If you’re going to make an argument, then make the argument that the above defined properties are a logically inconsistent set. But I just popped in this thread to add that point; let’s take all the discussion to the other thread with Malachi. This thread is, well, fairly bizarre.
Just to let everyone here know, my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, published at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), has been ameliorated on April 9, 2012.
In addition to the link provided below, one can find links to this updated version in my originating post in this thread: the Theophysics links contain the latest version, and the WebCite links also contain the latest version if one looks on the date drop-down menu for the latest date.
James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), April 9, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708
Below is the new file information for this updated version:
Hi, Jack Roberts. Mankind can kill each other, but then another sapient species would have to be evolved roughly within our Hubble volume who do go on to participate in forcing the collapse of the universe and then who participate in coordinating the Taublike collapse cycles (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations) as the radius of the universe goes to zero going into the Omega Point final singularity. For more details on this, see my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything” and the following article:
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://www.webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.
By that it is of course meant when the data are correct and validly accounted for, as there have been many erroneous claims over the decades of experimental violation of these physical laws which later get overturned by more careful analysis. If there were such experimental disconfirmation it would be widely known, since the physics community has long been attempting to discard the known laws of physics due to their distaste over these physical laws’ theological implications. For history on this, see Sec. 5: “The Big Bang” of my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”.
You could benefit from taking a reading-comprehension course. That sentence above is literal. I realize in this era of etatist semantic-free language that words and sentences are often just used as weapons or as armor to demonize or to make holy one or another person, group or position, and that the words being used have no semantical content beyond animalistic grunts of disapproval or approval, but I am actually writing literally here, as I go on to show by providing history of what that above-quoted sentence of mine states.
As of yet there exists no rational reason to think that General Relativity is incorrect, and one must at present reject empirical science in order to reject General Relativity.
It’s called the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal because that’s all it is at present: a proposal. In order for it to be true General Relativity would have to be incorrect.
In General Relativity time is measured according to the real numbers, i.e., real time.
For why the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) logically require the Omega Point cosmology, see Sec. 3: “Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology”, Subsec. 3.1: “The Omega Point”, and also see App. A.2: “The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe” of my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”.
In other words, you’re simply going by the statements of scientists regarding how they’ve interpreted their experimental data. Therefore you don’t know whether General Relativity has been confirmed by every experiment to date, let alone whether General Relativity is actual physical law. I accept your implicit concession here.
I don’t think blatant personal attacks help your case one bit - in fact, I think they substantially weaken it. Furthermore, such blatant personal attacks in no way dissuade me from engaging you. Just so you know.
Now then, please understand that I was taking your statement literally to begin with. My response contained statements that, as far as I can deduce, must serve as the underlying basis for the statement you made. It just so happens that these statements constitute an example of begging the question.
In that case, it shouldn’t be difficult for you to provide a deductive proof of the above. Why haven’t you yet done so?
My point was that Stephen Hawking himself, in helping to formulate the Hartle-Hawking No-Boundary Proposal, has at the very least expressed doubts about the correctness of General Relativity. Would you say that Stephen Hawking is therefore rejecting empirical science?
My point was that you’re omitting part of the picture - perhaps intentionally.
This does not constitute a clarification in the context of this thread. Please try again.
Autolykos wrote the following post at Wed, Apr 18 2012 1:37 PM:
If any such experimental disconfirmation actually exists, then it is unknown to the general physics community. Regarding “concession”, my position remains unchanged. I see that your position here is one of wishful thinking: hoping that the known laws of physics are incorrect, and hoping that I’ve made some form of “concession”.
It wasn’t an attack, it was a helpful suggestion regarding your functional illiteracy.
Your familiarity with argumentation theory is also lacking, since even hypothetically if I had made a personal attack upon you, that would logically in no way weaken any other argument I have made regarding the Omega Point cosmology, which at any rate you are uninterested in, given that you still refuse to read the sections of the article which give the logical proof of the Omega Point Theorem per the known laws of physics, i.e., Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.
Despite your above verbiage to the contrary, you’re again here taking that sentence I wrote to be in the manner of etatist semantic-free language, i.e., that I’m merely using language to express disapproval instead of making a factual statement. Yet if that sentence by me which you quoted is factually correct, then there can be no objection to it on logical grounds. In that same section I go on to provide the history of this matter which shows that said sentence is factually correct.
Physics is different from economics. As of yet there is no known way to derive all of physical law based purely upon a priori logical deduction. Instead, experimentation is required in order to confirm or disconfirm fundamental physical theories, which become known laws of physics if there is a large body of experimental confirmation and no experimental disconfirmation of them. Logical deduction can then be used starting with such known laws of physics in order to discover the logical implications of them.
So at present a purely logical a priori deduction for the truth of General Relativity cannot be provided, which is why it is known as empirical science, since physical experimentation is required in order to either confirm or disconfirm it. It has been confirmed by every experiment to date–at least as far as known to the general physics community. Hence, to reject General Relativity at present would be to reject empirical science, of which is irrational, if by rational it is meant, at least in part, “abidance to empirical science”.
Yes, Stephen Hawking is rejecting the known laws of physics due to his distaste for their theological implications. That is the point of the history I provide in Sec. 5: “The Big Bang” of my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything” regarding my sentence in that section of “Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they’re uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion.” See also my comments on Hawking regarding his proposed solution to the black hole information issue in Sec. 3.4: “The Omega Point Cosmology Vis-à-Vis String Theory and Other Proposed New Physics”; and my comments on Hawking in Sec. 6: “Science Comes Home”, including the footnote containing the sentence “This comment by Hawking …”.
The physics community is trying to discard the known laws of physics because said physical laws produce results which they are philosophically opposed to, i.e., regarding their distaste for religion. With such physical theories as String Theory and other proposed new laws of physics–which have no experimental confirmation–the physics community is reverting back to Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon philosophical ideals. That is, if rejecting God means rejecting empirical science, then so be it.
Imaginary time isn’t the form of time used by General Relativity. Hawking’s sentence regarding real time applies to the known laws of physics.
It does, but you give no indication that you understand what I’m saying here, so my words are apparently wasted on you. Below is your own quote of me with your own emphasis added:
To which I answered you thus:
Perhaps your misunderstanding is that you are not aware that the Omega Point cosmology pertains to " 'the final cosmological singularity, which according to the known laws of physics is a physically-necessary cosmological state in the far future of the universe. Per the laws of physics, as the universe comes to an end at this singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch ’ " (to quote your quotation of me, along with your added emphasis), but how you could not know this is bizarre, because your quotation of me begins with " ‘The Omega Point is a term used by Prof. Tipler to designate …’ ", which then leads directly to your previous quotation of me.
Smiling Dave wrote the following post at Wed, Apr 18 2012 3:07 PM:
If you’re using “patience” as a euphemism for “slowness”, as in uncomprehension, then Autolykos certainly abounds in that. Autolykos couldn’t even understand his own quote of me, not realizing that the Omega Point cosmology concerns the passages which he emphasized, even though that very quote he gives of me starts with “The Omega Point is a term used by Prof. Tipler to designate …”. Not to mention that Autolykos and everyone else replying here refuse to actually read my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, acting as if the article is demon-possessed and that they will incur the wrath of some angry god if they so much as even skim too much of it.
The state has been amazingly successful in turning men into beasts. Attempting to talk with people here on this subject is like trying to teach chess to dogs.
I couldn’t care less whether your position is unchanged. Your position is nevertheless intellectually bankrupt, as far as I’m concerned. That’s why I said I accept your implicit concession, because you could offer no substantive challenge, let alone refutation, to my point.
So you follow up with another attack. Brilliant.
I consider your arguments to be weakened when you apparently think it’s necessary to resort to personal attacks rather than logical counter-arguments. It’s clear to me that you expect me to back down in the face of claims such as being functionally illiterate and lack of familiarity with argumentation theory. So it’s also clear to me that you’re used to arguing from a position in which you feel clearly authoritative. Unfortunately for you, I will not back down whatsoever in the face of any personal attack.
To me, “literal” doesn’t mean the same thing as “factual”. That sentence in your paper contains the word “unfortunately” as its first word, which expresses a value judgement, not a fact. So I read the word “unfortunately” in a literal way, of course, but that meant taking it to express a value judgement. In other words, taking the word “unfortunately” literally means not taking it as an expression of fact. All of this also applies to the phrase “all too willing” in the same sentence, at the very least.
I think it’s a sleight of hand to call laws of physics “known”. The only things known in science are observations - nothing more. I’ve probably said this before, but I could be wrong.
Anyways, if you admit that you can’t prove your claim - “As of yet there exists no rational reason to think that General Relativity is incorrect, and one must at present reject empirical science in order to reject General Relativity” - then why should either of us take it seriously?
My understanding is that Stephen Hawking has at least considered the possibility of General Relativity being only an approximation of the actual laws of physics, which you consider to be the same thing as General Relativity being “incorrect”. I think what you call the “correctness” of a scientific theory or law isn’t the same as that of the scientific community at large. Whereas you seem to consider “correctness” to be a binary, all-or-nothing notion, the scientific community at large does not. In its view, even the Ptolemaic geocentric theory was correct up to a point. In other words, the scientific community considers “correctness” to constitute a continuum. That leaves open the possibility that the physical theories currently held valid by (much/most of) the scientific community could well turn out to be not as correct as other physical theories may turn out to be.
There are other apparent issues with General Relativity, such as the apparent mismatches between it and various branches of quantum theory. Yet both General Relativity and quantum theory are very well-supported by experimental evidence. Can you explain (let alone prove) why General Relativity must win out over quantum theory?
Yet imaginary time is a form of time used by quantum mechanics, which is also part of the currently accepted (in place of your “known”) laws of physics. One could thus say that, by rejecting the concept of imaginary time, you’re rejecting empirical science.
I’ve already been aware of that. My point was to question your implicit assertion - which, it’s clear to me now, you do make - that the Big Bang (the cosmological origin event postulated as necessary by the currently accepted version of General Relativity) necessitates a Big Crunch. The assertion is implicit in your appeal to the “known laws of physics”, as those postulate a Big Bang as the origin of the universe. But nowhere do you prove that a Big Bang necessitates a future Big Crunch, and even in the scientific community today, there’s no general agreement as to whether a Big Crunch will ever happen at all, let alone whether one is inevitable. So if you have a proof that a Big Crunch is inevitable following a Big Bang, then surely you can outline it here in the thread, rather than effectively telling me to shut up and go away by pointing me to something that you don’t think I’ll ever read.
@James Redford: You are a pseudo-scientific quack pretender - you get your article “cited” by some website that would put up a cite to virtually anything and is not any kind of journal. Then you post your quackery here and then berate people who won’t read it as if they’re “afraid” of some truth you’re revealing.
You do not have the spirit of a truth-seeker, your “contributions” to this forum are smoke and mirrors. Get lost.
Autolykos wrote the following post at Wed, Apr 18 2012 3:44 PM:
You’re quoting yourself in the above.
Again, that wasn’t an attack, but a factual statement and an offer as to how you might be able to remedy it. But obviously your willful ignorance comforts you, so apparently you have no interest to remedy this fault of yours.
I don’t expect a troll like you to back down from your trolling. You obviously have no moral compunctions about posting about how wrong something is in a thread on a subject which you refuse to educate yourself about, so shame regarding your own ignorance does not appear to be a part of your personal constitution.
It’s unfortunate to me that they reject the known laws of physics. So drop the “unfortunate” part if you don’t find that objectionable, and the rest is a pure statement of fact. (But in actuality, veridical morality is factual, as my article under discussion here demonstrates.)
The claim which you quote is easy to demonstrate, if that is what is under question. I wasn’t sure as to what you were referring to before, so re-read my edited post which you here respond to for that demonstration. What cannot be a priori demonstrated is all of the known laws of physics, which is the only thing my above comment pertains to.
I’m using correct or incorrect here in the mathematical sense. If Stephen Hawking’s No-Boundary Proposal is correct, then General Relativity is mathematically incorrect.
They are both correct. See Sec. 3.2: “The Omega Point and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything” of my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything” for the details on that.
Imaginary time in quantum mechanics is perfectly consistent with real time in General Relativity within the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE).
The Big Bang only neccessitates the Final Singularity in the sense of the known laws of physics, which is the same thing which necessitates the Big Bang. For the details on that, see my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”.
I will here also ask you and others to stop trolling in this thread. You have so far refused to actually read the article which is the subject of this thread. If your intention had been to eventually read the article and you felt the need to post a comment before doing so, then an appropriate response would have been to say something to the effect of “Thanks, this sounds interesting. I intend to read it when I have the time.”
However, the responses by you have made clear that you are not thankful that I wrote this article, even though it is on a subject which has been thoroughly peer-reviewed in leading physics journals and which you obviously know essentially nothing about, but that you are instead upset that I wrote it and are merely looking for psychological rationalizations as to why it must be wrong.
There is no magical combination of words that I or anyone could say to you to make you take this subject seriously. You are obvously dead-set against it even to the point that you refuse to actually read the artice which is the subject of this thread. If you can’t even do that, then it’s pretty obvious what your intention is by posting in this thread as you do. You’re looking for psychological rationalizations as to why it must be wrong, and hence why you don’t have to actually take it seriously and hence have to actually read the article.
I say to you, go ahead and believe what you want to believe. Stop being a troll by wasting my time with these endless series of your inane postings. As I said, there is no magical combination of words that I or anyone could say to you to make you take this subject seriously.
It so happens that I wrote an article to explain all these things to people who are curious about them. But I can’t help anyone who is simply interested in providing psychological justifications for their own willful ignorance, as no amount of response to jejune ignorance can help a person who isn’t actually looking for help.
So if you’re not actually going to read the whole article, then depart from this thread. Stop being a troll.
Clayton wrote the following post at Wed, Apr 18 2012 7:21 PM:
**
Take your own advice, troll.
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 cosmology 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 science and physics journals 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. http://www.webcitation.org/64KHgOccs (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.)
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.
Frank J. Tipler, “The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg’s Questions for Scientists”, Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 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://www.webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz
Frank J. Tipler, “The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation”, Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286…36T. http://www.webcitation.org/64Uskd785
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://www.webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5
Frank J. Tipler, “There Are No Limits To The Open Society”, Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://www.webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS
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://www.webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://www.webcitation.org/5zPsZWvmz
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, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://www.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, 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://www.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
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://www.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. (And just to point out, Tipler’s 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a “letter” as defined by the latter journal.)
For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler’s above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper in addition to the following resources:
The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists 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) correctly describing and unifying 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:
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.