The smartest man in the world says God can be proved with math (atheism, agnostic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry James, but I have to agree with Mercury here. Assuming you didn't simply copy-paste this, you put a lot of effort into your post. But unless you break it down in smaller, simpler chunks, most people here won't bother reading it.
I'm obviously not writing for the illiterate. Nor do I think the world revolves around them and that we're waiting on pins and needles to hear every little nihil ad rem thing they did or didn't do.
I never like string theory, mainly because it is not a theory. But I have never seen any evidence supporting this "Omega Point".
The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.
Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.
Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--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.)
For much more on these matters, see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resources:
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
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," TetrahedronOmega, December 26, 2008 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=libertyandtruth
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.110mb.com , http://theophysics.chimehost.net
-----
Note:
1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
I find his theory both highly imaginative and highly speculative. Quantum computing first has not been proven to be a practical reality. And even if it is, in no way does it imply that infinite computation or anything on the order he is speculating is possible. No singularity has ever been empirically observed, only postulated to exist. The idea of infinite computational power violates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as you can't know the universe at the quantum level without effecting its state. Basically what he postulates is impossible with the current model of physics. First from the very start, he is assuming that the universe is becoming more complex, more ordered, which is a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Yes life is more ordered and is so at the expense of the surrounding environment. Infinite computation would also violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics for a closed system. You cannot get a more ordered system from a more chaotic one without making another system more chaotic. In conclusion I don't see any reason to believe that the universe is headed to his highly speculative "omega point". He clearly has an intelligent design agenda and his whole argument is bad physics. The simple fact of the matter is, his theory hasn't a single shred of empirical evidence to support it and relies on the assumption that the universe is going to collapse into a black hole singularity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustNobody
Also to continue the argument:
Black hole singularities are not physically real as they violate the Pauli exclusion principle(black holes have observable electric fields for one, so they must be made of fermions) and the conservation of mass and energy. To collapse to a singularity, mass/energy would have to cease to exist. And the whole omega theory, the universe collapsing to a singularity, "proving" the existence of God, is just the reverse of the big bang-Kalam cosmological argument basically saying if the universe arises from a singularity, that singularity must be God. To be honest I don't believe that the universe was born from a big-bang singularity as that in itself is unphysical and violates the conservation of mass and energy.
JustNobody, did your mother never teach you that lying is wrong? Perhaps not. You remind me of pathological liars who make up bizarre stories out of whole cloth in order to get attention, and yet expect people to believe them. Your above statements are utterly antiphysical and are figuratively just pulled out of your fundament.
In general relativity, singularities are unavoidable with realistic energy conditions (i.e., given any universe with enough matter to contain life): 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
This is not a "postulate," as you incorrectly describe it. It's a *theorem*, meaning it's apodictically true given its assumptions: in this case general relativity, of which has been confirmed by every experiment conducted on it to date.
So it's been known for some time that physical law proves the existence of something to which no form of physics can be applied, i.e., something which is transcendent to any form of physics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote in his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), p. 179, "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down."
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).
Regarding quantum computation, the Omega Point isn't dependant on quantum computation: classical computation suffices. Further, quantum computers with a number of qubits already exist.
This man says that God can be proved by math. His iq is so high that in comparison, Darwin's iq is in the toilet. Most people can not imagine what it is like to be this smart. They think and claim they are smart, but they can't imagine what it's like to be this super smart. Most people don't even have enough intelligence to admit or even realize that there are some people in the world with brains that function on a level much more so are more and above their level than they are a mentally retarded person.
Gee..how unusual: a fundamentalist/Creationist who cannot offer up a shred of proof on a bold claim, but instead chooses to belittle great men of science who disagree with the God superstition.
I'm flabbergasted! LOL.
Let's shorten your cut and paste post up a bit and get to the meat of the matter.
The Omega Point is a term used Frank Tipler to describe what he maintains is a necessary cosmological state in an inconceivably distant future of the universe.
Tipler has identified this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity with the Christian God. The implication of this theory for people today is, basically, their resurrection. It would be brought about by an ultimate cosmic computer running computer simulations of all intelligent life that had ever lived (by re-creating simulations of all possible quantum brain states within the master simulation).
According to Tipler's Omega Point Theory, as the universe comes to an end at a singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe would accelerate faster and faster. In principle, then, a program run on this universal computer could continue forever in its own terms, even though the universe would last only a finite amount of proper time.
Tipler claims that Omega will resurrect everyone into an immortal life in what could only be called paradise, or perhaps heaven.
Tipler's book on the Omega Point is a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline, in other words he is a professional kook.
Let's shorten your cut and paste post up a bit and get to the meat of the matter.
The Omega Point is a term used Frank Tipler to describe what he maintains is a necessary cosmological state in an inconceivably distant future of the universe.
Tipler has identified this final singularity and its state of infinite information capacity with the Christian God. The implication of this theory for people today is, basically, their resurrection. It would be brought about by an ultimate cosmic computer running computer simulations of all intelligent life that had ever lived (by re-creating simulations of all possible quantum brain states within the master simulation).
According to Tipler's Omega Point Theory, as the universe comes to an end at a singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe would accelerate faster and faster. In principle, then, a program run on this universal computer could continue forever in its own terms, even though the universe would last only a finite amount of proper time.
Tipler claims that Omega will resurrect everyone into an immortal life in what could only be called paradise, or perhaps heaven.
Tipler's book on the Omega Point is a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline, in other words he is a professional kook.
The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.
Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.
Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--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.)
For much more on these matters, see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and the following resources:
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
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," TetrahedronOmega, December 26, 2008 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=libertyandtruth
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.110mb.com , http://theophysics.chimehost.net
-----
Note:
1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
In George Orwells' 1984 it took only a bit of electroshock therapy before Winston Smith believed that 2 + 2 = 5.
With the proper indoctrination, you can be told anything, and you will believe it, no matter how ludicrous or outrageous.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
I agree with this statement by you.
Contrast the various ad libitum approaches to doing physics (such as string theory) with that of Prof. Frank J. Tipler, who bases his Omega Point Theory and the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/extended Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) strictly on the known laws of physics, and that of 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). They both believe we have to take the known laws of physics seriously as true explanations of how the world works, unless said physics are experimentally, or otherwise, refuted.
Gee..how unusual: a fundamentalist/Creationist who cannot offer up a shred of proof on a bold claim, but instead chooses to belittle great men of science who disagree with the God superstition.
I'm flabbergasted! LOL.
Recall that science as a discipline is the invention of Christianity. Nicolaus Copernicus (the initiator of the Scientific Revolution, and a clergyman), Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton and Galileo Galilei were all deeply devoted Christians. They each viewed their work as first and foremost a religious undertaking, in order to better understand the mind of God.
Both the university system and the field of natural science as a systematic discipline are the inventions of Christianity. The Christian Weltanschauung was a unique develpment in the history of thought, since it held that God is rational and that (unlike in, e.g., Judaism or Islam) the mind of God could be better known through the systematic study of His creation; as opposed to the arbitrary and capricious gods of the Greeks and Romans. It was this change in worldview which made systematic study into the physical world possible. For much more on this, see the below article and book by Prof. Thomas E. Woods, Jr.:
"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization," LewRockwell.com, May 2, 2005 http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895260387
Below one can obtain Chapter 3: "How the Monks Saved Civilization" from the above book for free:
For the reasons behind the Galileo Galilei and Catholic Church affair, see:
Prof. Jerry Bergman, "The Great Galileo Myth," Investigator, No. 95 (March 2004), pp. 36-47 http://web.archive.org/web/20071212222840/http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm
http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/ReligGalileoMyth95.htm
This man says that God can be proved by math. His iq is so high that in comparison, Darwin's iq is in the toilet. Most people can not imagine what it is like to be this smart. They think and claim they are smart, but they can't imagine what it's like to be this super smart. Most people don't even have enough intelligence to admit or even realize that there are some people in the world with brains that function on a level much more so are more and above their level than they are a mentally retarded person.
Actually, his being smart does not entail mental retardation in others. Faulty premise spoken here!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
