|
Post by Undecided on Jun 19, 2010 17:11:51 GMT -5
Questions for Mr. James Redford: - What does renormalisability mean for the Feynman-Weinberg action, and why do physicists shy away from actions with a countably infinite number of independent parameters?
- How many axioms does ZFC have?
- What are the important qualities of the time evolution of a density matrix describing the evolution of what starts as a free one-photon state in a fixed background metric describing a zero-charge zero-rotation black hole?
- If some (quantum mechanical) realisation of a Turing machine is coupled to a system, what is important with regards to the reduced density matrix of the system once the machine is traced out? What can be said about the system if it is thermalised?
- What drives the recent interest in the extension of the Standard Model by a SU(2)_L sector?
- What is third quantisation?
Why do you expect the nature of the boundary conditions of a model of the Universe to be convincing evidence with regards to the existence of God, and the Christian God in particular?
|
|
jamesredford
New Member
Head Counselor at the Jesus Camp for Theoretical (meta)Physics
Lux et veritas et libertas
Posts: 16
|
Post by jamesredford on Jun 19, 2010 17:17:59 GMT -5
Can you suggest a decent dressing for all that word salad? There's a few questions, one that I believe you've dodged: How can you safely assume that it's the Abrahamic God? I can shoehorn almost as much validity in any number of creation myths. And why bother creating the universe in the first place? Especially if you're going to torment its barbaric citizens for all eternity for not "Staying in line?" all the while claiming that you did this because you love them? Because He's God and he can do what he wants? God can do anything which is not a logical contradiction, such as make 2+2 = 5, create a square circle, or create a stone so large that even He cannot move it. The pain the world experiences now is not logically possible to avoid, as the universe and hence the lifeforms in it have to go through the process of evolution until they reach the stage when technological immortality becomes a practicality, which for us will likely occur in the next 50 years. The laws of physics require the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and so what are traditionally called miracles (such as, e.g., the miracles of Jesus Christ) can occur via the previously-described baryon annihilation mechanism if they are necessary in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point. The Omega Point apodictically must exist now according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), otherwise existence couldn't exist. If one considers the entire timeline of the entire multiverse as a whole--from the Big Bang singularity at zero entropy and information (i.e., what one may term the Alpha Point) to the final singularity of the Omega Point at infinite entropy and information--then this infinite structure (i.e., the entirety of existence) would exist eternally as a static, unchanging structure. It's only finite subsets of existence which experience change as their states progress from earlier to later times in the multiverse. For us, being finite subsets of existence, time has its beginning at the Big Bang singularity and its proper-time end at the Omega Point (although in experiential time this is never reached). But for existence as a whole, the entire timeline of the multiverse exists as a static structure. So in the ultimate sense, the totality of existence has always existed. One may then wonder why it is that we find ourselves in the early part of the universe if existence has always existed. The reason is because the multiverse can be perfectly rendered from the start of the Big Bang singularity when the computational capacity of a universe reaches a stage that doing so only requires a trivial amount of total computational resources. The complexity of the multiverse grows as it advances in time, but this presents no problem for the society running the emulation since additional computational resources are continuously coming online. The reason for such a society running such an emulation is so that they can resurrect their ancestors (and hence, family members), as well so they can learn all the details of the past. Even once this emulation of the multiverse reaches the stage when all the beings in it have themselves become immortal by being able to upload the programs of their minds onto more robust hardware, there will be reasons for continuing this emulation, because accidents will still rarely occur, such as the occational ship being lost during the colonization phase (which, even though mental backups will exist, the experiences after backup would be lost); to keep everyone honest and ethical, since everyone will know that all their actions will eventually be recreated by the future society in their own timeline; and for additional reasons. Hence, at the Omega Point itself (which, again, is reached in proper time; in experiential time it is never reached) there exists an uncountably infinite number of levels of implementation of the complete multiverse from Alpha Point to Omega Point, i.e., a literal fractal of worlds within worlds, ad infinitum. And so there exists an uncountably infinite number of copies of the early stages of the multivese. Thus, there is no statistical preference as to where one finds the origins of one's own personal consciousness, since any uncountably infinite outcome compared to any other uncountably infinite outcome is equally as likely: including as compared to the set of all other uncountably infinite outcomes, which of course is itself uncountably infinite. Regarding the pagan concept of Hell (which is a word not found in the original languages of the bible) and God's relationship to the Old Testament (Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible), see my below post: "God's Relation to the Old Testament", TetrahedronOmega, April 11, 2009 www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=126&mforum=libertyandtruthYeshua Ha'Mashiach said that there are only two requirements for a person to receive eternal life (Luke 10:25-28): "" And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" So he answered and said, ""You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and "your neighbor as yourself."' And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live." "" But the above two requirements actually logically reduces to only one requirement: to love your neighbor as yourself. As Jesus said anything that we do to any of the least of His brethren we do to Him (Matthew 25:31-46). So if we truly love each other then we automatically love God as well.
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jun 19, 2010 17:31:40 GMT -5
That's nice, James. Would you recommend Catalina or Italian?
I see you've "answered" the question by trying to fling around oodles of what seems to be copypasted material, but you forgot something:
Why?
Not "what can we do to gain eternal life?" Why bother with creating the universe in the first place?
You raise an interesting point that somehow the multiverse seems to be created at the same time as the universe. While that's all nice, I don't think there's enough information to conclude that the multiverse was actually created all at the same time. In fact, the big bang could well be this interesting collision of two other dimensions in the multiverse for all we know.
|
|
jamesredford
New Member
Head Counselor at the Jesus Camp for Theoretical (meta)Physics
Lux et veritas et libertas
Posts: 16
|
Post by jamesredford on Jun 19, 2010 17:42:24 GMT -5
The leading quantum physicist in the world, Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device,[1] and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality. For that, see: David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. theophysics.chimehost.net/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.htmlFrom Deutsh's article: "This question has been explored by the cosmologist Frank Tipler. His answer, the omega-point theory [my emphasis (FJT)], is an excellent example of a theory which is, in the sense of this book, about the fabric of reality as a whole. It is not framed within any one strand, but belongs irreducibly to all four. Unfortunately Tipler himself, in his book The Physics of Immortality, makes exaggerated claims for his theory which have caused most scientists and philosophers to reject it out of hand, thereby missing the valuable core idea which I shall now explain." Prof. David Deutsch agrees that the society near the Omega Point would have unlimited computational resources available to them (i.e., finite at any given time, with additional resources continuously coming online and diverging to infinity), and hence would be able to perfectly emulate any environment which does not involve a logical contradiction (e.g., such as rendering a circle that's at the same time also a triangle). Thus, Deutsch agrees that the society near the Omega Point to be able to resurrect us, and all possible variations of us. Deutsch agrees that the Omega Point itself will contain a literal infinite amount of information, and hence that it is omniscient: it will know everything which is logically possible to know. Deutsch agrees that the Omega Point will be omnipresent, as it will consist of all that exists. And Deutsch agrees that the Omega Point will be omnipotent in the literal sense that it will be a state of infinite physical energy and power and that it will be in control over all of existence. As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [London: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221). The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime. So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-part structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse. So to recapitulate: 1.) The Omega Point (or, for that matter, the society near the Omega Point) can trivially perform the universal resurrection of the dead, upon which the people resurrected can live eternally in literal heaven, i.e., paradise. 2.) The Omega Point is omniscient. 3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent. 4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent. 5.) The cosmological singularity is a triune structure, of which the Omega Point is one component. 6.) The cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. 7.) The cosmological singularity is the only achieved (actually existing) infinity. Those are all the major physical properties that have been claimed for God in traditional Christian theology. So Prof. Deutsch does in actual fact believe in God in the sense of the traditional quidditative definitions of God. But Deutsch is guilty of committing what I have termed the Oedipus fallacy, which is believing in the existence of the same extant factual entity (or phenomenon) that others believe in, but with somewhat different ideas surrounding it which fallaciously leads one to think that one is referring to a different entity (or phenomenon). Unfortunately, unlike Prof. Tipler who is very well-versed in a wide and deep range of theological matters spanning all the world's major religions, Prof. Deutsch doesn't evidence any familiarity with theology, and he makes a number of simple fallacies in relation to what he thinks belief in God must consist of, of which Prof. Tipler responds to in the above-cited excerpt of Deutsch's book. Regarding the equivalence of God and the Omega Point, Prof. Tipler has published on this equivalence in the following peer-reviewed academic journal, which is the world's leading journal on science and religion: 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. theophysics.chimehost.net/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf , www.webcitation.org/5nY0aytpzIn the below two articles, one of the world's leading theologians, Prof. Wolfhart Pannenberg, defends the theology of the Omega Point: Wolfhart Pannenberg, "Modern Cosmology: God and the Resurrection of the Dead," lecture given at Innsbruck Conference on Frank Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality, June 1997. theophysics.110mb.com/pannenberg-modern-cosmology.htmlWolfhart Pannenberg, "God and resurrection--a reply to Sjoerd L. Bonting," Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 10-14. theophysics.110mb.com/pannenberg-god-and-resurrection-reply-to-bonting.html
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Jun 19, 2010 18:08:43 GMT -5
I once had an Omega Point. Ran with it. Tripped. Right through my frickin palm! Geezus!
|
|
sonickid01
Full Member
DO THE RIGHT THING
Posts: 174
|
Post by sonickid01 on Jun 19, 2010 18:30:00 GMT -5
So to recapitulate: 1.) The Omega Point (or, for that matter, the society near the Omega Point) can trivially perform the universal resurrection of the dead, upon which the people resurrected can live eternally in literal heaven, i.e., paradise. 2.) The Omega Point is omniscient. 3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent. 4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent. 5.) The cosmological singularity is a triune structure, of which the Omega Point is one component. 6.) The cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. 7.) The cosmological singularity is the only achieved (actually existing) infinity. Those are all the major physical properties that have been claimed for God in traditional Christian theology. In Hindu culture, Brahma is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. The salvation from worldly sins and troubles and ending of the cycle of death and rebirth is said to be paradise. Brahma is also said to exist in three parts, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver and Shiva the Destroyer. Brahma is said to be transcendent to the worldly universe but all pervasive. Why is it that your broad properties of the cosmological singularity and Omega Point must be necessarily referring to Christian theology as opposed to Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Bahai'i, or any other theology? In my own view it most directly confirms Hinduism or Buddhism over anything else. The description of the Omega Point of infinite knowledge sounds a lot more like nirvanna to me than the Christian heaven.
|
|
jamesredford
New Member
Head Counselor at the Jesus Camp for Theoretical (meta)Physics
Lux et veritas et libertas
Posts: 16
|
Post by jamesredford on Jun 19, 2010 18:30:18 GMT -5
Questions for Mr. James Redford: - What does renormalisability mean for the Feynman-Weinberg action, and why do physicists shy away from actions with a countably infinite number of independent parameters?
- How many axioms does ZFC have?
- What are the important qualities of the time evolution of a density matrix describing the evolution of what starts as a free one-photon state in a fixed background metric describing a zero-charge zero-rotation black hole?
- If some (quantum mechanical) realisation of a Turing machine is coupled to a system, what is important with regards to the reduced density matrix of the system once the machine is traced out? What can be said about the system if it is thermalised?
- What drives the recent interest in the extension of the Standard Model by a SU(2)_L sector?
- What is third quantisation?
Why do you expect the nature of the boundary conditions of a model of the Universe to be convincing evidence with regards to the existence of God, and the Christian God in particular? Some of your questions, such as on Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC), aren't relevant to this discussion, but I'll answer the ones that are relevant. The fact that the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity Lagrangian can be renormalized means that one can perform meaningful physics on it, as otherwise one would have infinities in the action, and hence one would be unable to perform the arithmetical operations of addition and subtraction on it or obtain useful results. This theory of quantum gravity is term-by-term finite, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite. Physicists had hoped that when the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) was discovered that there would be a finite number of terms, but what Prof. Frank J. Tipler has shown in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is that this is not possible. As Tipler notes in his book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 49 and 279, "It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that we can do. ... This is somewhat analogous to Liouville's theorem in complex analysis, which says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity." For the details on this, see the below paper: 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. 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. arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276See also the below paper, which points out that one cannot avoid infinities in cosmology: one either gets a singularity in the action, or one gets curvature singularities: John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 (January 7, 1988), pp. 31-34. Also released as "The Finite Action Principle; or, Singularities without Singularities" in the Gravity Research Foundation's 1987 essay competition. www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1987/barrow_tipler.pdfOne consequence of there being an infinite number of terms in the quantum gravity Lagrangian is that so long as one is within spacetime, then one can never obtain a complete description of quantum gravity and hence of physics: there will always be infinitely more to learn and discover in the field of physics, including by requiring the use of experiment. Physics will be able to become ever-more refined, knowledgeable and precise, but never complete (i.e., within spacetime). Only at the final singularity of the Omega Point (which is not in spacetime) will the full, infinite description of physics be obtained. Regarding the SU(2)_L gauge field, the dark matter is a manifestation of an interchange of energy between the Higgs field and the initial SU(2)_L gauge field of the Standard Model. See Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper for the details on that. Concerning your last question, see my Reply #56 in this thread.
|
|
jamesredford
New Member
Head Counselor at the Jesus Camp for Theoretical (meta)Physics
Lux et veritas et libertas
Posts: 16
|
Post by jamesredford on Jun 19, 2010 19:17:47 GMT -5
I once had an Omega Point. Ran with it. Tripped. Right through my frickin palm! Geezus! To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour. --William Blake, extract from Auguries of Innocence, likely written in 1803, first published in 1863.
|
|
jamesredford
New Member
Head Counselor at the Jesus Camp for Theoretical (meta)Physics
Lux et veritas et libertas
Posts: 16
|
Post by jamesredford on Jun 19, 2010 19:56:31 GMT -5
So to recapitulate: 1.) The Omega Point (or, for that matter, the society near the Omega Point) can trivially perform the universal resurrection of the dead, upon which the people resurrected can live eternally in literal heaven, i.e., paradise. 2.) The Omega Point is omniscient. 3.) The Omega Point is omnipresent. 4.) The Omega Point is omnipotent. 5.) The cosmological singularity is a triune structure, of which the Omega Point is one component. 6.) The cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. 7.) The cosmological singularity is the only achieved (actually existing) infinity. Those are all the major physical properties that have been claimed for God in traditional Christian theology. In Hindu culture, Brahma is said to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. The salvation from worldly sins and troubles and ending of the cycle of death and rebirth is said to be paradise. Brahma is also said to exist in three parts, Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver and Shiva the Destroyer. Brahma is said to be transcendent to the worldly universe but all pervasive. Why is it that your broad properties of the cosmological singularity and Omega Point must be necessarily referring to Christian theology as opposed to Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Bahai'i, or any other theology? In my own view it most directly confirms Hinduism or Buddhism over anything else. The description of the Omega Point of infinite knowledge sounds a lot more like nirvanna to me than the Christian heaven. As the respected historian and Indologist Prof. Arthur Llewellyn Basham writes: "" Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Kalidasa's hymn to the Trimurti is really addressed to Brahma, here looked on as the high god. The Trimurti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence. "" From A. L. Basham, The Wonder that was India: A Survey of the History and Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent Before the Coming of the Muslims (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1954), pp. 310-311.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jun 19, 2010 20:24:16 GMT -5
Is it just me, or are your posts a whole lot of nothing?
|
|
|
Post by matante on Jun 19, 2010 20:28:55 GMT -5
He's one of THEM! The robot rebellion has begun!
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Jun 19, 2010 20:49:26 GMT -5
Some of your questions, such as on Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC), aren't relevant to this discussion, but I'll answer the ones that are relevant. I chose these questions precisely because they are relevant, or because Tipler makes them relevant. To begin with, in one of his papers that the Skolem theorem and ZFC provide an impetus for accepting the infinite number of parameters of the Feynman-Weinberg action. The Skolem theorem asserts the existence of models of every infinite cardinality if one of countable cardinality exists, and in fact has nothing to do with Tipler's argument that a countably infinitely axiomatisable theory is of the same merit as a finitely axiomatisable one. His motivating examples come from axiomatic set theory, while there exist finite axiom set theories, ZFC itself has two infinite axiom schemata. Obviously, if one frames the question as "What is the only renormalisable action with a spin-two diffeomorphism-invariant field on four-dimensional spacetime with no other fields?" then one is going to get the Feynman-Weinberg action. However, the original question of quantum gravity implicitly was searching for a finite action, so relaxing this assumption is essentially an extension to the original quantum gravity programme. Furthermore, as you probably know, it is hardly the only assumption that one may relax, and given the infinite number of coupling constants, it does not exactly lend itself to the construction of a perturbation theory or a low-energy effective theory as the other possibilities do. While manifestly consistent with GR in the low-energy limit, It is difficult to see how one could get any real predictive power from it. Fair enough. Previously, I asked the question "What are the important qualities of the time evolution of a density matrix describing the evolution of what starts as a free one-photon state in a fixed background metric describing a zero-charge zero-rotation black hole?" You dismissed it as irrelevant, but it is really the crux of the matter. Tipler argues that the black hole information paradox and the related unitarity violation require the universe to have an end. The question I asked is the physical situation which precipitates the paradox. I also asked the question "If some (quantum mechanical) realisation of a Turing machine is coupled to a system, what is important with regards to the reduced density matrix of the system once the machine is traced out? What can be said about the system if it is thermalised?" Tipler argues, roughly, that the end of the Universe (under certain assumptions with regards to its topology) would not normally occupy that part of its phase space which would allow it to end as time passes (i.e., is of probability zero) without some (assumedly classical) algorithmic intervention. The question I posed suggests that the realisation of this intervention in reality is physically important and that without addressing this issue the conclusion he draws cannot be considered sound. That doesn't answer the question. Even if one accepted the speculation that the evolution of the Universe must be algorithmically guided, even if one accepted the existence of the Omega Point, classical theism and modern Christianity do not simply follow.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 19, 2010 21:36:45 GMT -5
"Brevity is the soul of wit" - Hamlet (Act III, Scene I) Prof. David Deutsch agrees that the society near the Omega Point would have unlimited computational resources available to them (i.e., finite at any given time, with additional resources continuously coming online and diverging to infinity), and hence would be able to perfectly emulate any environment which does not involve a logical contradiction (e.g., such as rendering a circle that's at the same time also a triangle). Thus, Deutsch agrees that the society near the Omega Point to be able to resurrect us, and all possible variations of us. Deutsch agrees that the Omega Point itself will contain a literal infinite amount of information, and hence that it is omniscient: it will know everything which is logically possible to know. Deutsch agrees that the Omega Point will be omnipresent, as it will consist of all that exists. And Deutsch agrees that the Omega Point will be omnipotent in the literal sense that it will be a state of infinite physical energy and power and that it will be in control over all of existence. No he actually don't. He state: "Having established the omega-point scenario, Tipler makes some additional assumptions – some plausible, others less so – which enable him to fill in more details of future history. It is Tipler's quasi-religious interpretation of that future history, and his failure to distinguish that interpretation from the underlying scientific theory, that have prevented the latter from being taken seriously. Tipler notes that an infinite amount of knowledge will have been created by the time of the omega point. He then assumes that the intelligences existing in this far future will, like us, want (or perhaps need) to discover knowledge other than what is immediately necessary for their survival. Indeed, they have the potential to discover all knowledge that is physically knowable, and Tipler assumes that they will do so."Deutsh goes on to explain how the theory might work, but does not state he agrees with it.
|
|
jamesredford
New Member
Head Counselor at the Jesus Camp for Theoretical (meta)Physics
Lux et veritas et libertas
Posts: 16
|
Post by jamesredford on Jun 19, 2010 22:00:11 GMT -5
Some of your questions, such as on Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice (ZFC), aren't relevant to this discussion, but I'll answer the ones that are relevant. I chose these questions precisely because they are relevant, or because Tipler makes them relevant. To begin with, in one of his papers that the Skolem theorem and ZFC provide an impetus for accepting the infinite number of parameters of the Feynman-Weinberg action. The Skolem theorem asserts the existence of models of every infinite cardinality if one of countable cardinality exists, and in fact has nothing to do with Tipler's argument that a countably infinitely axiomatisable theory is of the same merit as a finitely axiomatisable one. His motivating examples come from axiomatic set theory, while there exist finite axiom set theories, ZFC itself has two infinite axiom schemata. On that matter in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper, Prof. Tipler is pointing out that per the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, there is no real difference between a theory with a finite number of axioms and a theory with a countably infinite number of axioms. The finite case is just easier for humans to deal with, provided the finite number is a small number. The reason this is relevant within Prof. Tipler's paper is because the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity theory requires an abitrarily high number of terms in order for it to be consistent (i.e., an infinite number of terms, in its fullness). Tipler brings up the case of Peano arithmetic because it, also, requires an infinite number of terms to be proven consistent. Tipler points out that this also applies just as much to string theory: "String perturbation theory is term-by-term finite, but the entire perturbation series is as divergent as the corresponding quantum field theory perturbation theory. And as string theory was extended to M-theory, the number of solutions was also realized to be infinite." (The latter important detail being unlike the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity theory, which is qualitatively unique.) The Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity action is finite term-by-term, but in order to make it so one ends up with the curvature infinities of general relativity. Prof. Tipler gives a number of arguments in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper that the Omega Point/Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) is required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and these laws have been repeatedly confirmed by experiment; he also therein proposes a number of experiments which can additionally confirm the Omega Point TOE. All other proposed solutions to the black hole information issue involve new laws of physics which have no experimental support and which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 (October 2005), Art. No. 084013; also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005. arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171During the collapse phase of the universe, life uses gravitational shear energy by forcing a Taub universe collapse, thereby creating a temperature differential whereby usable energy can be obtained. The Taublike collapse in one direction, and then another direction (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations) is also used to eliminate event horizons, which is necessary for information processing (and hence life) to continue. This mode of collapse ends (in proper time, as in computer clock time it never ends) in a single c-boundary (i.e., causal boundary) point: the Omega Point. The gravitational shear energy thereby available to life diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached. Due to the increasing temperature of the universe during the collapse phase (wherein the temperature diverges to infinity), life will have to transfer its information processes to higher energy states, eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on via travelling waves and standing waves. For the details on this, see Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994). Christian theology is preferentially selected by the known laws of physcis because the Omega Point cosmology has all the major quidditative properties that have been claimed for God in traditional Christian theology, which includes the triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which is deselective of all other major religions, including Hinduism); the cosmological singularity as the uncaused first cause (i.e., creatio ex nihilo, which is principly found in the Abrahamic religions); the Omega Point being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; the cosmological singularity being transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time; the ability to perform miracles using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the cosmological end state of the Omega Point via least action; and the resurrection of the dead.
|
|
jamesredford
New Member
Head Counselor at the Jesus Camp for Theoretical (meta)Physics
Lux et veritas et libertas
Posts: 16
|
Post by jamesredford on Jun 19, 2010 22:08:39 GMT -5
"Brevity is the soul of wit" - Hamlet (Act III, Scene I) Prof. David Deutsch agrees that the society near the Omega Point would have unlimited computational resources available to them (i.e., finite at any given time, with additional resources continuously coming online and diverging to infinity), and hence would be able to perfectly emulate any environment which does not involve a logical contradiction (e.g., such as rendering a circle that's at the same time also a triangle). Thus, Deutsch agrees that the society near the Omega Point to be able to resurrect us, and all possible variations of us. Deutsch agrees that the Omega Point itself will contain a literal infinite amount of information, and hence that it is omniscient: it will know everything which is logically possible to know. Deutsch agrees that the Omega Point will be omnipresent, as it will consist of all that exists. And Deutsch agrees that the Omega Point will be omnipotent in the literal sense that it will be a state of infinite physical energy and power and that it will be in control over all of existence. No he actually don't. He state: "Having established the omega-point scenario, Tipler makes some additional assumptions – some plausible, others less so – which enable him to fill in more details of future history. It is Tipler's quasi-religious interpretation of that future history, and his failure to distinguish that interpretation from the underlying scientific theory, that have prevented the latter from being taken seriously. Tipler notes that an infinite amount of knowledge will have been created by the time of the omega point. He then assumes that the intelligences existing in this far future will, like us, want (or perhaps need) to discover knowledge other than what is immediately necessary for their survival. Indeed, they have the potential to discover all knowledge that is physically knowable, and Tipler assumes that they will do so."Deutsh goes on to explain how the theory might work, but does not state he agrees with it. You apparently didn't read it very closely. In said chapter, Prof. David Deutsch writes: "" I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory of the future of spacetime until and unless it is experimentally (or otherwise) refuted. (Experimental refutation is possible because the existence of an omega point in our future places certain constraints on the condition of the universe today.) "" Deutsch later comments within a concluding paragraph of the same chapter regarding the synthesis of his "four strands" conception of fundamental reality, which includes the strengthened version of mathematician Alan Turing's theory of universal computation in the form of the Omega Point Theory: "" It seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the 'natural' view to hold. It is the conservative view, the one that does not propose any startling change in our best fundamental explanations. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing view, the one against which proposed innovations are judged. That is the role I am advocating for it. I am not hoping to create a new orthodoxy; far from it. As I have said, I think it is time to move on. But we can move to better theories only if we take our best existing theories seriously, as explanations of the world. "" Regarding the resurrection of the dead, Prof. Deutsch writes: "" In particular, Tipler points out that a sufficiently advanced technology will be able to resurrect the dead. It could do this in several different ways, of which the following is perhaps the simplest. Once one has enough computer power (and remember that eventually any desired amount will be available), one can run a virtual-reality rendering of the entire universe – indeed, the entire multiverse – starting at the Big Bang, with any desired degree of accuracy. If one does not know the initial state accurately enough, one can try an arbitrarily fine sampling of all possible initial states, and render them all simultaneously. The rendering may have to pause, for reasons of complexity, if the epoch being rendered gets too close to the actual time at which the rendering is being performed. But it will soon be able to continue as more computer power comes on line. To the omega-point computers, nothing is intractable. There is only 'computable' and 'non-computable', and rendering real physical environments definitely comes into the 'computable' category. In the course of this rendering, the planet Earth and many variants of it will appear. Life, and eventually human beings, will evolve. All the human beings who have ever lived anywhere in the multiverse (that is, all those whose existence was physically possible) will appear somewhere in this vast rendering. So will every extraterrestrial and artificial intelligence that could ever have existed. The controlling program can look out for these intelligent beings and, if it wants to, place them in a better virtual environment – one, perhaps, in which they will not die again, and will have all their wishes granted (or at least, all wishes that a given, unimaginably high, level of computing resources can meet). Why would it do that? One reason might be a moral one: by the standards of the distant future, the environment we live in today is extremely harsh and we suffer atrociously. It may be considered unethical not to rescue such people and give them a chance of a better life. But it would be counter-productive to place them immediately in contact with the contemporary culture at the time of resurrection: they would be instantly confused, humiliated and overwhelmed. Therefore, Tipler says, we can expect to be resurrected in an environment of a type that is essentially familiar to us, except that every unpleasant element will have been removed, and many extremely pleasant elements will have been added. In other words, heaven. "" From David Deutsch, extracts from Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" of The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1997); with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. theophysics.chimehost.net/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html
|
|