God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

James Redford · August 7, 2013

lol no refutation of tiplers work exists in peer reviewed literature because he strictly gets his work published in non peer reviewed pseudoscience journals

i wonder why...

Hi, Andrewcellini. It would help you if you would actually read the originating post of this thread before replying with such an antifactual and unknowledgeable statement.

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. (The below papers, in addition to many other articles by Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology, are also available in the following archive: Frank-J-Tipler-Omega-Point-Papers.zip , 26712158 bytes, MD5: 6e5d29b994bc2f9aa4210d72ef37ab68. http://webcitation.org/6GjhT6t52 , http://cloudxeon.com/9d168dc7d6a )

* 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

* 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

* 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

* 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

* 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. http://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz

* 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

* 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. http://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5

* 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. 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 (Sept. 23, 1998). http://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS

* 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. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 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. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB

* 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. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 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. http://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 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 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193. http://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp

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 website. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , http://archive.is/pKD3y )

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" in addition to my below website:

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.

Greg H. · August 7, 2013

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...

No, we don't, so I wish you'd quit saying this. We have a couple (or more than a couple) of contenders, but they all have significant issues and none of them have (to my knowledge) been experimentally confirmed.

**swansont** · August 7, 2013

People have attempted refuting physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, but none have succeeded. For for details on how criticisms of the Omega Point have been faulty, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

As I show therein, when Prof. Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler’s case stronger.

Allegedly make it stronger, since there is no critique of the critique, and your phrasing here makes it sound like this has happened more than the one time that you cite in that work.

The bottom line is that this has to be hashed out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, and it hasn't been, now has it? You seem to have taken being largely ignored as some sort of validation, which is little more than putting spin on bad news

Your publications list includes a couple of peer-reviewed papers (and, of course, peer review does not equate to correctness), but there is no mention of God in those paper titles, and the other citations are books or conference proceedings, which are not peer-reviewed.

James Redford · August 7, 2013

The problem with your word salad is that we don't currently have a functional mathematical model that unifies all of the four fundamental forces (aka A Working Theory of Everything). How do you make predictions (much less universal requirements) based on a model that does not exist?

Your unknowledgeability and social framing are the reasons you did not understand what I am saying, even though I wrote perfect English.

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

For details on the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE, see Sec. 3.2: "The Omega Point and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", pp. 19 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. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

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

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS

No, we don't, so I wish you'd quit saying this. We have a couple (or more than a couple) of contenders, but they all have significant issues and none of them have (to my knowledge) been experimentally confirmed.

See my previous reply to you.

Edited August 7, 2013 by James Redford

Arete · August 7, 2013

I especially enjoy the bit where your sources are your own article in a non peer reviewed source and links to your own commentary of videos.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Arete

John Cuthber · August 7, 2013

Only one of these quotes can be true, and I know which one my money is on.

Choose

(A)

"No refutation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter."

or (B)

"Researcher Anders Sandberg pointed out that he believes the Omega Point Theory has many flaws, including missing proofs.^[17]

Tipler's Omega Point theories have received criticism by physicists and skeptics.^[18]^[19]^[20]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",^[3] and Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis.^[21] Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler's early work was constructive but that now he has become a "crackpot".^[22] In a review of Tippler's The Physics of Christianity, Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".^[23]"

^{For those who can't make up their minds, you might want to check out the references .}

^{For example, per Martin Gardner's review of Tipler's book here}

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_strange_case_of_frank_jennings_tipler

"Chapter seven reveals for the first time the dark secret of the Virgin Birth. It was a rare case of parthenogenesis! This is the technical term for births that lack male fertilization of a female egg. The phenomenon is fairly common among certain vertebrates such as snakes, lizards, and turkeys; Tipler sees no reason why it can’t occur in humans, and he suspects it actually does occur. He is convinced this happened with Mary. Moreover, he thinks Mary’s parthenogenesis could be confirmed by careful analysis of Jesus’s blood on the Shroud of Turin!"

Now, what sort of peer review does it take to point out that the Shroud isn't old enough to be Jesus' shroud (ignoring the question of His existence for the moment)?

There may not be a "peer reviewed" critique of Tippler's work.

But why the hell would you need peer review of obvious bollocks like that?

Edited August 7, 2013 by John Cuthber

James Redford · August 7, 2013

Allegedly make it stronger, since there is no critique of the critique, and your phrasing here makes it sound like this has happened more than the one time that you cite in that work.

The bottom line is that this has to be hashed out in peer-reviewed scientific literature, and it hasn't been, now has it? You seem to have taken being largely ignored as some sort of validation, which is little more than putting spin on bad news

Your publications list includes a couple of peer-reviewed papers (and, of course, peer review does not equate to correctness), but there is no mention of God in those paper titles, and the other citations are books or conference proceedings, which are not peer-reviewed.

You need to read more closely Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", as I give the following examples said irony:

To date only two physicists have criticized Tipler's Omega Point cosmology using the Scientific Method's process of peer-review, they being physicists Prof. George Ellis and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the 1994 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.

Ironically, Lawrence Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.)

So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that's the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics.

Regarding your second paragraph above, 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.] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Regarding your third paragraph above, all of the papers cited in my list are peer-reviewed. Those which aren't published in journals are published in proceedings, and peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers. And God is mentioned in a number of those journal and proceedings papers.

Edited August 7, 2013 by James Redford

moth · August 7, 2013

If you "prove" your god of choice to be real, aren't you really asking people to give up their faith in god, and base their faith on your method?

James Redford · August 7, 2013

I especially enjoy the bit where your sources are your own article in a non peer reviewed source and links to your own commentary of videos.

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. Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

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 website. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , http://archive.is/pKD3y )

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.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the Prof. Tipler's aforecited 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.

For details on the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE, see Sec. 3.2: "The Omega Point and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", pp. 19 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. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

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

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS

Arete · August 7, 2013

snip

In post #29 and #32 you cite only your own article and your own commentary on a video.

Stating that other papers, which you don't cite have been peer reviewed is rather irrelevant to my point.

John Cuthber · August 7, 2013

Let's just clarify something here

" Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. "

OK, I guess that's true, but unicorns are not invalidated by the known laws of physics.

It doesn't make them real.

And this bit

"No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter."

is still plainly wrong.

Stop repeating it- it shows you up as a liar.

There are refutations- notably those cited in the wiki article quoted in post # 8 of this thread.

I have slightly more credibility than Tipler's work if I assert that I have the biggest willy of all humans on the planet.

Let's see you find a refutation of that-. "within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter."

Greg H. · August 7, 2013

Your unknowledgeability and social framing are the reasons you did not understand what I am saying, even though I wrote perfect English.

So I'm biased and ignorant. You could have just said that. You'd have been wrong, but you would have sounded like less of a pompous ass.

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

Except that, thus far, there's nothing confirming the FDW quantum gravity theory, so while it's nice idea (and frankly, I hope they're right - it would be nice to be able to answer one of the niggling little details of the universe), it's hardly proof of anything. Aside from that, a random google search on the FDW theory of quantum gravity shows that you, and the good Dr. are the only people really even discussing the theory in any kind of detail.

Could it be that's because your ideas are predicated on the idea that it's correct? I think your bias may be showing.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Greg H.

andrewcellini · August 7, 2013

James,

from your own citations, there is not a single reputable scientific journal. you prove my point, that he (almost) strictly publishes in works of psuedoscience without me doing the work.

as for your claim that there are "zero refutations" of tipler's "theory", i can assure you there are many including one by author michael shermer in his book "Why people believe weird things" which brings to light lack of evidence and testability.

Edited August 7, 2013 by andrewcellini

**swansont** · August 7, 2013

You need to read more closely Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything",

I did. You mention one whole peer-reviewed critique, that of Ellis and Coule.

Regarding your second paragraph above, 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.] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics. No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

A lack of refutation is still not an endorsement.

Regarding your third paragraph above, all of the papers cited in my list are peer-reviewed. Those which aren't published in journals are published in proceedings, and peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers. And God is mentioned in a number of those journal and proceedings papers.

Proceedings are papers based on talks/posters given at conferences. They are not peer-reviewed.

Daedalus · August 8, 2013

In regards to your paper, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything":

7.1 The Haecceities of God

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 definitions of God held by almost all of the world’s leading religions. [76] 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.

The crucial concept of God is as a state of infinite mind. As such, God is inherently personal, since the mental resources of God are infinitely greater than that of a sapient human being.

Given a state of infinite mind, anything that can exist can be rendered. Furthermore, any universal Turing machine is mathematically equivalent to any other universal Turing machine, as any universal Turing machine can perfectly emulate any other Turing machine, and indeed, anything that can exist. [77] Since one of the traditional definitions of God is having an infinite mind, then by definition God would be a universal Turing machine.

Although there is a sense in which not all Turing machines would be equivalent, and that is the time taken to compute a result. Only given infinite computational time can they all compute the same result.

However, one of the traditional haecceities of God is that God knows everything that can logically be known all at once. In other words, God has a singular mind, i.e., a mind which is not subject to elapsed time due to spatial distance.

In the Omega Point cosmology, all spacetime points impinge upon the Omega Point singularity all at once. The Omega Point is the collection of all spacetime points in a solitary-point final singularity. Moreover, computational resources (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) become literally infinite at the Omega Point, and so anything which at any time can exist will simply be a subset of what is rendered at the Omega Point. The Omega Point knows all that can logically be known, and it knows it all at once.

Ok.... I believe I found the reason why there is a lack of refutation regarding your paper. What you have written in the above quote is most definitely outside the realm of science, and is nowhere near being correct within the known laws of physics or within the abstractions of mathematics. Not only are you equating a singularity as defined in general relativity as being a universal Turing machine (a computer), but you are also defining it as God. It doesn't matter that you sprinkle some physics into your writing. With claims like the one stated in your paper, you will never be taken serious, much less invoke an actual scientist to take the time to refute such nonsense.

With all of that being said, I would like to point you towards the rules of the forum, specifically number 4 which states:

The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

You should also be aware of additional rules applied to the Speculations forum:

You have to back your statements up with evidence.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.

Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum.

Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect.

When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it.

Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence.

Just because some paper comes to the same conclusion as you does not mean your hypotheses are the same.

Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context.

Disagreeing with you does not make someone "closed-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data.

Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy. If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient.

Respect is earned. People who are resident experts, mods and administrators have earned those titles.

Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess.

If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion.

All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong.

Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science cares very little about your opinion, as it has little relevance to the subject.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.

As for your claims that "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", I ask you to provide physical and / or mathematical evidence showing how it is sentient or at least how it functions as a universal Turing machine. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!!!

Edited August 8, 2013 by Daedalus

James Redford · August 17, 2013

In post #29 and #32 you cite only your own article and your own commentary on a video.

Stating that other papers, which you don't cite have been peer reviewed is rather irrelevant to my point.