I am not a big proponent of string theory, but it is worth pointing out that it is contradictory with omega point theory.
This would only validate that as a consequence of gallactic/intergallactic expansion society would be decentralized, not that libertarian moral theory is correct.
I could say that eating a billion doughnuts would kill you and present some case on why it is imperative for you to eat a billion doughnuts (since the whole argument hinges on an imperative), but it does not show that suicide is moral, and it certainly doesn’t offer any truths until the action is undertaken.
What the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) demonstrate is that the political order that anarcho-libertarianism advocates cannot avoid eventually predominating, and further that existence couldn’t exist were that not the case: as the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity–since in physics it’s just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity. For more on this process, see my above post at position Nov 25 2008 8:56 AM.
[:^)]
You’re not seriously comparing descriptive concepts of how the universe works to human acts, are you?
What the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) demonstrate is that sapient life is an inherent part of existence, i.e., existence couldn’t exist without it. Again, the reason is because the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity–since in physics it’s just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity.
First, entropy isn’t a law anymore, it’s a statistical variable for better on 70 years. Second, General Relativity doesn’t require Omega Point as it wasn’t formulated by Einstein as a requirement. Third, Quantum Mechanics like General Relativity does not require Omega Point either as it wasn’t formulated with it in mind. Fourth, the Standard Model is tenatitive in its validity at least on the issue of gravity and like the other two theories it does not require Omega Point to be valid. Please stop playing games on a well understood issue.
I am sorry, but anything involving the existence of god sound to me pesudoscience.
Beside that, this discussion sound gibberish.
But existence went along just fine for several billion years without it.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the most fundamental law of physics. It states that the microstate complexity of the universe can never decrease. Its broadest treatment is a probabilistic treatment, yet that doesn’t negate it as being a primary principle in physics. General relativity is inconsistent with unitarity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics unless the Omega Point exists. The Standard Model explains the cause of the positive cosmological constant, and also provides the mechanism to force the universe’s collapse so that unitarity will not be violated. The fully-consistent version of the Standard Model (sometimes termed the extended Standard Model) has been confirmed by every experiment to date.
For more on this, see the following. Links to a number of the cited articles below are available at:
“Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point Theory,” Theophysics http://www.geocities.com/theophysics/omega-point-physics.html
####################
Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics Requires Acceptance of the Omega Point Theory
based on articles by Prof. Frank J. Tipler; 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. Also released as “Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything,” arXiv, April 24, 2007.
Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent life in cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148.
Frank Tipler, “The Omega Point and Christianity,” Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23.
Frank J. Tipler, “From 2100 to the End of Time,” Wired.
Astrophysical black holes (i.e., trapped surfaces) almost certainly exist, but Hawking [1] and Wald [2] have shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then they will completely evaporate, and a fundamental quantum law called “unitarity” will be violated. Unitarity, which roughly says that probability must be conserved, thus requires that the universe must cease to exist after finite proper time, which implies that the universe is closed and has the spatial topology of a 3-sphere [3]. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the amount of entropy–the amount of disorder–in the universe cannot decrease, but Ellis and Coule [4] and Tipler [5] have shown that the amount of entropy already in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence of horizons the Bekenstein Bound implies the universal entropy S is less than or equal that constant (i.e., the Bekenstein Bound) times the radius of the universe squared, and general relativity requires the radius of the universe to go to zero at the final singularity. If there are no horizons then the gravitational shear energy due to the collapse of the universe itself will increase to infinity much faster than the radius of the universe going to zero at the final singularity [5,6]. The absence of event horizons by definition means that the universe’s future c-boundary (causal boundary) is a single point [7], call it the Omega Point. MacCallum [8 ] has shown that a 3-sphere closed universe with a single point future c-boundary is of measure zero in initial data space (i.e., infinitely improbable acting only under blind and dead forces). Barrow [9,10], Cornish and Levin [11] and Motter [12] have shown that the evolution of a 3-sphere closed universe into its final singularity is chaotic. Yorke et al. [13,14] have shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated. Thus life (which near the final state, is really collectively intelligent computers) must be present all the way into the final singularity in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times. Misner [15,16,17] has shown in effect that event horizon elimination requires an infinite number of distinct manipulations, so an infinite amount of information must be processed between now and the final singularity. The amount of information stored at any time diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached, since the total entropy of the universe (i.e., S) diverges to infinity there, implying divergence of the complexity of the system that must be understood to be controlled.
During life’s expansion throughout the universe, baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling) is used for life’s energy requirements and for interstellar travel. In the process, the annililation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse [6,18].
References:
[1] S. W. Hawking, “Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse,” Physical Review D, Vol. 14, Issue 10 (November 1976), pp. 2460-2473.
[2] Robert M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), ISBN 0226870251, Section 7.3, pp. 182-185.
[3] John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, “The closed-universe recollapse conjecture,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223 (December 1986), pp. 835-844.
[4] G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, “Life at the end of the universe?,” General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 (July 1994), pp. 731-739.
[5] Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN 0198519494, Appendix C. “The Bekenstein Bound,” pg. 410. Said Appendix is reproduced in Frank J. Tipler, “Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics,” arXiv, November 28, 2001, Section 2. “Apparent Inconsistences in the Physical Laws in the Early Universe,” Subsection a. “Bekenstein Bound Inconsistent with Second Law of Thermodynamics.”
[6 ] Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent life in cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148. Also at arXiv, March 31, 2007.
[7] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (London: Cambridge University Press, 1973), ISBN 0521200164, pp. 217-221.
[8 ] Malcolm A. H. MacCallum, “On the mixmaster universe problem,” Nature–Physical Science, Vol. 230 (March 1971), pp. 112-3.
[9] John D. Barrow, “Chaotic behaviour in general relativity,” Physics Reports, Vol. 85, Issue 1 (May 1982), pp. 1-49.
[10] John D. Barrow and Janna Levin, “Chaos in the Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 80, Issue 4 (January 1998), pp. 656-659. Also at arXiv, June 20, 1997.
[11] Neil J. Cornish and Janna J. Levin, “Mixmaster universe: A chaotic Farey tale,” Physical Review D, Vol. 55, Issue 12 (June 1997), pp. 7489-7510. Also at arXiv, December 30, 1996.
[12] Adilson E. Motter, “Relativistic Chaos is Coordinate Invariant,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91, Issue 23, Art. No. 231101 (December 2003), four pages. Also at arXiv, December 7, 2003.
[13] Troy Shinbrot, Edward Ott, Celso Grebogi and James A. Yorke, “Using chaos to direct trajectories to targets,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 65, Issue 26 (December 1990), pp. 3215-3218.
[14] Troy Shinbrot, William Ditto, Celso Grebogi, Edward Ott, Mark Spano and James A. Yorke, “Using the sensitive dependence of chaos (the ‘butterfly effect’) to direct trajectories in an experimental chaotic system,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 68, Issue 19 (May 1992), pp. 2863-2866.
[15] Charles W. Misner, “The Isotropy of the Universe,” Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 151 (February 1968), pp. 431-457.
[16] Charles W. Misner, “Quantum Cosmology. I,” Physical Review, Vol. 186, Issue 5 (October 1969), pp. 1319-1327.
[17] Charles W. Misner, “Mixmaster Universe,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 22, Issue 20 (May 1969), pp. 1071-1074.
[18] 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, Section 11. “Solution to the cosmological constant problem: the universe and life in the far future.” Also released as “Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything,” arXiv, April 24, 2007.
Laaaaaaaaaaame.
Don’t be so surprised that science (specifically, the known laws of physics) proves the existence of God, as both the university system and the field of natural science are the inventions of Christianity. For the history on that, see Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005).
But it doesn’t. Please stop trying to co-opt observational science with some silly myth.
It’s simply impossible to physically prove the existence of something which is alleged to not be bound by physical law and to not have physical existence. The most that one would be able to do would be to demonstrate that physics cannot account for everything that is observed, and that something outside of our current understanding of physics would be necessary to complete a full explanation. If you can show me a single paper which correctly demonstrates with physics that a non-physical entity exists, and that this non-physical entity necessarily has certain concrete characteristics which match those hypothesized by theistic accounts, I will literally eat a hat, take pictures of it, and post them online. To trot out one of my favorite phrases ever: It stands to reason that it cannot be done! It would be like using math to prove that a particular kind of non-formalizable entity existed. It just doesn’t make sense. To say that God’s existence can be demonstrated through the laws of physics is to commit a category error; according to theistic accounts, God is not a physical entity and is not bound by physical laws. Unless you’re pulling a Spinoza, this is nonsense.
I lol’ed, in a good way.
Not so. The Big Bang singularity is an unavoidable consequence of the existence of the Omega Point. Without both, neither can exist. Indeed, they are not two singularities, but one singularity. In classical cosmology (i.e., general relativity), the initial Big Bang singularity and the final Omega Point singularity are permanently separate. But in quantum cosmology, these otherwise separate singularities are connected by another singularity, the All-Presents Singularity, which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse. Indeed, they are not three singularities but one singularity with three permanently distinct parts which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence.
Another way to understand the logically unavoidable connection between the Big Bang singularity and the Omega Point is that the end-state of the universe causally brings about the beginning state, i.e., the Big Bang singularity–since in physics it’s just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity. That is to say, the existence of the Omega Point brings about the Big Bang. If the Omega Point didn’t exist, then the Big Bang cannot exist.
For more on the foregoing, see the below resources:
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. 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.
Frank Tipler, “The Omega Point and Christianity,” Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 14-23. http://geocities.com/theophysics/tipler-omega-point-and-christianity.html
Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), ISBN: 0385514247.
I don’t think physics or any science can “prove” the existence of “God” as God is essentially ineffable and theories and whatnot are wholly dependent on language. Human beings cannot describe the essence of God, and therefore all descriptions will be ultimately false.
I see God as transcending even existence.
“We do not know what God is. God himself doesn’t know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being.”—Johannes Scotus Eriugena
As proved above, the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to violate the known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, if one rejects the existence of the Omega Point then one rejects empirical science.
And again, the field of science is an invention of Christianity. For the history on that, see Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2005).
If James wants to continue Living On Mars, far be it from me to spoil his delusional fun. Any scientist or reader of science with half a brain of the fundamentals of science itself will easily see through his arguments.
Yes so. Life didn’t happen immediately after the big bang.
Not necessarily. And please stop confusing myths with science.
You didn’t prove anything other than your willingness to co-opt science to shore up a myth.
So the ancient Greeks, who existed before christianity, weren’t doing science?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!