Re: Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point

Quote from: James Redford on May 15, 2012, 07:32:40 PM

Quote from: Lukas on May 14, 2012, 06:26:02 PM

Quote from: James Redford on May 14, 2012, 05:53:04 PM

For more on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to 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), see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs

There are lots of non-sequiturs in Tipler's and your arguments. Let's just start off with a simple one: Why exactly does the universe have to collapse to a point? How do you (and Tipler) know that it can't keep expanding forever? In that case, unless I am mistaken, Tipler's argument with the Bekenstein bound falls apart completely.

If the universe kept expanding forever, then that would violate unitarity. For more on this, see Sec. 3.1: "The Omega Point" and App. A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" of my following article: [...]

I see, so it the apparent black hole information paradox? However, physics has moved on and most physicists nowadays seem to think that the holographic principle solves this problem, including Hawking himself.

This is already covered in App. A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" 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, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

All proposed solutions to the black hole information issue, except for Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, have the common feature of invoking new laws of physics which have no experimental confirmation 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 (October 2005), Art. No. 084013; also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171 .

Also, much of your and Tipler's argument seem to rely on a supposed consistent "Theory of Everything" ("Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity"). I don't think any mainstream physicist (including Feynman, DeWitt, and Weinberg) would agree or would have agreed that this is really a "theory of everything".

The Omega Point Thereom isn't dependent upon quantum gravity or a Theory of Everything (TOE). It is based upon the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

Regarding the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see Sec. 3.2: "The Omega Point and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" of my aforecited "Physics of God" article, and also see the following paper:

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

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above 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." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

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.

Here is how one mainstream physicist, Sean Carroll from CalTech, views Tipler: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/01/05/the-varieties-of-crackpot-experience/

Dr. Sean M. Carroll couldn't even get a professorship. I rebut Carroll in the same blog page that you cite above (see "The Varieties of Crackpot Experience", Discover Blogs, Jan. 5, 2009 http://webcitation.org/5yDcRx6IZ ).

Re: Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point

Quote from: James Redford on Feb 27, 2010, 01:42:33 AM

As far as anyone knows, the Omega Point Theory is correct. To date no refutation of it has appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

No refutation of the Omega Point Theory appears in the scientific literature because the Omega Point Theory itself does not appear (to any significant degree) in the scientific literature. There are an extraordinary number of crank theories not refuted in the scientific literature. This means nothing.

On the contrary, 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:

* 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.) http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs , http://flashmirrors.com/files/kfxn99g270zgumr/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf

* 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. http://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0xicxaqsgtd8r0f/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf

* 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. http://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0kwtgp8cbbseq17/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf

* 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. http://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1uim5bivyp0gvlu/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf

* 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 (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz , http://flashmirrors.com/files/wschm7ionfihrq6/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf

* 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. http://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/zfu3hbe0ar9pmi7/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/tb8kpbbjlgklkhm/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS , http://flashmirrors.com/files/h7lkzd1cmp5x0m4/Tipler-No-Limits-To-The-Open-Society.pdf

* 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, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB , http://flashmirrors.com/files/mhaaliygozh6tad/Tipler-et-al-Closed-universes-with-no-event-horizons.pdf

* 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, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 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 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-93. http://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/09x8nrhfj9tpsx4/Tipler-Existence-and-Goodness-of-the-Singularity.pdf

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." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

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 following article in addition to my below website:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 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://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0mawzqh3rumfvod

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com , http://theophysics.freevar.com

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) 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.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything 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.

Quote from: James Redford on Feb 27, 2010, 01:42:33 AM

For much more on the Omega Point Theory, see Prof. Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God): ...

This is a paper on canonical quantized gravity, not the Omega Point Theory. As you say, this article is published in a reputable physics journal. On the other hand, Tipler's crank theories are not. It appears that you are trying to make something seem to be what it is not.

That 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper by Prof. Tipler is on the the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). On p. 925 (cf. pp. 904-905) of this paper, Tipler gives a proof of the Omega Point cosmology per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). For that paper, see:

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

And contrary to what you state, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. See above for the details on that.

Quote from: James Redford on Feb 27, 2010, 01:42:33 AM

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

Either you don't understand the science or you are being dishonest. All of canonical quantized gravity falls under the category of having no experimental support. You are treating your pet theory in a completely different manner than other competing theories.

The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is itself required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. For more on that, see Sec. 3.2: "The Omega Point and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" 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, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

Quote from: James Redford on Feb 27, 2010, 01:42:33 AM

Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse..

Have you even read this paper... or followed any of the subsequent research, like the CMB? Your characterization is misleading and wrong. Recollapse is contingent on the cosmological constant not coming up positive. How positive it needs to be has been lessening with increased observations and all measurements of the cosmological constant so far have been positive. The WMAP is one of the greatest observations (and analysis) in science and it is obliterating your pet theory. The LHC could as well.

Your subsequent posts are much worse, reducing to blathering nonsense. I'm not going to bother with any more.

The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

Re: Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point

Here's what the real science says:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html

Real science does not validate house-of-cards theories with vanishing posterior probabilities. There is a vast difference in being logically consistent and empirically relevant. Anybody can throw together a consistent theory and maybe even publish it in a journal. That does not amount to much of anything.

I am familiar with canonical quantized gravity and I personally know some of the people listed in your references. You continue to mix references to canonical quantized gravity in real journals with references to nonsense in nonsense publications as if it is all the same. [At least this time you added some references in low-impact journals that fill that gap... but it is still not what you claim.] You are giving an excessive number of references that are mostly unnecessary. You champion a lack of refutation, when a simple Google Scholar search for your references shows plenty of published disagreement with respect to the entropy bounds, etc., let alone the Omega Point theory itself. You are faking credibility in a very disingenuous manner.

You like high impact-factor journals? Here's a review published in Nature that's actually relevant:

Nature, Volume 371, Issue 6493, pp. 115 (1994)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/371115a0

Here are some choice quotes from the Nature review:

"...one of the most misleading books ever produced."

"...wishful fantasy and a total lack of intellectual rigor."

"...consistent misuse of language combined with a blithe disregard for the experimental testability of his completely arbitrary series of assumptions."

"One cannot point out in short review all the absurdities in this extraordinary edifice, which is the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific or philosophical discipline."

"...does a considerable disservice to science..."

Re: Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point

Here's what the real science says:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html

The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. 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. But by sapient life annihilating baryons in the universe--again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L is conserved)--the Higgs field is forced toward its absolute vacuum state, canceling the observed cosmological constant and thereby allowing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process will provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

Real science does not validate house-of-cards theories with vanishing posterior probabilities. There is a vast difference in being logically consistent and empirically relevant. Anybody can throw together a consistent theory and maybe even publish it in a journal. That does not amount to much of anything.

I am familiar with canonical quantized gravity and I personally know some of the people listed in your references. You continue to mix references to canonical quantized gravity in real journals with references to nonsense in nonsense publications as if it is all the same. [At least this time you added some references in low-impact journals that fill that gap... but it is still not what you claim.] You are giving an excessive number of references that are mostly unnecessary. ...

Actually, I only gave one reference to the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) in this thread. All the other citations are to the Omega Point cosmology itself. And even that one citation to the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) concerned the Omega Point cosmology, as the Omega Point cosmology is required in order to make it consistent, of which that paper details.

So you are here shown to be a liar. Obviously you feel the need to lie because your position is wrong. The thing which you should do is change your false position in order to make it conform to reality. That way you will no longer need to lie.

... You champion a lack of refutation, when a simple Google Scholar search for your references shows plenty of published disagreement with respect to the entropy bounds, etc., let alone the Omega Point theory itself. You are faking credibility in a very disingenuous manner.

You like high impact-factor journals? Here's a review published in Nature that's actually relevant:

Nature, Volume 371, Issue 6493, pp. 115 (1994)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/371115a0

Here are some choice quotes from the Nature review:

"...one of the most misleading books ever produced."

"...wishful fantasy and a total lack of intellectual rigor."

"...consistent misuse of language combined with a blithe disregard for the experimental testability of his completely arbitrary series of assumptions."

"One cannot point out in short review all the absurdities in this extraordinary edifice, which is the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific or philosophical discipline."

"...does a considerable disservice to science..."

Hi, Hfleming. Prof. George Ellis's book-review is unrefereed. I cite that unrefereed book review in my "Physics of God" article. See Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology" of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Prof. George Ellis (the person who wrote the above review) and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.