Quantum nonlocality, perhaps one of the most mysterious features of quantum mechanics, may not be a real phenomenon. Or at least that’s what a new paper in the journal PNAS asserts. Its author claims that nonlocality is nothing more than an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation, the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Nonlocality is a feature of quantum mechanics where particles are able to influence each other instantaneously regardless of the distance between them, an impossibility in classical physics. Counterintuitive as it may be, nonlocality is currently an accepted feature of the quantum world, apparently verified by many experiments. It’s achieved such wide acceptance that even if our understandings of quantum physics turn out to be completely wrong, physicists think some form of nonlocality would be a feature of whatever replaced it.
The term “nonlocality” comes from the fact that this “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein famously called it, seems to put an end to our intuitive ideas about location. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so if two quantum particles can influence each other faster than light could travel between the two, then on some level, they act as a single system—there must be no real distance between them.
The concept of location is a bit strange in quantum mechanics anyway. Each particle is described by a mathematical quantity known as the "wave function." The wave function describes a probability distribution for the particle’s location, but not a definite location. These probable locations are not just scientists’ guesses at the particle’s whereabouts; they’re actual, physical presences. That is to say, the particles exist in a swarm of locations at the same time, with some locations more probable than others.
A measurement collapses the wave function so that the particle is no longer spread out over a variety of locations. It begins to act just like objects we’re familiar with—existing in one specific location.
The experiments that would measure nonlocality, however, usually involve two particles that are entangled, which means that both are described by a shared wave function. The wave function doesn’t just deal with the particle’s location, but with other aspects of its state as well, such as the direction of the particle’s spin. So if scientists can measure the spin of one of the two entangled particles, the shared wave function collapses and the spins of both particles become certain. This happens regardless of the distance between the particles.
The new paper calls all this into question.
The paper’s sole author, Frank Tipler, argues that the reason previous studies apparently confirmed quantum nonlocality is that they were relying on an oversimplified understanding of quantum physics in which the quantum world and the macroscopic world we’re familiar with are treated as distinct from one another. Even large structures obey the laws of quantum Physics, Tipler points out, so the scientists making the measurements must be considered part of the system being studied.
It is intuitively easy to separate the quantum world from our everyday world, as they appear to behave so differently. However, the equations of quantum mechanics can be applied to large objects like human beings, and they essentially predict that you’ll behave just as classical physics—and as observation—says you will. (Physics students who have tried calculating their own wave functions can attest to this). The laws of quantum physics do govern the entire Universe, even if distinctly quantum effects are hard to notice at a macroscopic level.
When this is taken into account, according to Tipler, the results of familiar nonlocality experiments are altered. Typically, such experiments are thought to involve only two measurements: one on each of two entangled particles. But Tipler argues that in such experiments, there’s really a third measurement taking place when the scientists compare the results of the two.
This third measurement is crucial, Tipler argues, as without it, the first two measurements are essentially meaningless. Without comparing the first two, there’s no way to know that one particle’s behavior is actually linked to the other’s. And crucially, in order for the first two measurements to be compared, information must be exchanged between the particles, via the scientists, at a speed less than that of light. In other words, when the third measurement is taken into account, the two particles are not communicating faster than light. There is no "spooky action at a distance."
Tipler has harsh criticism for the reasoning that led to nonlocality. “The standard argument that quantum phenomena are nonlocal goes like this,” he says in the paper. “(i) Let us add an unmotivated, inconsistent, unobservable, nonlocal process (collapse) to local quantum mechanics; (ii) note that the resulting theory is nonlocal; and (iii) conclude that quantum mechanics is [nonlocal].”
He’s essentially saying that scientists are arbitrarily adding nonlocality, which they can’t observe, and then claiming they have discovered nonlocality. Quite an accusation, especially for the science world. (The "collapse" he mentions is the collapse of the particle’s wave function, which he asserts is not a real phenomenon.) Instead, he claims that the experiments thought to confirm nonlocality are in fact confirming an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation called the many-worlds interpretation (MWI). As its name implies, the MWI predicts the existence of other universes.
The Copenhagen interpretation has been summarized as “shut up and measure.” Even though the consequences of a wave function-based world don’t make much intuitive sense, it works. The MWI tries to keep particles concrete at the cost of making our world a bit fuzzy. It posits that rather than becoming a wave function, particles remain distinct objects but enter one of a number of alternative universes, which recombine to a single one when the particle is measured.
Scientists who thought they were measuring nonlocality, Tipler claims, were in fact observing the effects of alternate universe versions of themselves, also measuring the same particles.
Part of the significance of Tipler’s claim is that he’s able to mathematically derive the same experimental results from the MWI without use of nonlocality. But this does not necessarily make for evidence that the MWI is correct; either interpretation remains consistent with the data. Until the two can be distinguished experimentally, it all comes down to whether you personally like or dislike nonlocality.
Tipler himself is a controversial figure in the scientific community. He’s been called a crackpot by Astrophysicist Sean Carroll for his science fiction-like claim that life will evolve to become omnipotent in the moment before the end of the Universe. He’s also denied climate change and explored scientific mechanisms for the resurrection of the dead, getting him accused of engaging in pseudoscience by many in the scientific community.
He does have his defenders, such as physicist David Deutsch, who builds on some of Tipler’s work, though Deutsch rejects Tipler’s metaphysical conclusions. And even Carroll acknowledges that Tipler did good scientific work in his early career. That being the case, is Tipler’s new paper to be taken seriously?
In science, it’s not the reputation of the scientist that determines the validity of his or her work; it’s whether the work can be born out by evidence. And right now, that’s simply not possible here.
PNAS, 2014. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1324238111 (About DOIs).
130 Reader Comments
Um, after the first part, I think we can safely ignore anything else he has to say.... [/url].
Can you identify the logical fallacy you just engaged in here?
That was a logical fallacy indeed but you have to admit, if he did come out against climate change in this day and age (I have not done the research on the exact circumstances), it does bring down his credibility as an objective scientist.
It brings down his credibility as being objective, not as being a scientist.
Again, GIGO. Give him different data and he will come up with a different conclusion.
If one accepts the validity of General Relativity (which has been confirmed by every experiment to date), then nonlocality does not exist, since the speed of light is the fastest anything can travel, and therefore the multiverse of the Many-Worlds Interpretation logically must exist (i.e., due to the reason given in Prof. Tipler's present paper).
(...)
Account freshly created just for one post... This post reeks of fanatism and religious repetition of Tipler's work. Couldn't you at least be subtle in your evangelism?
Turns out that word was more accurate than you probably thought, eh?
I'm afraid so.
Well, at least his second post wasn't subtle any longer, and I can happily put him in my ignore list.
Hi, Ryuji. My postings are my own writings.
You are engaging in the fallacy of the Presumption of Antitheism. That is, you are simply assuming that God of course does not exist, and hence that any purported evidence for God's existence must be incorrect (and therefore that it can be safely ignored).
However, antitheism (i.e., holding a positive belief in the nonexistence of God) is an irrational position, since there exists no evidence that God does not exist. And the only way such evidence could exist is to a priori prove that an infinite computational state is mathematically contradictory, which will never come about since mathematics very much allows infinite computational states. Even if one had a physical Theory of Everything (TOE) which did not permit infinite computation, unless one a priori proved mathematically that infinite computation is not possible then one could never be sure that this TOE wasn't just an embedded subset of a larger TOE (and as said, such a proof will never be forthcoming, as mathematics definitely allows infinite computation).
Moreover, the evidence for God's existence is overwhelming. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence, is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)
Additionally, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies 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. For much more on the Omega Point TOE, 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.
Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.
Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology (all of which papers are available online for free by doing a search):
* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.)
* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C.
* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R.
* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X.
* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114.
* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T.
* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H.
* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694.
* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998).
* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000. Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T.
* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001. Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.
* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T.
* 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. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007.
* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193.
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.
Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").
Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--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." (From Richard Palmer [Publisher], "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website, ca. 2006.)
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.
For much more on these matters, see my above-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".
-----
Note:
1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (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 crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally 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 and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem 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 these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
I refer you to a little piece by William of Occam
I refer you to a little piece by William of Occam
A logical contradiction is not parsimonious, and hence violates Franciscan Friar William of Ockham's epistemic razor, because every statement and its negation can shown to be true if a logical contradiction is accepted as valid:
P ∧ ¬P
P
P ∨ A
¬P
A
therefore A
QED.
Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence, is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.
Additionally, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies 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. For much more on the Omega Point TOE, 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.
I refer you to a little piece by William of Occam
A logical contradiction is not parsimonious, and hence violates Franciscan Friar William of Ockham's epistemic razor, because every statement and its negation can shown to be true if a logical contradiction is accepted as valid:
P ∧ ¬P
P
P ∨ A
¬P
A
therefore A
QED.
Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence, is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.
Additionally, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies 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. For much more on the Omega Point TOE, 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.
Yeah, I just don't even know where to start:
1) stop with the Tipler worship, Teilhard de Chardin was 10x the intellect that Tipler ever hoped to be and its his theory, not Tipler's.
2) There's no evidence that the universe is 'evolving towards complexity' this is a conceit that the Omega Point theorists simply posit as a ground truth, yet there is no evidence for it. Given that we have little understanding of what the state of the Universe was before the present era and little real understanding of its likely future evolution, the nature of time, etc anyone claiming any sort of 'evolutionary trajectory' at all is grasping at straws.
3) Don't confuse information and Gibb's Free Energy. Be sure you ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THERMODYNAMICS IN A DEEP EPISTEMIC SENSE before falling into the pit traps of Tipler and Teilhard de Chardin, clever men that they are/were.
As for the Omega Point 'theory' itself, it has nothing at all scientific about it. T. de H. simply states that the universe is evolving towards complexity as if it is an observable fact. Nothing in any of his writing justifies this except his own belief. Omega Point is thus a religion, not a scientific hypothesis. Point 2 of Omega Point, "The Omega Point must be a 'person'" because man is the apex of cosmic complexity and consciousness seems almost ludicrously anthropocentric. Its the last dying gasp of catholic philosophy trying to justify god in the tradition of the ancient church fathers. It didn't fly in Augustine's day and it still doesn't wash today. The third point is equally weak, there's nothing logically compelling about the argument that the Omega Point must be pre-existing. Even assuming points 1 and 2, 3 doesn't follow logically from them so its just another axiom, ho-hum. Points 4 and 5 aren't even really worth discussing as the utter baselessness of points 1-3 makes them essentially moot.
Tipler's version is based on a number of unsupported theses as well:
1 that the physical Universe is bounded and R3. This is by no means proven, and you can read articles by physicists every week that show there are all sorts of possible consistent ways to construct a Universe. Read the latest edition of Sci-Am and you will find an article that blows Tipler clean out of the water without even aiming at him. Its POSSIBLE that the Universe meets Tipler's criteria, POSSIBLE, but to call it proven is ridiculous.
2 There are no event horizons/ point-like 'end' to space-time. Again, this is just utter speculation. Tipler cannot back this up with even one fact or observation. As far as modern physics can determine we live in an open universe with an increasing cosmological constant which will never stop inflating, and in fact what we call time and space seems only a pause between the end of the inflaton and the start of the 'big rip'. I don't see Tipler's criteria anywhere in there in particular.
3 Sentient life MUST engulf the universe. Ummmmm, bullcrap? I see nothing but cold dead space, lots of dust, ice, hard radiation, and so far nothing living at all, nor any sign of any advancement of any life form or living process far beyond the level of humanity. Its surely quite possible that life is common in the universe. Its POSSIBLE its spreading throughout the Universe like mold in cheese, but its by no means proven to be so. Its just as plausible to imagine that life is rare, exists only in a very few uncommon oases flung far and wide across the vast gulfs of time and space that the universe spans, never to even catch sight of each other, let alone permeate the universe. Only wishful thinking can make the grand triumph of life from a dream into a scientific fact.
4 and 5 are again essentially the same points as T. de C's points 4 and 5. There is no particular reason to accept them even if we were to accept points 1-3. Point 4 directly contradicts known principles of thermodynamics, so its hard to accept, though conceivably there's some sort of special pleading possible where "the end of the universe" isn't bound by the same rules that govern the Earth. However that sort of smacks of special pleading, at best. Point 5 is only interesting in that the opposite is really the question which is begged. At the infinitely hot dense first tick of the Planck time clock wouldn't an INFINITE amount of things have happened all at once? Everything since the end of inflation consists of nothing more than the most trivial fraction of a fraction of a trillionth of one percent of all the events that will ever take place in the Universe, the rest passed before 1e-28 seconds were up. So what exactly are we evolving 'towards'? Don't the facts as they appear on the ground make it vastly more likely that Tipler et al have it bass-ackwards to use the polite term?
Honestly, read Stephen Hawking. He's a 100x more rigorous thinker than Frank Tipler and you'll just get a lot more out of it for your money. Failing that read some good sci-fi, its just as solid in the science dept as Tipler too. Think about it this way. If Tipler has solved the TOE and the origin, nature, and fate of the Universe and its scientifically iron-clad and provable then why is the Perimeter Institute even still in business? Why haven't Hawking and all the String Theorists, Loop Quantum Gravity people, etc all thrown in the towel? Is it possibly because Tipler means dick to them? I know pointing out the quackiness of people's favorite quacks is pretty much pointless, but there it is.
I refer you to a little piece by William of Occam
A logical contradiction is not parsimonious, and hence violates Franciscan Friar William of Ockham's epistemic razor, because every statement and its negation can shown to be true if a logical contradiction is accepted as valid:
P ∧ ¬P
P
P ∨ A
¬P
A
therefore A
QED.
Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence, is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.
Additionally, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies 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. For much more on the Omega Point TOE, 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.
Yeah, I just don't even know where to start:
1) stop with the Tipler worship, Teilhard de Chardin was 10x the intellect that Tipler ever hoped to be and its his theory, not Tipler's.
While both Teilhard and Tipler's Omega Point concepts share similarities in their mutual meliorism, their physical cosmologies are fundamentally different. Unlike Tipler, Teilhard was not a cosmologist, and his Omega Point doesn't go beyond the Earth, a fatal flaw that dooms life in Teilhard's cosmology on the grounds of physics. Teilhard's Omega Point conception is quite vague in physical details, being more of a philosophic idea. Tipler chose Teilhard's term upon realizing that life can continue forever only if the universe ends in a solitary-point final singularity. In Tipler's use of the term, "Omega Point" means end-point, in the sense of the literal end of spacetime at a literal geometric point of infinite sharpness.
Regarding the intellect of Tipler:
Frank Jennings Tipler III (born February 1, 1947 in Andalusia, Alabama) is a mathematical physicist and a professor in the departments of Mathematics and Physics (joint appointment) at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Tipler received his Bachelor of Science degree in physics in 1969 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (attending from 1965–1969). In 1976 Tipler obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Maryland, College Park (attending from 1969–1976) in the field of Global General Relativity (the same rarefied field that Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed) for his proof, using the global-relativistic techniques of Penrose and Hawking, that if a time machine could be created its use would necessarily result in the formation of singularities, consequently making time-travel into the past impossible. Tipler went on to be hired as a postdoctoral researcher by physicists John A. Wheeler, Abraham Taub, Rainer Sachs and Dennis Sciama. Tipler became Professor of Mathematical Physics in 1981 at Tulane University, where he has taught since.
In addition to being an expert in Global General Relativity, Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory. His Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of prestigious physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain’s main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world’s leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal Physics Nobelist Richard Feynman also published in during the 1980s), etc.
Prof. John A. Wheeler (the physicist who gave black holes their name and the father of most relativity research in the US) wrote that “Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics” on p. viii in his “Foreword” to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1986) by cosmologist John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler’s Omega Point Theory was described. On p. ix of his foreword, Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory,
""
rivals in thought-provoking power any of the other[ chapters]. It discusses the idea that intelligent life will some day spread itself so thoroughly throughout all space that it will ‘begin to transform and continue to transform the universe on a cosmological scale’, thus making it possible to transmit ‘the values of humankind ... to an arbitrarily distant futurity ... an Omega Point ... [at which] life will have gained control of all matter and forces ...’.
""
Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.
Additionally, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies 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. For much more on the Omega Point TOE, 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.
In Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, the energy available to life diverges to infinity as the universe collapses into the Omega Point final singularity.
Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is not that of Teilhard's.
And what are these "Points 4 and 5" that you speak of?
1 that the physical Universe is bounded and R3. This is by no means proven, and you can read articles by physicists every week that show there are all sorts of possible consistent ways to construct a Universe. Read the latest edition of Sci-Am and you will find an article that blows Tipler clean out of the water without even aiming at him. Its POSSIBLE that the Universe meets Tipler's criteria, POSSIBLE, but to call it proven is ridiculous.
The topology of the universe is not R^3, but rather S^3. The three-sphere topology of the universe is a conclusion of Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem, not an assumption.
Again, that is a conclusion, not an assumption, of the Omega Point Theorem.
Here again, that is a conclusion, not an assumption, of the Omega Point Theorem.
What are these "4 and 5" that you speak of?
Honestly, read Stephen Hawking. He's a 100x more rigorous thinker than Frank Tipler and you'll just get a lot more out of it for your money. Failing that read some good sci-fi, its just as solid in the science dept as Tipler too. Think about it this way. If Tipler has solved the TOE and the origin, nature, and fate of the Universe and its scientifically iron-clad and provable then why is the Perimeter Institute even still in business? Why haven't Hawking and all the String Theorists, Loop Quantum Gravity people, etc all thrown in the towel? Is it possibly because Tipler means dick to them? I know pointing out the quackiness of people's favorite quacks is pretty much pointless, but there it is.
Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the 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.
In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.
With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.
For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 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.
Ummmmm, you just recapitulated the same mistaken statements like they're somehow different when you repeat them again and again. I can only conclude that your grasp of the subject matter is uninterestingly small. Nothing in Tipler's theosophizing is in any concrete way related to established scientific facts. He's very welcome to his philosophical maunderings, and so are you. Calling them established scientific facts is simply ludicrous and since you insist on doing so I can only conclude you aren't able to distinguish the difference between the two. I can't hold an intelligent conversation under those conditions, it is simply metaphysically untenable.
Ummmmm, you just recapitulated the same mistaken statements like they're somehow different when you repeat them again and again. I can only conclude that your grasp of the subject matter is uninterestingly small. Nothing in Tipler's theosophizing is in any concrete way related to established scientific facts. He's very welcome to his philosophical maunderings, and so are you. Calling them established scientific facts is simply ludicrous and since you insist on doing so I can only conclude you aren't able to distinguish the difference between the two. I can't hold an intelligent conversation under those conditions, it is simply metaphysically untenable.
Hi, Alhazred. In your previous post in this thread, you made it quite clear that you know essentially nothing about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler or his Omega Point cosmology. You posted seriously mangled summaries of second-hand sources, of which themselves were bad summaries of outdated material.
Whereas I have read almost everything ever written on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, whether by Tipler himself or by others. Indeed, I myself have written a free 186-page article (really, a book) in 8.5*11 inch format on Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, of which uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes. For my said free article, 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.
Were you really unaware of that, Alhazred? Because I quite pointedly directed you to said article of mine in my replies to you.
Furthermore, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. 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[at sign]4ax.com , July 30, 2013.
Ummmmm, you just recapitulated the same mistaken statements like they're somehow different when you repeat them again and again. I can only conclude that your grasp of the subject matter is uninterestingly small. Nothing in Tipler's theosophizing is in any concrete way related to established scientific facts. He's very welcome to his philosophical maunderings, and so are you. Calling them established scientific facts is simply ludicrous and since you insist on doing so I can only conclude you aren't able to distinguish the difference between the two. I can't hold an intelligent conversation under those conditions, it is simply metaphysically untenable.
Hi, Alhazred. In your previous post in this thread, you made it quite clear that you know essentially nothing about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler or his Omega Point cosmology. You posted seriously mangled summaries of second-hand sources, of which themselves were bad summaries of outdated material.
Whereas I have read almost everything ever written on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, whether by Tipler himself or by others. Indeed, I myself have written a free 186-page article (really, a book) in 8.5*11 inch format on Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, of which uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes. For my said free article, 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.
Were you really unaware of that, Alhazred? Because I quite pointedly directed you to said article of mine in my replies to you.
Furthermore, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. 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[at sign]4ax.com , July 30, 2013.
Yes, yes, I abase myself before your totally superior intellect and understanding, sigh.
Honestly, I don't have any reason to want to insult you, agree with you, disagree with you, etc. I hold a degree in Mathematics myself, and while I don't pretend to be a highly accomplished physicist I am not stupid and do quite well understand the concepts here, the metaphysics and epistemological questions, etc. Whatever Tipler has done amounts to nothing like a proof of anything. The very idea that you would believe that such a proof is even possible tells me a vast amount about the gulf that exists in your basic philosophical training. That's OK, but you might want to do some reading about the epistemological underpinnings of science, its axiomatic structure, and some other general concepts in that area, because it will probably be useful to you in discussing these things in the future.
As for my knowledge of Tiplier, Tielhard de Chardin, and this whole niche of teleology, no, I'm not an expert, but I have encountered this material before, I've read some of it, and I've consulted sources in commenting on your statements. I leave it to greater experts than myself to say whether my understanding is flawed, accurate, too grossly simplistic, or simply obtains of only one narrow view of the subject. It could be any of those things. However its not based on entire ignorance of the subject or simply the result of my throwing out some random statements. I studied the subject, analyzed it within the framework of my understanding of physics and philosophy, and I thought I responded at a level where I was at least giving you the respect of a thoughtful answer. You just don't seem to be absorbing anything of the criticisms of your position. You seem in fact blissfully unaware of the giant philosophical chasm on the brink of which your little house teeters, awaiting only the smallest puff of logic to push it over the side. How fortunate for you that your vision is turned elsewhere, little knowing how far your edifice is from the solid structure you imagine! Ah well. I hope your unshakable faith in the objective truth of Tipler's Omega serves you well!
Ummmmm, you just recapitulated the same mistaken statements like they're somehow different when you repeat them again and again. I can only conclude that your grasp of the subject matter is uninterestingly small. Nothing in Tipler's theosophizing is in any concrete way related to established scientific facts. He's very welcome to his philosophical maunderings, and so are you. Calling them established scientific facts is simply ludicrous and since you insist on doing so I can only conclude you aren't able to distinguish the difference between the two. I can't hold an intelligent conversation under those conditions, it is simply metaphysically untenable.
Hi, Alhazred. In your previous post in this thread, you made it quite clear that you know essentially nothing about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler or his Omega Point cosmology. You posted seriously mangled summaries of second-hand sources, of which themselves were bad summaries of outdated material.
Whereas I have read almost everything ever written on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, whether by Tipler himself or by others. Indeed, I myself have written a free 186-page article (really, a book) in 8.5*11 inch format on Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, of which uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes. For my said free article, 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.
Were you really unaware of that, Alhazred? Because I quite pointedly directed you to said article of mine in my replies to you.
Furthermore, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. 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[at sign]4ax.com , July 30, 2013.
Yes, yes, I abase myself before your totally superior intellect and understanding, sigh.
Honestly, I don't have any reason to want to insult you, agree with you, disagree with you, etc. I hold a degree in Mathematics myself, and while I don't pretend to be a highly accomplished physicist I am not stupid and do quite well understand the concepts here, the metaphysics and epistemological questions, etc. ...
One does not simply learn about a subject by some process of etheric osmosis, wherein by merely existing as a human being one absorbs knowledge on the topic. In your 2014-07-26T20:20:16-05:00 post above, you demonstrated quite clearly that you know essentially nothing about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler or his Omega Point cosmology. You posted seriously mangled summaries of second-hand sources, of which themselves were bad summaries of outdated material.
If one desires to learn about the Omega Point cosmology, then the best way to do so is from my following free 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.
Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. 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[at sign]4ax.com , July 30, 2013.
Not that you would know, since you have so far refused to learn about the topic. Nor is this a topic that one could properly digest in a matter of days.
You are making claims without actually knowing whether or not your claims are true.
You here reveal your flawed epistemological methodology. You a priori assume what must be the case, and hence you have no interest in actually learning whereof you speak on this subject.
My understanding of the epistemological foundations of knowledge are deeper than probably any other mortal human who has lived.
As one who is far more an expert on this subject than you, I'll state again: In your 2014-07-26T20:20:16-05:00 post above, you demonstrated quite clearly that you know essentially nothing about Prof. Tipler or his Omega Point cosmology. You posted seriously mangled summaries of second-hand sources, of which themselves were bad summaries of outdated material.
Again, in your 2014-07-26T20:20:16-05:00 post above, you demonstrated quite clearly that you know essentially nothing about Prof. Tipler or his Omega Point cosmology. You posted seriously mangled summaries of second-hand sources, of which themselves were bad summaries of outdated material.
The only way Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem could be wrong is if the known laws of physics are wrong, since the Omega Point Theorem is a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Yet these known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)
For much more on this, see the two above-cited informational resources by me.
You must login or create an account to comment.