matter/energy.  Our current understanding of some things Hawking has said about black holes which seem to contradict quantum unitarity are, I take it, the reason this theory has been put forward.

Thank you very much, jrredford, for your efforts to elucidate Tipler's theory here.  This really is fascinating stuff, and I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.

An aside:  I want to thank you, Will, as well, for not using the execrable term "sci fi," which still peeves me slightly, whenever I see it.  I feel that it demeans the literature to call it "sci fi."  The "SciFi Channel" has made it increasingly popular and accepted, but many long-time readers of the genre (I guess I'm showing my age here) despise it, preferring either "SF" or the full words.  Fans (though I am not really a part of the world of science fiction fandom, I do follow it to some extent, through online fanzines) tend to use "skiffy," a purposeful mispronunciation of "sci fi," as a derisive term for movies and shows that are actually space opera, rather than true science fiction.  :borg:
 [/rant ]

Quote from: "Will"Omega is poorly conceived science fiction at best.

On the other hand, I think that a science fiction story or novel using the Omega Point theory as a backdrop/theme could make for some very interesting reading, in the hands of somebody like Poul Anderson or perhaps Olaf Stapledon.  :beer:

You're welcome, Recusant.
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), February 13, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html

"

Will

Quote from: "Recusant"On the other hand, I think that a science fiction story or novel using the Omega Point theory as a backdrop/theme could make for some very interesting reading, in the hands of somebody like Poul Anderson or perhaps Olaf Stapledon.  :beer:
Omega is worthy of a (dare I say it?) SciFi channel made-for-tv movie, but if done correctly it could be interesting. The problem is that it's too similar to Steven Spielberg's AI, which generally wasn't given good reviews. I liked it (though there are strong oedipal undertones), but most didn't.
Quote from: "jrredford"Your present post demonstrates why you're not a professional mathematician or a professional physicist.
Tipler's book represents copyright infringement of Battlestar Galactica, and your devotion to his teachings demonstrates that you're not objective. And you still don't understand infinity.

I suggest giving this a read:
https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merch ... Code=av177
Dr. Krauss (a man with equal or greater credentials to Tipler) tears Tipler apart while demonstrating an objective and reasonable view of our physical universe. Tipler's "theory" is demonstrated as an attempt to rationalize theology and nothing more.

I'll try to track down a full transcript, but here's a quote from Krauss:
Quote"When any scientist rejects the implications of physical law, for any reason other than experiment, then he ceases to be a scientist. He becomes a philosopher, practicing a discipline in which he has no special expertise. When he rejects the implications of physical law without experimental warrant, he is no longer speaking as a scientist; he is speaking as a layman, with no more authority that the average person in the street."

"Fortunately, when a scientist leaves the discipline in which his expertise rests for philosophy, he generally retains his scientific habits of honesty. If pressed, he will tell you that he is no longer speaking as a scientist but as a philosopher. Just ask him what the experimental evidence is for his claim, any claim. He will generally tell you that there is none. Any scientist can cite at length the experimental evidence for a true scientific claim."
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Kodanshi

Quote from: "Will"My favorite line: "As long as you're using general relativity and quantum mechanics, you're forced to conclude that god exists."
Hahahah... massive physics fail.
Massive fail indeed! In fact, I would feel inclined to state that using quantum mechanics you would have to conclude an allâ€"seeing god DOESN’T exist. Unobserved particles in eigenstates collapse as soon as someone makes observations. So if you can have an eigenstate at all that means that at some point you can actually have a particle completely not observed!

An omnipotent, allâ€"seeing god would constantly observe all particles making it physically impossible to have particles in uncollapsed eigenstates.
[size=85]“I've been planning to end at 1 hp for years now.”[/size]

Lilbeth

Well, maybe we are all just trapped inside of this big balloon and cannot see on the outside of it, while someone blows us up and then deflates us again....LOL! ...Ooops....maybe it will go pop in his face and he cannot ever inflate this same universe again.....LOL! That's it! God is a child playing with a balloon, and a second of his time is an infinity for us! I knew I would figure it all out here.....LOL! Sorry, I just couldn't resist one of my quips.

jrredford

Quote from: "Will"
Quote from: "Recusant"On the other hand, I think that a science fiction story or novel using the Omega Point theory as a backdrop/theme could make for some very interesting reading, in the hands of somebody like Poul Anderson or perhaps Olaf Stapledon.  :beer:
Omega is worthy of a (dare I say it?) SciFi channel made-for-tv movie, but if done correctly it could be interesting. The problem is that it's too similar to Steven Spielberg's AI, which generally wasn't given good reviews. I liked it (though there are strong oedipal undertones), but most didn't.
Quote from: "jrredford"Your present post demonstrates why you're not a professional mathematician or a professional physicist.
Tipler's book represents copyright infringement of Battlestar Galactica, and your devotion to his teachings demonstrates that you're not objective. And you still don't understand infinity.

I suggest giving this a read:
https://www.skeptic.com/Merchant2/merch ... Code=av177
Dr. Krauss (a man with equal or greater credentials to Tipler) tears Tipler apart while demonstrating an objective and reasonable view of our physical universe. Tipler's "theory" is demonstrated as an attempt to rationalize theology and nothing more.

I'll try to track down a full transcript, but here's a quote from Krauss:
Quote"When any scientist rejects the implications of physical law, for any reason other than experiment, then he ceases to be a scientist. He becomes a philosopher, practicing a discipline in which he has no special expertise. When he rejects the implications of physical law without experimental warrant, he is no longer speaking as a scientist; he is speaking as a layman, with no more authority that the average person in the street."

"Fortunately, when a scientist leaves the discipline in which his expertise rests for philosophy, he generally retains his scientific habits of honesty. If pressed, he will tell you that he is no longer speaking as a scientist but as a philosopher. Just ask him what the experimental evidence is for his claim, any claim. He will generally tell you that there is none. Any scientist can cite at length the experimental evidence for a true scientific claim."

Actually, that's a quote of Prof. Frank J. Tipler, from his book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007). You can find the above passage by Tipler in the below text of Chapter I and excerpt from Chapter II:

http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/disp ... ew=excerpt

Ironically, Krauss  has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point Theory. See Profs. 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:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), which demonstrates that there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), February 13, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html

"

jrredford

Quote from: "Kodanshi"
Quote from: "Will"My favorite line: "As long as you're using general relativity and quantum mechanics, you're forced to conclude that god exists."
Hahahah... massive physics fail.
Massive fail indeed! In fact, I would feel inclined to state that using quantum mechanics you would have to conclude an allâ€"seeing god DOESN’T exist. Unobserved particles in eigenstates collapse as soon as someone makes observations. So if you can have an eigenstate at all that means that at some point you can actually have a particle completely not observed!

An omnipotent, allâ€"seeing god would constantly observe all particles making it physically impossible to have particles in uncollapsed eigenstates.

The so-called "wave function" doesn't collapse.

There exists only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that is the many-worlds interpretation. All other so-called "interpretations" either make no attempt to actually explain quantum phenomena (such as the Statistical interpretation), or they are merely the many-worlds interpretation in denial (such as David Bohm's pilot-wave interpretation).

Anything that acts on reality is real and exists. Quite strange then that quantum phenomena behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist if in fact they don't exist. If the actual physical nature of the "wave functions" and "pilot waves" are not the other particles in the multiverse, then new physical entities with their own peculiar physics are being invoked: for if these aren't the other particles in the multiverse interacting with the particles in this universe, then we will do well to ask what is their actual physical nature? Pinball flippers, bumpers and ramps? What is their actual physical form, and why do they behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist?

Furthermore, all wave phenomena are nothing more than particle phenomena: there is no particle-wave duality. A wave is simply a collection of particles interacting with each other. It is the particles that actually exist; the wave is simply an action by particles interacting with each other. We see this with waves through, e.g., liquids: the individual molecules are jostled about via interacting with the other molecules. Likewise, a single photon in this universe behaves as a wave because it's interacting with the ocean of its parallel photons in the multiverse.

Prof. Frank J. Tipler points out on pg. 95 of The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), "if the other universes and the multiverse do not exist, then quantum mechanics is objectively false. This is not a question of physics. It is a question of mathematics. I give a mathematical proof of [this] in my earlier book ..." For that, see Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Appendix I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," pp. 483-488.

As well, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the existence of the multiverse: see Frank J. Tipler, "Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds Interpretation," arXiv:quant-ph/0003146, March 30, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003146

See also David Deutsch, "Comment on Lockwood," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 47, No 2 (June 1996), pp. 222-228; also released as "Comment on '"Many Minds" Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics by Michael Lockwood,'" 1996. http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Artic ... kwood.html

Quantum mechanics is strictly deterministic across the multiverse. If one does away with causation then one also does away with the possibility of explanation, as all explanation is predicated on explicating cause-and-effect relationships. So if by "interpretation" it is meant explanation, then Prof. Deutsch's point in his above paper about there actually only being one known interpretation of quantum mechanics is again found to be inescapable.

And as Deutsch writes in The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997), Chapter 9: "Quantum Computers," pg. 217:

""
The argument of Chapter 2, applied to *any* interference phenomenon destroys the classical idea that there is only one universe. Logically, the possibility of complex quantum computations adds nothing to a case that is already unanswerable. But it does add psychological impact. With Shor's algorithm, the argument has been writ very large. To those who still cling to a single-universe world view, I issue this challenge: *explain how Shor's algorithm works*. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor's algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources that can be seen to be present, where was that number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed?
""

See also the below paper by Prof. Tipler:

Frank J. Tipler, "Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates," arXiv:0809.4422, September 25, 2008 http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4422
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," Social Science Research Network (SSRN), February 13, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001) http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html

"

Sophus

‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

maestroanth

#23
F

Ninteen45

Quote from: "Sophus"This is almost as bad as the peanut butter argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504

So bad it's funny! You deserve a cookie!
Now I can be re-gognizod!

poobyrd

Wow, the irony of this? Look God is real, now to the horrible destruction of life; A tornado!
I find rebellion packaged by a major corporation a little hard to take seriously. -David Byrne
Art is always and everywhere the secret confession, and at the same time the immortal movement of its time. -Karl Marx
I think we have all experienced passion that is not in any sense reasonable. -Stephen Fry

Heretical Rants

Quote from: "Recusant"On the other hand, I think that a science fiction story or novel using the Omega Point theory as a backdrop/theme could make for some very interesting reading, in the hands of somebody like Poul Anderson or perhaps Olaf Stapledon.  :D  :D

I really don't see how any information but that which existed at the time of the universe collapsing could possibly be preserved.  
Magic, perhaps?  That's the only way to make something out of nothing...

Heretical Rants

Quote from: "poobyrd"Wow, the irony of this? Look God is real, now to the horrible destruction of life; A tornado!
Haha, yeah.  I thought that was funny too.