Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

[hackenslash]

James, I don't know you, and you probably don't know me (more infamous than famous), but I'd be happy to embarrass you in a formal debate, if you're up for it. Topic of your choosing.

[FBM]

James Redford, do you score points or win something every time someone clicks on a link to one of your articles or something?

Anyway, here's the Wiki:

The Omega Point cosmology

The Omega Point is a term Tipler uses to describe a cosmological state in the distant proper-time future of the universe that he maintains is required by the known physical laws. According to this cosmology, it is required for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent that intelligent life take over all matter in the universe and eventually force its collapse. During that collapse, the computational capacity of the universe diverges to infinity and environments emulated with that computational capacity last for an infinite duration as the universe attains a solitary-point cosmological singularity – with life eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on,[clarification needed] due to the temperature's diverging to infinity[clarification needed]. This singularity is Tipler's Omega Point.[6] With computational resources diverging to infinity, Tipler states that a society far in the future would be able to resurrect the dead by emulating all alternate universes of our universe from its start at the Big Bang.[7] Tipler identifies the Omega Point with God, since, in his view, the Omega Point has all the properties claimed for God by most of the traditional religions.[7][8]

Tipler's argument that the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known physical laws is a more recent development that arose after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality.[citation needed] In that book (and in papers he had published up to that time), Tipler had offered the Omega Point cosmology as a hypothesis, while still claiming to confine the analysis to the known laws of physics.[9]

Tipler defined the "final anthropic principle" (FAP) along with co-author physicist John D. Barrow in their highly-cited[citation needed] 1986 book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle as a generalization of the anthropic principle[10] thus:
Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, will never die out.
Critics of the final anthropic principle say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed FAP the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP).[11] Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle has no claim on any special methodological status, it is "pure speculation", despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle".[12] Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable".[13]

Physicist David Deutsch incorporates Tipler's Omega Point cosmology as a central feature of the fourth strand of his "four strands" concept of fundamental reality and defends the physics of the Omega Point cosmology,[14] although he is highly critical of Tipler's theological conclusions[15] and what Deutsch states are exaggerated claims that have caused other scientists and philosophers to reject his theory out of hand.[16] 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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler


Seems that maybe those "peer-reviewed journals" may have been published by the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design...

[James Redford]

The members of this forum who have replied after my posts don't appear to be confident in their own intellectual capacities such that they even want to attempt a logically valid response to the information I have presented. Such members are correct in their instincts that they are incapable of formulating a logically valid rebuttal. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem."

For more on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOf ... Everything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford ... of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs

When Tipler's work was published in the peer-reviewed journals, did it include the assertion that it was a proof for the existence of God? Or was it just a description of a physical state of the universe? This makes a big difference. If the physicist peers agreed that his calculations are correct, that's one thing. But I'm very skeptical that any of them agree that it actually constitutes a proof for a god. Do you have a source in which scientists agreed that Tipler's work = proof of God?

In all of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point cosmology he states that the Omega Point cosmology concerns the actual realization of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, i.e., God.

For more on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOf ... Everything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford ... of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs

[James Redford]

James Redford, do you score points or win something every time someone clicks on a link to one of your articles or something?

Anyway, here's the Wiki:

The Omega Point cosmology

The Omega Point is a term Tipler uses to describe a cosmological state in the distant proper-time future of the universe that he maintains is required by the known physical laws. According to this cosmology, it is required for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent that intelligent life take over all matter in the universe and eventually force its collapse. During that collapse, the computational capacity of the universe diverges to infinity and environments emulated with that computational capacity last for an infinite duration as the universe attains a solitary-point cosmological singularity – with life eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on,[clarification needed] due to the temperature's diverging to infinity[clarification needed]. This singularity is Tipler's Omega Point.[6] With computational resources diverging to infinity, Tipler states that a society far in the future would be able to resurrect the dead by emulating all alternate universes of our universe from its start at the Big Bang.[7] Tipler identifies the Omega Point with God, since, in his view, the Omega Point has all the properties claimed for God by most of the traditional religions.[7][8]

Tipler's argument that the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known physical laws is a more recent development that arose after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality.[citation needed] In that book (and in papers he had published up to that time), Tipler had offered the Omega Point cosmology as a hypothesis, while still claiming to confine the analysis to the known laws of physics.[9]

Tipler defined the "final anthropic principle" (FAP) along with co-author physicist John D. Barrow in their highly-cited[citation needed] 1986 book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle as a generalization of the anthropic principle[10] thus:
Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, will never die out.
Critics of the final anthropic principle say its arguments violate the Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics. Martin Gardner dubbed FAP the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP).[11] Oxford-based philosopher Nick Bostrom writes that the final anthropic principle has no claim on any special methodological status, it is "pure speculation", despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle".[12] Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called it "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable".[13]

Physicist David Deutsch incorporates Tipler's Omega Point cosmology as a central feature of the fourth strand of his "four strands" concept of fundamental reality and defends the physics of the Omega Point cosmology,[14] although he is highly critical of Tipler's theological conclusions[15] and what Deutsch states are exaggerated claims that have caused other scientists and philosophers to reject his theory out of hand.[16] 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]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler


Seems that maybe those "peer-reviewed journals" may have been published by the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design...

Actually, none of them have.

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:

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 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOf ... Everything

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com

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:

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.

[FBM]

OK, I skimmed several of the published works you linked to and I don't see God mentioned in any of them. For example:

Abstract: I shall present three arguments for the proposition that intelligent life is very rare in the
universe. First, I shall summarize the consensus opinion of the founders of the modern synthesis
(Simpson, Dobzhanski and Mayr) that the evolution of intelligent life is exceedingly improbable.
Secondly, I shall develop the Fermi paradox: if they existed, they would be here. Thirdly, I shall
show that if intelligent life were too common, it would use up all available resources and die out.
But I shall show that the quantum mechanical principle of unitarity (actually a form of teleology!)
requires intelligent life to survive to the end of time. Finally, I shall argue that, if the universe is indeed
accelerating, then survival to the end of time requires that intelligent life, though rare, to have evolved
several times in the visible universe. I shall argue that the acceleration is a consequence of the excess
of matter over antimatter in the universe. I shall suggest experiments to test these claims.

http://www.webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW


Sounds to me like he's saying that if f(x) = a, therefore God. Physicists agree that f(x) = a, so I'm right, there is a god and physicists agree with me. Do you see the flaw in this, James?

(Also, the mere fact that something is published is not sufficient to assert that its contents are widely agreed with, just that it contains something worth looking into.)

[Thumpalumpacus]

You guys are still swatting this blowhard around?

[FBM]

Like a kitteh playing with a wounded mouse...

[Hermit]

I realise this thread is two years old, but having only stumbled across it just now, here's my two cents worth. And yeah, most of my comments have already been expressed by others earlier in this thread.

I figured some of you science geeks might get a kick out of it.

Presumably Tipler is a competent mathematical physicist, but here he is not speaking as one. He is a fundamentalist christian, a member of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, a society advocating intelligent design. That's where this article comes from. It has nothing to do with science. It is just cloaked in a veneer of scientific jargon.

To realise the batshit craziness of his cosmology you only need to read this brief description in the Wikipeadia:

The Omega Point is a term Tipler uses to describe a cosmological state in the distant proper-time future of the universe that he maintains is required by the known physical laws. According to this cosmology, it is required for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent that intelligent life take over all matter in the universe and eventually force its collapse. During that collapse, the computational capacity of the universe diverges to infinity and environments emulated with that computational capacity last for an infinite duration as the universe attains a solitary-point cosmological singularity – with life eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on, due to the temperature's diverging to infinity. This singularity is Tipler's Omega Point. With computational resources diverging to infinity, Tipler states that a society far in the future would be able to resurrect the dead by emulating all alternate universes of our universe from its start at the Big Bang. Tipler identifies the Omega Point with God, since, in his view, the Omega Point has all the properties claimed for God by most of the traditional religions.

Tipler's cosmology has been described as "a masterpiece of pseudoscience ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline." "Physicist Sean M. Carroll thought Tipler's early work was constructive but that now he has become a "crackpot"."

And it gets worse:

The image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin has certain features that would arise in the neutrino de-materialization process, according to Tipler.

Seems Tipler is rejecting the results of carbon dating of the shroud in 1988. I say results, plural, because three universities were given samples of the shroud and independently from each other determined that the shroud was made somewhere between 1260 and 1390. Of course believers promptly came up with the ad hoc theory that the samples must have been taken of a section of the cloth that was just a medieval repair job.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Like a kitteh playing with a wounded mouse...

I had typed out something I thought perhaps a little entertaining, but in the end, it just didn't feel right to pile onto him.

[hackenslash]

In all of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's peer-reviewed papers on the Omega Point cosmology

Can you provide a supporting citation where the peers in question weren't cretinist fuckwits?

[Clinton Huxley]

I'm glad we now have the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything, it was getting embarassing not having that.

[Clinton Huxley]

Miracles are physically allowed blah blah quantum electroweak tunneling.

Can I have some croutons in that salad?

[Clinton Huxley]

You should stick to this flavour of gibberish, Mr Redford...

The teachings and actions of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Ha’Mashiach) and the apostles recorded in the New Testament are analyzed in regard to their ethical and political philosophy, with analysis of context vis-a-vis the Old Testament (Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible) being given. From this analysis, it is shown that Jesus is a libertarian anarchist, i.e., a consistent voluntaryist. The implications this has for the world are profound, and the ramifications of Jesus’s anarchism to Christians’ attitudes toward government (the state) and its actions are explicated.

[FBM]

Like a kitteh playing with a wounded mouse...

I had typed out something I thought perhaps a little entertaining, but in the end, it just didn't feel right to pile onto him.

Well, if you go poking around a hornet nest, can't blame the hornets for doing what comes natural.

[Hermit]

Like a kitteh playing with a wounded mouse...

I had typed out something I thought perhaps a little entertaining, but in the end, it just didn't feel right to pile onto him.

Well, if you go poking around a hornet nest, can't blame the hornets for doing what comes natural.

We are hornets?