Topic: Proving Christianity with Modern Physics

[Anders]

If someone really proved the existence of God, wouldn't they be like on TV 24/7 and win Nobel Peace Prizes and the world would be totally changed and radically different now?

You would have to let it percolate through society first. Also, I think Tipler's take on e.g. the Trinity is quite unorthodox... but I'm not a theologian which is why I wanted Shibboleth's views on it. However, I understand that he has a life and therefore can't always spare 2 hours of said life.

[James Redford]

Can Physics Prove God and Christianity? Frank Tipler vs Lawrence Krauss

Frank J Tipler proves that there is a God, the trinity, the virgin birth, resurrection and all the other miracles, etc, with modern physics (quantum physics, general relativity, and the standard model). I have no idea what he's talking about (starts at about 15:00), but it sure sounds impressive. Waiting for the Wrath of Krauss.

Shibboleth, is what he says sound from a theological perspective? And someone who knows physics - is what he says sound from a physics perspective?

The video which Anders embeds in his foregoing post is my favorite video that I've so far seen of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The following is some bibliographic data on said video:

Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss, A Great Debate: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?, run time: 2:13 h:min. Video of a debate held at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech; Pasadena, Cal.) on June 3, 2007.

For much more regarding the matters here, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

What follows are my notes and commentary for this debate between physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler and physicist Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss.

####################

Michael Shermer (founder of the Skeptics Society) is the moderator of the debate. Bill Nye (of Bill Nye the Science Guy) is among the audience members.


Prof. Tipler starts his presentation at 15:57 min:sec. Tipler points out that we have had a Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics for some 30 years with the arrival of the Standard Model of particle physics, since the Standard Model describes all forces in nature except for gravity. The Standard Model is a quantum field theory, i.e., it involves Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics. And gravity is described by General Relativity. The problem has been to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics consistent with each other, which Tipler points out is done with the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg theory of quantum gravity when the appropriate boundary conditions on the universe are used, which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities.

Tipler shows a presentation slide listing General Relativity as having the general linear group of GL(4, R) symmetry group; and the Standard Model of particle physics as having the Lie group of 3 Lie symmetry group.

19:33 min:sec ff.: In the 1960s Richard Feynman at Caltech quantized a spin-2 field using his path integral method. Quantizing a spin-2 field requires it to be a spacetime metric and imposes the full GL(4, R) symmetry group.

At 19:54 min:sec ff., Tipler points out that the Feynman quantum gravity theory is unique, i.e., it is the only quantum gravity theory possible if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct (cf. 32:11 min:sec ff.), since General Relativity requires gravity to be a spin-2 field, and the Hulse and Taylor pulsar confirmation of Einstein's quadrupole formula verified that gravity is a spin-2 field. General Relativity also states that gravity is a phenomenon of the curvature of the spacetime metric with observer independence, i.e., physics cannot depend locally on the observer, which gives the GL(4, R) symmetry group of General Relativity.

20:44 min:sec ff.: Steven Weinberg later showed that the Feynman theory of quantum gravity is renormalizable, which means that the term-by-term infinities in the Feynman diagrams can be absorbed into constants, so it is no worse than other quantum field theories. However, there are actually two sources of infinity in quantum field theory: the ones that are renormalized away, as previously mentioned; and the ones that generate the divergence of the power series of the S-matrix (i.e., scattering matrix).

21:21 min:sec ff.: It has been known for 50 years what the cause of this series divergence is: it's a bad choice of the vacuum state, which Freeman Dyson showed in a paper in Physical Review in 1952 (see F. J. Dyson, "Divergence of Perturbation Theory in Quantum Electrodynamics", Physical Review, Vol. 85, No. 4 [Feb. 1952], pp. 631-632). David Geroch showed that perturbation theory in String Theory also has a series divergence for essentially the same reason.

22:18 min:sec ff.: Tipler mentions Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis. One way of stating said Theorem is that all analytic functions (i.e., holomorphic functions) other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity, which is analogous to what occurs with the universe: the only way to avoid infinities in spacetime (consequently causing the instantaneous collapse of the entire universe) is for the universe to begin and end at singularities. Moreover, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

23:23 min:sec ff.: Feynman quantum gravity makes a singularity even more inevitable than the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems, since the Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas with Feynman quantum gravity the sum-over-histories (i.e., sum-over-paths; path integral formulation) get arbitrarily close to infinite curvature. In other words, the multiverse has its own singularity.

24:04 min:sec ff.: Imposing unitarity avoids the spacetime infinities of quantum field theory, since if there were not a cut-off to the energies of quantum field theory then miniature black holes would be created and quickly evaporate, thereby violating unitarity. 25:12 min:sec ff.: This energy cut-off mechanism also means that some misnomered "constants" increase with cosmic time. 26:21 min:sec ff.: This mechanism to stabilize quantum field theory only works if there is an initial singularity and a final singularity and if there are no event horizons, which also solves the black hole information problem. 26:55 min:sec ff.: The absence of event horizons is only possible if the universe is spatially close, and in particular has the spatial topology of a three-sphere (i.e., 3-sphere; S^3); also, only if the final singularity is a single point in the Penrose c-boundary construction, called the Omega Point.

27:18 min:sec ff.: This picks out a global vacuum state which must define a classical universe now; this means that the wave function of the universe must have initially been a Dirac delta function, which explains the observed flatness of the universe without resorting to nonempirical new physics such as Inflation Theory (requiring the unobserved inflation field, i.e., inflaton particles), but rather is simply quantum kinematics: a result of wave-packet spreading (as an analogy, Tipler gives a version of wave-packet spreading as sound waves heard around the corner of a building, which is an example of wave diffraction).

28:05 min:sec ff.: In such a universe, quantum field theory in the form of the Bekenstein Bound forces the initial state of the universe to be homogeneous and isotropic; and it also picks out a unique field of the Standard Model, the SU(2)_L field which gives the observed excess of matter over antimatter, whereas the usual boundary condition used by physicists--which is inconsistent with quantum field theory--gives a baryon-generating mechanism that produces far too many photons to baryons. Also, the perturbation spectrum is necessarily scale-invariant since the universe is necessarily flat (as was basically shown by Edward Robert Harrison long before Inflation Theory was even though of).

29 min ff.: What the above all means is that reality consists of a multiverse, with each universe in the multiverse starting at an initial singularity and eventually collapsing into a final singularity. Said Big Bang initial singularity and Omega Point final singularity are actually connected by a third singularity: the All-Presents singularity, which exists at each time for each universe in the multiverse. That is, there exists three connected hypostases to existence: the First Cause, the Sustaining Cause, and the Final Cause, which are not in spacetime but instead are the boundary of space and time, and which are not themselves subject to any possible form of physics, i.e., they are quite literally supernatural.

32:11 min:sec ff.: Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity is the unique quantization of General Relativity, i.e., it's the only way to quantize General Relativity, since gravity in General Relativity is a spin-2 field, and General Relativity is a spacetime metric and possesses the full GL(4, R) symmetry group. (Herein "unique" means the only one mathematically possible within the context of parsimony, as one can always add arbitrary yet small terms which change the output so insignificantly that no current instruments can measure the difference, and hence it would presently still conform to experiment, but such arbitrary terms would not then be parsimonious, since they are not justified by mathematical necessity [i.e., in order to obtain a mathematically-consistent theory] nor are they experimentally justified.) General Relativity is the unique specialization (i.e., subset; special case) of Newtonian mechanics with the specification imposed that Newtonian mechanics be consistent with Maxwell's Equations, i.e., that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Elie Cartan showed that in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is curvature of time only; whereas in General Relativity, gravity is curvature of space and time, i.e., spacetime (cf. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity [New York: Doubleday, 2007], p. 33; and pp. 79-80 of Frank J. Tipler, "Albert Einstein: A Scientific Reactionary", pp. 73-83, in John Brockman [Ed.], My Einstein [New York: Vintage Books, 2007; orig. pub. 2006]). 33 min ff.: Similarly, Quantum Mechanics is the unique specialization of Newtonian mechanics in its most powerful formulation, the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation, with the specification imposed that determinism is maintained: since the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation is indeterministic, because when particle trajectories cross paths a singularity is produced (i.e., the values in the equations become infinite) and so it is not possible to predict (even in principle) what happens after that (cf. id., The Physics of Christianity, pp. 48-49; and 7:17 min:sec ff. of Casey Luskin, interview of Frank Tipler, "Part 1: Einstein Vs. Darwin", Intelligent Design the Future, Feb. 13, 2013, audio run time: 17:25 min:sec).

33:17 min:sec ff.: For these reasons--the fact that the history of physics since Newton has been a series of specializations, rather than generalizations, of fundamental physics--we can be confident that we have the correct Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics and that there is not going to be any new physics that comes along to displace the current known laws of physics. That is, since after Newton's physics, there has been no "revolution" in physics (e.g., such as with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, etc.), but instead an evolution of physics: the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. So in over 300 years we have never left the realm of Newton's physics. And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory and the Standard Model of particle physics.

Prof. Tipler then goes on to show how, using only the known laws of physics, the miracles of Jesus Christ are physically possible. This process uses baryon annihilation (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved), and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who obtained all of his genetic material from Mary (i.e., an instance of parthenogenesis). Tipler concludes that the Star of Bethlehem was either a Type Ic hypernova located in the Andromeda Galaxy, or a Type Ia supernova located in a globular cluster of our own Milky Way Galaxy.

If the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament were necessary in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point--and if the known laws of physics are correct--then the probability of these events occurring is certain. Furthermore, Tipler proposes tests on particular relics associated with Jesus which, if the relics are genuine, could verify whether in fact said miracles took place via the aforementioned mechanisms.

[Continued in a following post.]

[James Redford]

[Continued from a previous post.]

Physicist Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss starts his presentation at 49:36 min:sec. 52:54 min:sec ff.: Krauss begins by engaging in the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss asserts that (1) the Standard Model of particle physics isn't complete; (2) we don't have a consistent theory of quantum gravity; (3) the universe doesn't have to collapse; (4) we don't understand the nature of dark energy; and (5) we don't know why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.

In answer to Krauss: (1) The Standard Model describes all forces in nature except for gravity. And gravity is described by General Relativity. (2) The problem has been to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics consistent with each other, which is done with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory. (3) The universe must collapse in finite proper time or otherwise unitarity will be violated (see p. 925 [cf. pp. 904-905] of F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 [Apr. 2005], pp. 897-964). (4) The dark energy is the positive cosmological constant. As required by the Standard Model of particle physics, 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 observed cosmological constant. (5) The universe's initial SU(2)_L field of the Standard Model--which is required by quantum field theory--gives the observed excess of matter over antimatter. See op. cit. for details on the foregoing matters.

Prof. Krauss attempts to rebut Prof. Tipler's proposed mechanism for the miracles of Jesus Christ by relating how statistically improbable such events are, yet this doesn't actually address Tipler's arguments since Tipler's point is that such seemingly improbable events would be forced to occur by the known laws of physics via the Principle of Least Action if said events are required in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point final singularity. Krauss himself in his review of Tipler's book The Physics of Christianity admits that this mechanism which Tipler proposes for Jesus Christ's miracles is physically sound if said miracles were necessary in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point and if the Omega Point is required in order for existence to exist (see Lawrence Krauss, "More dangerous than nonsense", New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53).

1:00:52 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss provides a quote from Gerardus 't Hooft, but as with Krauss's discussion of probabilities, 't Hooft's remarks are irrelevant to Tipler's actual argument, since 't Hooft is assuming boundary conditions on the universe which are inconsistent with quantum field theory rather than the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE boundary conditions which make all the laws of physics mutually mathematically consistent with each other.

1:02:01 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss provides a quote from Steven Weinberg, of which again is irrelevant to Tipler's actual argument, since as with 't Hooft, Weinberg is assuming inconsistent boundary conditions.

Krauss, 't Hooft, and Weinberg are all particle physicists. Whereas Tipler is not only an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) but also an expert in Global General Relativity and computer theory. Furthermore, neither Krauss, 't Hooft, nor Weinberg display any awareness of Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper which presents the technical details of the Omega Point TOE.

1:03:15 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss claims that all the evidence in nature indicates that the universe will expand forever. Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.) While cosmological observations cannot tell us what the ultimate fate of the universe will be, the known laws of physics themselves can, as the universe is forced to end in finite proper time in order for unitarity to remain unviolated (again, see p. 925 [cf. pp. 904-905] of id., "The structure of the world from pure numbers", op. cit.).


1:23:06 h:min:sec ff.: Tipler starts his response to Krauss, wherein Tipler addresses Krauss's claims.


1:29:22 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss starts his second response to Tipler.

1:30:34 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss claims that the laws of physics prevent sapient life from harnessing baryon annihilation. However, the laws of physics allow baryon annihilation using electroweak quantum tunneling via quantum coherence. As Tipler writes, "Atoms have energy levels that differ by a few electron volts. Quantum coherence among a trillion atoms would allow the atoms to concentrate the energy differences of the levels on a single atom, and this would be 10 TeV, the amount of energy needed for the baryon-annihilation process to go forward." (See Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity [New York: Doubleday, 2007], p. 73.)

1:31:09 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss talks about "the energy of empty space", by which he means the dark energy. See my above response to Krauss's previous comments on the dark energy.


1:32:29 h:min:sec ff.: Tipler and Krauss take questions from the audience.

1:35:57 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss claims that we don't understand physics well enough to know whether unitarity is violated if an astrophysical black hole were to evaporate.

Regarding proposed solutions to the black hole information issue, all except for Tipler's Omega Point cosmology share the common feature of using proposed new laws of physics that have never been experimentally confirmed--and indeed 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 [Oct. 15, 2005], Art. No. 084013, 4 pp.) Hence, the end of the universe in finite proper time via collapse before a black hole completely evaporates is required if unitarity is to remain unviolated, i.e., if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics--which are what the proofs of Hawking radiation derive from--are true statements of how the world works.

1:42:13 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss invokes the Christ myth theory, including incorrectly claiming that nearly every religion has had virgin births.

Regarding the Christ myth theory, virtually all the items which the Christ myth theorists claim as facts which show the parallels of Christianity with earlier pagan religions are completely fabricated modern claims that can't be found in the historical record. For an excellent discussion on this, see the following video:

"Shattering The Christ Myth (JP Holding)", exposedatheists, Dec. 21, 2010. Shattering The Christ Myth (JP Holding) , http://blip.tv/apologetics/jp-holding-on-the-christ-myth-1613139 , https://myspace.com/philosophyandtheology/video/shattering-the-christ-myth/57136163 , http://bethelchristianfellowship.info/flash_media/jp3ChristMythCopyCat.m4v

The above video is an interview of James Patrick Holding (editor of Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? [Maitland, Fla.: Xulon Press, 2008] http://amazon.com/dp/1606472712 ) by Dr. Craig Johnson on the topic of the Christ myth theory. See also the below resources regarding the Christ myth theory on J. P. Holding's website:

"Were Bible stories and characters stolen from pagan myths?", Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry. http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

"Did Jesus exist?", op. cit. http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

1:47:06 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss agrees that the only hope for eternal life is in a collapsing universe.

1:48:06 h:min:sec ff.: An audience member asks Tipler about Matthew 10:23, Mark 9:1 and John 5:25 as being examples of where Jesus Christ incorrectly thought that the End Time was imminent, i.e., within Jesus's own generation.

Matthew 10:23, New King James Version (NKJV) states, "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." And indeed they did not go through all the cities of Israel before they died, and hence before Christ's Second Coming.

Mark 9:1, NKJV (cf. Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27) states, "And He said to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.'" And then the very next passages concern Christ's Transfiguration, whereby Heaven was also shown.

John 5:25, NKJV states, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live." But the next passages, John 5:26-29, go on to state, "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." These passages relate to Jesus's statement that "I am the resurrection and the life." (John 11:25, NKJV. Cf. John 8:12 [cf. 1 John 1:5]; 14:6.) In other words, those raised from death are already existing within Jesus Christ in His transcendent Second Person aspect, since the Father and the Son are One (see Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30; 14:6-13). So when Jesus said this, it was a different way of saying that the Resurrection and the Life stood there before them right then in His human aspect.

So in each of these scripture passages which this audience member gave as examples of Christ getting some things wrong are all examples of Him being correct.

Sometimes people also give Matthew 24:32-35 as being an example of Christ making an incorrect prophecy. However, "this generation" referred to in Matthew 24:34 concerns the generation which witnesses the signs of the End Time which Jesus discusses.

2:02:13 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss talks about Newtonian mechanics being replaced by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and hence that we shouldn't be surprised that the current known laws of physics might also be replaced. However, as Tipler pointed out in his presentation, the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. Hence, we have never left the realm of Newton's physics. And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. (See above for more on that.) 2:03:26 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss states that the Standard Model of particle physics produces nonsense answers when pushed to high enough energies, as does Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). However, as Tipler previously pointed out in his presentation, imposing unitarity avoids the spacetime infinities of quantum field theory, since if there were not a cut-off to the energies of quantum field theory then miniature black holes would be created and quickly evaporate, thereby violating unitarity. Krauss also gives the infinities of quantum field theory as a reason for thinking that new forms of physics will be required at higher energy scales. However, this mechanism to the energy cut-off also allows the energies to gradually scale to infinity during the collapse phase of the universe (the energies only become actually infinite at the cosmological singularity), which means that there is no need for new physics at higher energy scales.

-----

Since the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) is mathematically required by the known laws of physics, of which said physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, the only way Krauss could have actually argued against Tipler is to argue that the known laws of physics might be wrong. But because those physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, there exists no rational reason to think that they are wrong. Hence, Krauss's irrelevant arguments (or bare assertions, as Krauss also engaged in) against Tipler were unavoidable, since Krauss set himself a logically-impossible task.

For details on the Omega Point TOE, see the following paper by Prof. Tipler:

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as Frank J. Tipler, "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

The following is the first article on the Omega Point TOE:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics", arXiv:astro-ph/0111520, Nov. 28, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111520 For images that go with the article, see "Frank J. Tipler, Diagrams", Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist. http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/tipler-diagrams.html

For the details regarding the point Prof. Tipler made in his presentation about how modern physics (i.e., General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are simply special cases of classical mechanics (i.e., Newtonian mechanics, particularly in its most powerful formulation of the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation), see the following articles:

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Oct. 26, 2008, 45 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1271310. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271310

* Maurice J. Dupré and Frank J. Tipler, "General Relativity as an Æther Theory", International Journal of Modern Physics D, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Feb. 2012), Art. No. 1250011, 16 pp., doi:10.1142/S0218271812500113, bibcode: 2012IJMPD..2150011D. http://worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271812500113 Also at arXiv:1007.4572, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572

* Frank J. Tipler, "Hamilton-Jacobi Many-Worlds Theory and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", arXiv:1007.4566, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4566

The foregoing articles, in addition to many other papers by Prof. Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the below archive:

Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68. https://mega.co.nz/#!JkVQWLZT!GNIDgVWPCCb72G6LLijSinf_6u9zc0a20gXBfAVE4MA , https://amazon.com/clouddrive/share?s=bTI58F1dSAIjSrxJ26R7d8 , https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7k4r80YepnxNjNOX2x0XzBOV00/edit , http://ubuntuone.com/0VMqN7rnJzXVsJCUXkj6lY

[Philomathica]

MOMA?

[MikeK]

So let me get this straight.  First, you start with a claim (God) which isn't based on any evidence at all.  Then, as all the things previously attributed to God become exposed as based on natural processes you try to construct an argument to support that irrational claim - instead of abandoning it - because you're afraid to lose it.

Sounds pretty desperate to me.

[James Redford]

So let me get this straight.  First, you start with a claim (God) which isn't based on any evidence at all.  Then, as all the things previously attributed to God become exposed as based on natural processes you try to construct an argument to support that irrational claim - instead of abandoning it - because you're afraid to lose it.

Sounds pretty desperate to me.

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. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

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 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

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 powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). 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.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

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

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Furthermore, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

[fred.slota]

(click to show/hide)

So let me get this straight.  First, you start with a claim (God) which isn't based on any evidence at all.  Then, as all the things previously attributed to God become exposed as based on natural processes you try to construct an argument to support that irrational claim - instead of abandoning it - because you're afraid to lose it.

Sounds pretty desperate to me.

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. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

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 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

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 powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). 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.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

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

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Furthermore, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

Lots of interesting stuff in there.  I have never tried to consider this topic before, let alone in this way.

At the moment, I have two questions, on areas that I'm not sure that I followed in the above, and would appreciate a little more detail...

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

Could you explain this a little more, as I'm not sure I've got the correct understanding on this concept, and on the way you're using this concept in your God description.

So, as I understand the mathy-sciency side, they're saying that the space-time separation between the Omega Point and any point in space-time is not an open set of points, is not an infinite set of points, so is finite.  Or, to put it another way, Zeno would eventually reach the other side, as there would eventually be an end to the smaller and smaller halves of the separation.

First, is it really appropriate to describe the separation as having "infinite nearness"?  is there a separation that could not be characterized as either "infinite separation" or "infinite nearness"?   Does the adjective "infinite" carry any useful meaning the way you appear to be using it?

Second, there still is a separation, yes?  If I accept that the Omega Point is omnipotent within the Omega Point, where is the support for the Omega Point's ability to apply its omnipotence across that separation, regardless of the size of the separation?

Third, why was it important to determine that the separation is not an open set of points, is 'infinitely close'?  Is there some limitation on the Omega Point's influence, some critical difference, between it's potence given an infinite vs. a finite separation?

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),...

Could you give me a little more information on this?  I am not familiar with this concept, and I'm not sure I'm picturing the explanation that produces that number for that concept. 

First, my quick search to try and find the explanation myself did not find your above number in reference to Robert Penrose, but instead found a reference to a number similar to that coming from Robert Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind".  However, the number cited is massively larger, 10¹⁰¹²³ as opposed to your 10¹²³, and the context is different, representing the 'the overall accuracy in choosing all of the fundamental physical constants of nature' as opposed to the informational content of a universe's quantum state.  Quite possibly I have found a coincidentally similar number to the reference you were making, so I apologize if this is a failure on my part to find what you are referencing.

Second, not knowing how he calculated it, my attempts to conceive of how to compute it, especially how to compute it as a collection of bits, would appear to produce a massively larger number.  If you're going to count it as bits, my first thought would be to produce a list of all possible quanta, and assign a bit yes/no for each possible quanta.  From here, the size of the universe is estimated at a diameter of 93 * 10⁹ light years, or 8.79 * 10²⁶ m.  That gives a volume of about 2.85 * 10⁸¹ m³.  Since we're attempting to characterize quanta, we need to account for each possible location in the 3-d universe that a quanta could occupy, which means we need to know the volume in Planck length, not in meters.  From here, Planck length is 1.616 * 10^-31 m, so 4.220 * 10⁹³ Planck cubes in 1 m³, for a grand total universe volume of 1.204 * 10¹⁷⁵ possible locations in 3-d space for a quanta.  That means, I could indicate the yes/no locations of all the quanta in the universe at this moment with 10¹⁷⁵ or so bits, and that's not accounting for potential quantum states, or a direction vector...   Now, I very well could be trying to compute this in a horribly inefficient method, using an encoding scheme that over-represents complexity of what we're trying to compute, but it seems to me that an actual binary representation of the quantum state of the universe would be much higher than the number you quoted.

Third, why do you even need to compute the size of a description of the quantum state of the universe, when you're fitting it into, as you describe, "an infinite amount of computational resources"?

[Anders]

So let me get this straight.  First, you start with a claim (God) which isn't based on any evidence at all.  Then, as all the things previously attributed to God become exposed as based on natural processes you try to construct an argument to support that irrational claim - instead of abandoning it - because you're afraid to lose it.

Sounds pretty desperate to me.

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. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

But Tipler is saying it is specifically the Christian God, and he has other properties. For instance, he has agency and emotions, is omniscient, answers prayers, etc. He has a back (Exodus 33:18-34:9) and can stroll around in the Garden of Eden. Defining away everything that doesn't fit as "similies" may be very convenient but it is hardly intellectually honest.

[Anders]

Also:

Tipler's biology is all faulty as well. He postulates that Christ had two X chromosomes but one of them had an had the gene(s) that determines male-ness translocated to it. Where did that region come from? If Mary had it, why wasn't she a male?

Also, parthenogenesis has never been observed in the wild in mammals. It can be induced in swine and mice, but only if Mary had access to a major biochemistry lab. The chromosomes in sperm and eggs are programmed differently, and an embryo with two maternal or two paternal genomes is not viable. In fact, it can give rise to very nasty cancers called teratomas.

Tipler needs a course in remedial biology.

[James Redford]

(click to show/hide)

So let me get this straight.  First, you start with a claim (God) which isn't based on any evidence at all.  Then, as all the things previously attributed to God become exposed as based on natural processes you try to construct an argument to support that irrational claim - instead of abandoning it - because you're afraid to lose it.

Sounds pretty desperate to me.

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. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

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 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

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 powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). 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.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

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

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Furthermore, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

Lots of interesting stuff in there.  I have never tried to consider this topic before, let alone in this way.

At the moment, I have two questions, on areas that I'm not sure that I followed in the above, and would appreciate a little more detail...

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

Could you explain this a little more, as I'm not sure I've got the correct understanding on this concept, and on the way you're using this concept in your God description.

So, as I understand the mathy-sciency side, they're saying that the space-time separation between the Omega Point and any point in space-time is not an open set of points, is not an infinite set of points, so is finite.  Or, to put it another way, Zeno would eventually reach the other side, as there would eventually be an end to the smaller and smaller halves of the separation.

First, is it really appropriate to describe the separation as having "infinite nearness"?  is there a separation that could not be characterized as either "infinite separation" or "infinite nearness"?   Does the adjective "infinite" carry any useful meaning the way you appear to be using it?

Second, there still is a separation, yes?  If I accept that the Omega Point is omnipotent within the Omega Point, where is the support for the Omega Point's ability to apply its omnipotence across that separation, regardless of the size of the separation?

Third, why was it important to determine that the separation is not an open set of points, is 'infinitely close'?  Is there some limitation on the Omega Point's influence, some critical difference, between it's potence given an infinite vs. a finite separation?

Yes, it does have infinite nearness in the limit sense. The point of saying that it isn't an open set is because one can put the closed set of [0, 0] between them, but no open set of (0, 0) or more. That is, its limit really is infinite nearness.

That is, it's just another way of saying that nothing beyond the closed set of [0, 0] can come between them. Which is really just to say that they have infinite nearness.

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),...

Could you give me a little more information on this?  I am not familiar with this concept, and I'm not sure I'm picturing the explanation that produces that number for that concept. 

First, my quick search to try and find the explanation myself did not find your above number in reference to Robert Penrose, but instead found a reference to a number similar to that coming from Robert Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind".  However, the number cited is massively larger, 10¹⁰¹²³ as opposed to your 10¹²³, ...

No, the first is the powerset and the second is the set. 10^10^123 being approximately equal to 2^10^123 (with a double exponent, the bottom number doesn't make much difference so long as it isn't one or zero).

10^123 is the number of bits our universe at present can encode. 2^10^123 (or ~ 10^10^123) is the number of different arrangements 10^123 bits can undergo (including to zero bits).

... and the context is different, representing the 'the overall accuracy in choosing all of the fundamental physical constants of nature' as opposed to the informational content of a universe's quantum state.  Quite possibly I have found a coincidentally similar number to the reference you were making, so I apologize if this is a failure on my part to find what you are referencing.

Second, not knowing how he calculated it, my attempts to conceive of how to compute it, especially how to compute it as a collection of bits, would appear to produce a massively larger number.  If you're going to count it as bits, my first thought would be to produce a list of all possible quanta, and assign a bit yes/no for each possible quanta.  From here, the size of the universe is estimated at a diameter of 93 * 10⁹ light years, or 8.79 * 10²⁶ m.  That gives a volume of about 2.85 * 10⁸¹ m³.  Since we're attempting to characterize quanta, we need to account for each possible location in the 3-d universe that a quanta could occupy, which means we need to know the volume in Planck length, not in meters.  From here, Planck length is 1.616 * 10^-31 m, so 4.220 * 10⁹³ Planck cubes in 1 m³, for a grand total universe volume of 1.204 * 10¹⁷⁵ possible locations in 3-d space for a quanta.  That means, I could indicate the yes/no locations of all the quanta in the universe at this moment with 10¹⁷⁵ or so bits, and that's not accounting for potential quantum states, or a direction vector...   Now, I very well could be trying to compute this in a horribly inefficient method, using an encoding scheme that over-represents complexity of what we're trying to compute, but it seems to me that an actual binary representation of the quantum state of the universe would be much higher than the number you quoted.

No, it's much smaller. I give a rather complete reference listing on the Bekenstein Bound in the Bibliography of my following article, with most of Bekenstein's papers available for free online, so you can follow his arguments for yourself. See:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Third, why do you even need to compute the size of a description of the quantum state of the universe, when you're fitting it into, as you describe, "an infinite amount of computational resources"?

Because resources are finite at any given time within spacetime. However, computational resources diverge to infinity approaching the Omega Point final singularity (of which itself is not in spacetime). It's only when the universe approaches the Omega Point close in proper time does the computational capacity become great enough to perfectly emulate the multiverse at our present epoch. But since more computational resources will forever be coming online, it doesn't matter how complex the emulation of the multiverse becomes during the universal resurrection of the dead, as eventually any desired amount of computational resources will come online.

It's amazing what you can do when you have unlimited computer power.

[James Redford]

So let me get this straight.  First, you start with a claim (God) which isn't based on any evidence at all.  Then, as all the things previously attributed to God become exposed as based on natural processes you try to construct an argument to support that irrational claim - instead of abandoning it - because you're afraid to lose it.

Sounds pretty desperate to me.

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. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

But Tipler is saying it is specifically the Christian God, and he has other properties. For instance, he has agency and emotions, is omniscient, answers prayers, etc. He has a back (Exodus 33:18-34:9) and can stroll around in the Garden of Eden. Defining away everything that doesn't fit as "similies" may be very convenient but it is hardly intellectually honest.

As Ayn Rand said: "Check your premises."

The Omega Point has all the unique properties claimed for God in all the major traditional religions. So by definition it is God.

And yes, God is personal and has all the properties claimed by traditional Christian theology.

That God may not have nonessential attributes which you think God is supposed to have--such as deriving from the Old Testament--is hardly a failing of God, but rather a failing of man, whether by you or others, in your understanding of God.

For more on this, see Sec. 7.4.2: "God’s Relation to the Old Testament", pp. 46 ff. of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

[fred.slota]

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

So let me get this straight.  First, you start with a claim (God) which isn't based on any evidence at all.  Then, as all the things previously attributed to God become exposed as based on natural processes you try to construct an argument to support that irrational claim - instead of abandoning it - because you're afraid to lose it.

Sounds pretty desperate to me.

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. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

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 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

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 powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). 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.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

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

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Furthermore, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

Lots of interesting stuff in there.  I have never tried to consider this topic before, let alone in this way.

At the moment, I have two questions, on areas that I'm not sure that I followed in the above, and would appreciate a little more detail...

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

Could you explain this a little more, as I'm not sure I've got the correct understanding on this concept, and on the way you're using this concept in your God description.

So, as I understand the mathy-sciency side, they're saying that the space-time separation between the Omega Point and any point in space-time is not an open set of points, is not an infinite set of points, so is finite.  Or, to put it another way, Zeno would eventually reach the other side, as there would eventually be an end to the smaller and smaller halves of the separation.

First, is it really appropriate to describe the separation as having "infinite nearness"?  is there a separation that could not be characterized as either "infinite separation" or "infinite nearness"?   Does the adjective "infinite" carry any useful meaning the way you appear to be using it?

Second, there still is a separation, yes?  If I accept that the Omega Point is omnipotent within the Omega Point, where is the support for the Omega Point's ability to apply its omnipotence across that separation, regardless of the size of the separation?

Third, why was it important to determine that the separation is not an open set of points, is 'infinitely close'?  Is there some limitation on the Omega Point's influence, some critical difference, between it's potence given an infinite vs. a finite separation?

Yes, it does have infinite nearness in the limit sense. The point of saying that it isn't an open set is because one can put the closed set of [0, 0] between them, but no open set of (0, 0) or more. That is, its limit really is infinite nearness.

That is, it's just another way of saying that nothing beyond the closed set of [0, 0] can come between them. Which is really just to say that they have infinite nearness.

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),...

Could you give me a little more information on this?  I am not familiar with this concept, and I'm not sure I'm picturing the explanation that produces that number for that concept. 

First, my quick search to try and find the explanation myself did not find your above number in reference to Robert Penrose, but instead found a reference to a number similar to that coming from Robert Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind".  However, the number cited is massively larger, 10¹⁰¹²³ as opposed to your 10¹²³, ...

No, the first is the powerset and the second is the set. 10^10^123 being approximately equal to 2^10^123 (with a double exponent, the bottom number doesn't make much difference so long as it isn't one or zero).

10^123 is the number of bits our universe at present can encode. 2^10^123 (or ~ 10^10^123) is the number of different arrangements 10^123 bits can undergo (including to zero bits).

... and the context is different, representing the 'the overall accuracy in choosing all of the fundamental physical constants of nature' as opposed to the informational content of a universe's quantum state.  Quite possibly I have found a coincidentally similar number to the reference you were making, so I apologize if this is a failure on my part to find what you are referencing.

Second, not knowing how he calculated it, my attempts to conceive of how to compute it, especially how to compute it as a collection of bits, would appear to produce a massively larger number.  If you're going to count it as bits, my first thought would be to produce a list of all possible quanta, and assign a bit yes/no for each possible quanta.  From here, the size of the universe is estimated at a diameter of 93 * 10⁹ light years, or 8.79 * 10²⁶ m.  That gives a volume of about 2.85 * 10⁸¹ m³.  Since we're attempting to characterize quanta, we need to account for each possible location in the 3-d universe that a quanta could occupy, which means we need to know the volume in Planck length, not in meters.  From here, Planck length is 1.616 * 10^-31 m, so 4.220 * 10⁹³ Planck cubes in 1 m³, for a grand total universe volume of 1.204 * 10¹⁷⁵ possible locations in 3-d space for a quanta.  That means, I could indicate the yes/no locations of all the quanta in the universe at this moment with 10¹⁷⁵ or so bits, and that's not accounting for potential quantum states, or a direction vector...   Now, I very well could be trying to compute this in a horribly inefficient method, using an encoding scheme that over-represents complexity of what we're trying to compute, but it seems to me that an actual binary representation of the quantum state of the universe would be much higher than the number you quoted.

No, it's much smaller. I give a rather complete reference listing on the Bekenstein Bound in the Bibliography of my following article, with most of Bekenstein's papers available for free online, so you can follow his arguments for yourself. See:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Third, why do you even need to compute the size of a description of the quantum state of the universe, when you're fitting it into, as you describe, "an infinite amount of computational resources"?

Because resources are finite at any given time within spacetime. However, computational resources diverge to infinity approaching the Omega Point final singularity (of which itself is not in spacetime). It's only when the universe approaches the Omega Point close in proper time does the computational capacity become great enough to perfectly emulate the multiverse at our present epoch. But since more computational resources will forever be coming online, it doesn't matter how complex the emulation of the multiverse becomes during the universal resurrection of the dead, as eventually any desired amount of computational resources will come online.

It's amazing what you can do when you have unlimited computer power.

Thank you for your response, but a) I'm not sure I followed some of your answers, b) I'm not sure you answered all my questions (I had 2 groupings of 3 each, for a total of 6), and c) you haven't really helped my out in narrowing my reading list for my specific topics by repeating all the same citations and links, without pointing me to which ones would best address my narrower questions than the entire proof.

1) Okay so infinitely close in the limit.  I ask again, could there have been a third option, between being infinitely separated or infinitely close?  Are the only two choices that it was either infinitely separated, or infinitely close?

2) You did not address my question about the ability of the Omega Point, omnipotent within its bounds, to be able to influence any point in space-time outside the Omega Point, across the boundary.

3) You also did not appear to address the question of why it was important to determine that the boundary was infinitely close.  Is there a benefit to the infinite closeness that larger separations would have prevented?

4) Could you please provide the reference for Roger Penrose's 10¹²³ calculations?  I would like to see what he claimed to have calculated, and the method by which he arrived at that number.  I understand that you think my reference was wrong, but I would like to know what you were referencing.

5) Rather than pointing me at your full bibliography, could you please point me at a specific reference or two on the Bekenstein Bound.  You are much more versed on this, so it would really be helpful if you could narrow my search from your Bibliography and the entire set of his works to specific sources for this topic only.

6) I think you missed the point of this question.  If computational resources diverge to infinity approaching the Omega Point, why is it necessary to compute the actual value of the of the size of the information needed to compute the quantum state of the universe.  Once it is established that the quantum state is huge but finite, isn't the job done?  Infinite computational resources can swallow the finite representation, no mater how large, yes?

[Akalukew]

All this is proof that the meek will be decapitated by the New World Order, cryogenically frozen for New World Order mind-uploading testing, eventually becoming immortal, spacefaring computer minds?

[James Redford]

I won't make an argument from incredulity but I'm incredulous nevertheless.

All this is proof that the meek will be decapitated by the New World Order, cryogenically frozen for New World Order mind-uploading testing, eventually becoming immortal, spacefaring computer minds?

Yes. Actually one can derive all of that a priori just given the existence of government beyond a time any sapient species advances to the point of obtainment of Weapons of Mass Destruction, particularly nuclear bombs. That is, any sapient species in the universe would have to go through this (excepting highly unlikely circumstances) given said conditions.

The reason for this is because governments by their nature are exploitative, as the entire raison d'être of government is so that a ruling class can live off of the expropriated wealth of the common masses. This necessarily requires governments create psychological shocks within the public in order to get them behind great causes, i.e., wars and so forth, so that they will be focused upon other enemies rather than the government as their enemy. Which is to say that governments are caught in a cycle whereby they have to commit greater crimes just to cover their lesser crimes, of which lesser crimes are still horrendous.

The window of opportunity for any sapient species to throw off government closes when government obtains Weapons of Mass Destruction, since government rulers have no compunction about murdering any numbers of people, including (or especially) their own subjects.

With the advancement of technology leading to immortality, this means that these state rulers come to a point whereby they must prevent the commonality from obtaining immortality, since said ruling class have committed so many horrific acts that they calculate that the multitude would punish them if said multitude were thereby empowered with such technology.

Therefore, from their perspective, the ruling class have nothing whatsoever to lose by exterminating the common masses. But by failing to exterminate the common masses, they have everything to lose.

Because if they fail to exterminate the commonality before the nanotechnology becomes sophisticated enough to transform the substrate of one's brain into more robust hardware, a single commoner could potentially obtain that technology and rapidly replicate himself, thereby creating a situation of mass-empowerment that the oligarchy could never rid themselves of.

Even if one knew nothing of the actual history of this Earth's own globalist oligarchy, one could derive a priori the same basic outline of this dilemma for any sapient species in the universe just given the general existence of government upon said species' planet after a point that Weapons of Mass Destruction have been obtained.

And actually, given the general existence of government upon a sapient species' planet even well-before the obtainment of Weapons of Mass Destruction, one can pretty much a priori predict that it will reach this point, since if governments generally exist on that species' planet, then this necessarily means that deception on a wide scale exists. Which means that said species cannot depose their governments without enlightenment on a mass scale, i.e., without deep veridical education and learning on a mass scale, of which can only occur with the common masses being able to communicate with each other widely and virtually for free (i.e., bypassing the political establishment). That is, in other words, such a species would have to have the internet on their planet. Yet the internet is technologically more complex than Weapons of Mass Destruction, and so accordingly comes later within technological evolution.

But fret not. Yes, utterly extreme horrors are coming, but this has all been planned for from the beginning of existence (again, it could not be avoided [cf. Romans 8:18-23]), and the solution is forthcoming at the darkest hour. For the details on that, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf