+For the Love of Wisdom Well, i rather read the book for myself than to rely on Shermer's reviews, since Shermer, as a skeptic, will give anything a bad review that is religious.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Shermer actually went into detail about what Tipler said, and it was a far cry from any Biblical understanding of Christianity. First, Tipler does not believe in a soul as something that survives the body after death. He redefines soul "operationally as that which makes a living being different from a corpse" (Shermer 260-1). His vision of the endtimes is nothing like that of Tim LaHaye. Tipler believes that humans will eventually populate the Milky Way galaxy and then other galaxies too, they will build supercomputers, and when the universe collapses, these supercomputers will use "the energy of the collapsing process to recreate every human who ever lived" (Shermer 266). Besides being utter absurdity, this doesn't guarantee actual survival. If a future supercomputer recreated me, it would be a copy of me, not me, and I would still be dead. In contrast to Tipler, here is what science does have to say about the end of the universe. This is what I remember from a lecture by Lawrence Krauss I saw on YouTube. Galaxies are moving apart too quickly for earthlings to ever colonize other galaxies. In time, sentient beings, whether human descendants or sentient aliens, will see only their own galaxy when they look into space. Other galaxies will be too far away to even see, and if they don't have historical records from around our time in the universe, they will have no scientific evidence that other galaxies even exist. Because we live in a flat universe, it will not collapse. Instead, everything will keep moving away from everything else, and the universe will die in a whimper as its energy keeps dissipating.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Hi, For the Love of Wisdom. Michael Shermer never states any error on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's part. Regarding your comments on Bell's Theorem, it's clear that you yourself know essentially nothing about Prof. Tipler, since Tipler accepts Bell's Theorem. Bear in mind that Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, 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].) Further, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics is also mathematically required by the aforesaid known physical laws, and the Omega Point cosmology is an inherent component of said quantum gravity TOE. For much more on the foregoing matters, 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf Concerning nonlocality: experiments confirming quantum nonlocality are in actuality confirming the existence of the multiverse. For details on that, see the following paper: * Frank J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Vol. 111, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 2014), pp. 11281-11286, http://www.pnas.org/content/111/31/11281.full.pdf

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

James, Thanks for the links. As they're long, I'll look them over in time. It's now clear that Tipler does know about Bell's theorem. However, the claims he makes about supercomputers resurrecting everyone are still preposterous. More generally, I'm skeptical of any attempt to prove Christianity with science, because knowledge of the natural world (which is what science gives us) is not going to reveal whether a supernatural world exists (which is a central part of Christianity). If we lived in a world that defied prediction, making scientific knowledge impossible, then that would be evidence of a supernatural reality. But instead, we live in a world in which science has proven fabulously successful, and this suggests, though it doesn't prove, that there is no supernatural reality.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Hi, For the Love of Wisdom. Regarding how the known laws of physics in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology uniquely conform to, and precisely match, Christian theology: 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 uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following articles: * 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 Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. * 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[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo

Read more Show less

Reply · 1 2

+JamesRRedford Whether the omega point theory is true or not. I appreciate the scientific effort. Fascinating ;)

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Caligula138 Actually i don't love Jesus. As a child i was impressed by the good samaritan story of Jesus. I thought to myself "YES THAT's RIGHT!JESUS IS GOOD" But later i didn't like Jesus anymore, because he was too feminine and passive agressive. I love the divine logos though. I love God. Jesus didn't say that we should love him as a man, but God. So am i wrong by not loving Jesus the man? “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these”

Read more Show less

Reply · 1 2

Hi, Carla Delastella. See Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 82, 97 and 100 for more on the physics of the Trinity; and pp. 226-235 for how Jesus the Man can be united with the All-Presents Singularity. See also 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf .

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+JamesRRedford Hi James, in his book "the physics of immortality", Tipler writes that he doesn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus though and that he isn't a Christian himself.  How comes?

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Hi, Carla Delastella. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16 years, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory). Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, No. 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460). Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on a simulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation). After the publication of Prof. Tipler's 1994 book The Physics of Immortality, the Omega Point cosmology was formulated as 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 to date. Concerning the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity, 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, https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf .

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+MrRobotoToo Will it be able to solve the halting problem for turing machines?

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Beats me.  I'm not too familiar with computation theory. 

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+MrRobotoToo The main theoretical limitation of ordinary algorithms is that they must stop after a finite number of steps and then output the result. With that limitation it can be shown that many problems that are logically definable (i.e. have a precise specification with a definite answer and aren't just vague "what is the meaning of life?" questions or such) are not algorithmically solvable. The most famous one being the halting problem for turing machines, which is the problem to decide whether a given turing program halts on an empty input tape. If one has a computer that can make infinitely many steps in finite time and then output the result, one could solve the halting problem though and also many other algorithmically unsolvable problems, like whether a given logical formula holds in the arithmetic or not. One could solve for example open mathematical questions like the twin prime conjecture, simply by writing a program that iterates through all numbers and checks whether there are infinitely many twin primes or not.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1 2

In 'The Physics of Immortality' Tipler argues that the cosmic computer will process an infinite number of bits before the final singularity is reached, so based on what you've described, it seems that it would be able to solve the halting problem.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+MrRobotoToo yup, it would be able to "see" the whole infinite structure of the arithmetic of natural numbers and that might be the key to the secrets of the cosmos. Since the artihmetic encodes the answer to all other questions, too. "All is number" - Pythagoras

Read more Show less

Reply · 1