God’s Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics

Whilst i see the inlfuences of Intelligent Design community in the above question…Im wondering…can you show me that part in the good professor’s theorum where it explains miracles?

It is all good and well to focus on testable evidence, but in all honesty, our existence here comes from non testable sources that defy the apparent laws of science that TEsists claim God is bound by.

Im thinking of miracles now… Christs very existence on this earth is largely unscientific and yet even TEists agree he was miraculously born, lived miraculously in that he did not sin, died miraculously - strange things apparently occurring at the point of his death (earthquakes, temple curtain torn in two, darkness that could be felt), He resurrected himself from the clutches of death, ascended into heaven in the form of a physical body that transformed itself into a heavenly one on the way…I mean, how does one insert all of that into a mathematical equation proving God?

The shortened version of the above…is faith mathematical beyond the notion that if enough people believe it, then it must be proof of God? (this is a reason why I’m so passionate about historicity and internal consistency in the narrative…it fills the void my own criticism here presents me with)

It seems we have a disciple of Frank Tipler here.

From Wikipedia…

Tipler’s Omega Point theory has been highly controversial. In the past (1997), physicist David Deutsch defended the physics of Omega Point cosmology, although he was highly critical of Tipler’s theological conclusions and what Deutsch stated were exaggerated claims (that caused other scientists and philosophers to reject his theory). However, Deutsch has since rejected the theory, referring to it as “refuted” and “ruled out by observation”.

Which is exactly what we have been saying to James Redford.

it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed the final anthropic principle the “completely ridiculous anthropic principle” (CRAP).

George Ellis, writing in the journal Nature, described Tipler’s book on the Omega Point as “a masterpiece of pseudoscience… the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline” and Tipler himself as ‘the ultimate reductionist’, citing Tipler’s argument that ‘religion is now a part of science’.[24] Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler’s thesis.

John Polkinghorne described Tipler as having “extreme reductionism” and building a “cosmic tower of Babel”. He also mentioned that Tipler’s book “reads like the highest class of science fiction”. Polkinghorne himself asserted that the hope of resurrection “lies not in the curiosity or calculation of a cosmic computer, but in the personal God who cares individually for each of His human creatures”.

What has been brought to us here by this disciple of Tipler is certainly neither science nor Christianity. It reminds me of scientology in flavor if not in the actual beliefs it is proposing.

I thought better of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s religious ideas which these are supposedly based upon, not that I have subscribed to such personally. He was certainly a real scientist and I can sympathize with his attempts to harmonize science with Christianity as he understood them. And we do see some changes in his thinking as he accepted some of the findings of science. But the final verdict on much of his thinking is not kind and the best we can say is that he did his best with the ideas and understanding of things in his times with a some bad influences.

James Redford’s reference to my “position” and/or philosophy is absurd since he clearly has made no effort to discover anything about it. He labeled it “fideism” which is not something I have ever supported. I thought responding in kind by labeling his position “rationalism” would make him rethink such a black and white approach but it appeared to go completely over his head – demonstrating that he really doesn’t have much depth of understanding in philosophy, theology, or science.

I have been looking into the history of support and opposition to big bang theory.

From around 1950 to 1965, the support for these theories was evenly divided, with a slight imbalance arising from the fact that the Big Bang theory could explain both the formation and the observed abundances of hydrogen and helium, whereas the Steady State could explain how they were formed, but not why they should have the observed abundances. However, the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. Objects such as quasars and radio galaxies were observed to be much more common at large distances (therefore in the distant past) than in the nearby universe, whereas the Steady State predicted that the average properties of the universe should be unchanging with time. In addition, the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 was considered the death knell of the Steady State, although this prediction was only qualitative, and failed to predict the exact temperature of the CMB. (The key big bang prediction is the black-body spectrum of the CMB, which was not measured with high accuracy until COBE in 1990).

Science goes with the evidence. Although by the time I came into the world the evidence for big bang was conclusive, and so the only opposition I saw came from religious people. It is well to mention it took time for this evidence to be found in the 37 years after it was proposed in 1927. The fabrication by Redford of this idea that science was opposed to the theory from this is just absurd. That the Catholic church supported the theory from 1951 (ahead of the conclusive evidence) when many Protestant groups did not, also doesn’t make Redford’s revision of history correct. The most we can say is that both the scientific community and Christianity were divided on the acceptance of the theory in the early days after it was proposed. But the fact remains that the scientific community followed where the evidence pointed while the Christian denominations were less reasonable in response to it.

Where did Hawking state that wave function collapse doesn’t happen?

That doesn’t work. You stated that life will absorb ALL baryons. This requires you to absorb every baryon released at the core of every star. Concentrating won’t make it happen.

There is no wavefunction collapse in the Many Worlds Interpretation. The entire wavefunction, including the observers, continues to evolve according to the usual rules during and after observations. You just end up with a wavefunction representing all of the possible observer states. It’s mathematically pleasing, in that it removes the need for an ad hoc addition to the QM machinery, but it comes at the cost of effectively denying the observed phenomena that the theory is supposed to explain.

That is grossly overstated and very misleading.

I think this might be why Hawking used the word “trivially.” The fact that the theory in this MW extension of reality beyond what is observable has no wavefunction collapse doesn’t change the fact that there most certainly is a wave collapse in the portion which is observable. And since science is founded upon the observable, this really amounts to nothing more than imaginary lack of a wave collapse.

Yes.

No, it’s an accurate statement of the situation. Wavefunctions are mathematical objects in QM models of reality. There is no wavefunction collapse in the MWI model of QM – there simply is no such process. There is a collapse in other models. The physical reality is that we observe only one (unpredictable) outcome, but calling that a wavefunction collapse is to confuse the territory with a map of it.

I know how to observe a photon or an electron. How do I observe a wavefunction collapse?

I didn’t refer to ‘wave collapse’ – I referred to ‘wavefunction collapsse’. Wavefunctions are mathematical objects – it’s right in the name.

You don’t observe the photon or electron directly but only by effects of interactions with them. It is the same with wave collapse. In this case what you are observing is the difference in the state of a system before and after a measurement has been made on a system which is not in an eigenstate of the measurement. Before, the results of a measurement on this (non-eigen) state gives random results. Afterwards the result of a measurement on this state (now an eigenstate) is always same result as you got from the measurement which changed the state of the system. Of course you only see this by making many such measurements.

Frankly all of it, including electrons and photons as well as these wave functions can be considered mathematical constructs which we have invented to understand the results of measurements.

True… but I think more emphasis is needed to avoid misunderstanding what is being claimed.

Welcome to the forum @JamesRedford . Regarding the OP. Indeed, there are people who claim “if I had a mathematical proof of the existence of God, then I would believe in Him.” I am not one of them. I have a seed of faith in a great God. He can work with that. I am also skeptical of the sincerity of this claim. If we really think about it, we have to take many things on faith. To start with, mathematics is not the cut-and-dried structure that many people think it is. This became more apparent with the work of Kurt Gödel - Wikipedia and others in the late 19th and early 20th century on the foundations of mathematics. Having said this, I think mathematics has proven to be an extremely valuable tool with which to describe reality.

Here is a good blog posting by Professor Thomas Vidick (Thomas Vidick - home) at
Cal Tech university: What it is that we do | MyCQstate 1

As far as the Standard Model Theory of Everything, I am not qualified to comment on this, and I think few are. Here, it’s good to do some due diligence to determine possible philosophical implications of the Theory by experts who understand it deeply. A good rule of thumb is to be skeptical about extraordinary claims promoted by a relatively small group of people. To start with, it is a good idea to determine the educational background of those who claim to be experts. That is an honest question that deserves an honest answer.

Sure, it’s all models. But in the case of MWI, we have two models with different mathematical behavior and you want me to label the observed phenomenon with the label from one of the models. If there were two distinct models of atoms, one that included electrons and one that had a different entity called a snark, with identical predictions from the two models, I wouldn’t have said that I knew how to observe electrons.

This may be mostly a terminological dispute, but in the original context, it was relevant for me to point out that MWI explicitly does not include wavefunction collapse and that is considered one of its attractive features.

For whatever reason, when I saw the name Hawking next to Many Worlds my mind went to multiverse explanations for how universes come about, forgetting the two major schools of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Speaking as a biologist who probably misunderstands more physics than I understand, it still seems like a really messy explanation. Is a new universe spawned every time a photon is absorbed? The number of parallel realites this would produce is mind boggling. Our fallible intuition shouldn’t be the basis for rejecting a theory, but MWI seems a bit too far out there, at least in my opinion.

Not that I’m particularly fond of MWI, but it might help to think of it in different terms: in MWI, there is just one reality, the wavefunction. Our observations are part of it and are in some sense illusory. No need to multiply realities.

And that is the problem right there – replacing the observed reality with a mathematical construct. So… the objection of @T_aquaticus still applies in a different way. But this goes away when you interpret it as I have done…

And so I basically consider the MWI as equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation.