Resurrection Real, According to Some Scientists

[James Redford]

What Prof. Stephen Hawking is saying there is that it is his hope that when the theory of quantum gravity is discovered, that it shows that no singularities occur, hence that everything can be explained per this hypothetical quantum gravity theory: as no form of physics can be applied to a singularity (i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time).

Perhaps you have your own personal ideas as to what proper grammar consists of. I would like it if you would share with the class your ideas on this.

Well that first paragraph is one mother of a sentence, it it not? :funny:

I can create much longer sentences if I wanted to. But I don't have the yen that E. L. Doctorow has for such.

[Randydeluxe]

tom-cruise2.jpg (24.96 KiB) Viewed 4687 times

[Feck]

tom-cruise2.jpg

NO! RD not A Tit ....TITS

[beige]

TITS

I agree with Feck.

[Tigger]

What Prof. Stephen Hawking is saying there is that it is his hope that when the theory of quantum gravity is discovered, that it shows that no singularities occur, hence that everything can be explained per this hypothetical quantum gravity theory: as no form of physics can be applied to a singularity (i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time).

Perhaps you have your own personal ideas as to what proper grammar consists of. I would like it if you would share with the class your ideas on this.

Well that first paragraph is one mother of a sentence, it it not?

I can create much longer sentences if I wanted to. But I don't have the yen that E. L. Doctorow has for such.

Please don't. That one is grammatically bad enough.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Explain these singularities away then!

[Pappa]

I think the article was written by Tipler himself, or by a sycophant. Check out how much of the History is amendments by the same guy.

The discussion page is interesting too.... it mentions that there is no major criticism of his work in the literature. I expect because no real scientist took it seriously enough to bother writing one.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think the article was written by Tipler himself, or by a sycophant. Check out how much of the History is amendments by the same guy.

The discussion page is interesting too.... it mentions that there is no major criticism of his work in the literature. I expect because no real scientist took it seriously enough to bother writing one.

It is listed as a 'category C' article in terms of importance.

[Pappa]

I think the article was written by Tipler himself, or by a sycophant. Check out how much of the History is amendments by the same guy.

The discussion page is interesting too.... it mentions that there is no major criticism of his work in the literature. I expect because no real scientist took it seriously enough to bother writing one.

It is listed as a 'category C' article in terms of importance.

Yeah, I noticed that.
I'm surprised it's listed as physics at all.

[mistermack]

Tipler strikes me as a rare kind of person, a 'rational loonie'. He's obviously rational, in day to day matters, but mad in the sense that he only sees the world in one single way. He freely writes about what will happen in the future. Not what COULD happen, but what WILL happen. He makes no attempt to disprove the billions of possible futures that don't match his predictions.
He's obsessed with the power that computing will endow, but it's only sixty odd years since computers were first put together. Of course they have a huge future, but WHAT ELSE is just round the corner? That's why any attempt to predict the future is totally futile, and a little bit mad.
It's not what's IN his ideas that is crazy, it's what NOT in there that tells a story. People who only see the world in one way are a bit scary.

[beige]

He's obsessed with the power that computing will endow, but it's only sixty odd years since computers were first put together.

I think he overestimaes programmers too

I'd hate to be the one given the task of coding a neural network capable of reaching infinite complexity.

[James Redford]

Tipler strikes me as a rare kind of person, a 'rational loonie'. He's obviously rational, in day to day matters, but mad in the sense that he only sees the world in one single way. He freely writes about what will happen in the future. Not what COULD happen, but what WILL happen. He makes no attempt to disprove the billions of possible futures that don't match his predictions.
He's obsessed with the power that computing will endow, but it's only sixty odd years since computers were first put together. Of course they have a huge future, but WHAT ELSE is just round the corner? That's why any attempt to predict the future is totally futile, and a little bit mad.
It's not what's IN his ideas that is crazy, it's what NOT in there that tells a story. People who only see the world in one way are a bit scary.

As Prof. Frank J. Tipler says of himself, "I am fundamentally a physics fundamentalist." He has criticized other thinkers for not reducing life and consciousness to their fundamental physical basis. That is, he has criticized them for not being sufficiently reductionist, in the sense of reducing life and consciousness to fundamental physics. This reductionist way of looking at life and consciousness is very unusual (indeed, I'm aware of only two physicists who use this methodology on a consistent basis, and that's Profs. Tipler and David Deutsch).

The only valid constraints that can be placed on a physical theory or theorem is that it conforms to experiment (i.e., the known laws of physics) and that it is logically consistent. 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, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), 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 Theory 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.

That is the manner in which Prof. Tipler is able to state what the ultimate future state must of necessity be: because the only way to avoid this conclusion is to either reject the known laws of physics (and hence reject empirical science), or to engage in a logical contradiction.

[Trolldor]

Tipler is a twat.

[James Redford]

Tipler is a twat.

Please elaborate.

[Trolldor]

He is a gaping cunt of the quality seen only from crack whores in trailer parks.