Thursday, May 17, 2007

"God Exists!- A Formula Proves It!"








Here ..is a video regarding Frank Tipler's work. This video was originally posted on You-Tube by atheist (Josh Charles) racking up numerous "honors" and links. I found it posted on Richard Dawkins' site, but when I started explaining my take on Tipler's work (in the You-tube video's "comments" section) Josh suddenly removed the video (after first threatening to ban me). This act suddenly destroyed a very large number of pages of viewer comments including my own final (and apparently finalizing) comment.

Watch a slightly different version here..
http://cbs11tv.com/video/?id=18130@ktvt.dayport.com&cid=7

The bottom line is that given the ideologically charged society in which we live, you cannot merely scientifically prove the existence of God and then notify the scientists (they will just dismiss you as a "kook"{PZ Myers} or a "wingnut"{Richard Dawkins}). The trick is to submit it and have it scientifically published (say, in the journal Nature {in 1979}) and scientifically verified (say in, Communications in Mathematical Physics - 1980), long before the scientific community realizes what it is -- and their (otherwise-operative) brains become clouded by ideology.

There are two questions I wish to raise here;

#1. Is there really sufficient "bandwidth" for the scientific processing of a God-proof given the sociological, God vrs Anti-God, passions in the scientific community? Who can the people really trust? Clearly You-tube (w/Josh who tagged the video "stupid") lacked sufficient "bandwidth" for any respectful scientific comentary. Can we expect any better from Richard Dawkins and his "Wingnut News"?













If Richard Dawkins is indeed "The Oxford Professor of the Public Understanding of Science/Logic/Reason" then why does he maintain an entire category at his web site, that is itself a fallacy of logical argumentation!? The term "Wingnut" (just as with PZ Myers term {and category} "Kooks") is an ad hominum violation of logic. Such terminology is being directed, not at Tipler's arguments/science/logic but at Tipler himself. "Ad hominum" is latin for attacking the man/person instead of addressing the person's argument(s). If you wish to undermine science, then violate logic/reason while pretending to be a champion of reason.

#2. Can Tipler's 1979 General Relativistic No-recurrence proof/theorem (proving that short of divine intervention the universe cannot re-occur) be more economically stated as a no-occurence theorem (proving that short of divine intervention the universe cannot occur period)?...

See - Tipler Frank J. 1979 "General Relativity, Thermodynamics and the Poincare Cycle." Nature: 280 203-5.

BTW. I don't, by any means, agree with all (or even most) of Tipler's arguments. For instance, I disagree with Tipler's main argument in his 1994 book "The Physics Of Immortality." I just don't condone the use ad hominum (personal attack) as a means of "scientific" persuation and I maintain that his published relativity and its implications should be seriously considered. Tipler has a Phd in global general relativity. --WB

13 comments:

William Brookfield said...

Dear KCTV - 5 news,

A news feature of yours was recently posted (for a time) on YouTube. This item "Science Proves God?" (May/5/2007) was about a physicist (Frank Tipler -Phd) who claims to have proven the existence of God.

The item was posted by an atheist (Josh Charles). Having followed the work of Frank Tipler for a number of years I submitted my take on Frank Tipler's relativity in the YouTube comments thread under this item. My respectful analysis of Tipler's work was apparently out of keeping with Josh's intent which it appears was to heap ridicule and scorn upon Tipler and KCTV-5 for crimes against atheism. After my posting Josh double posted, threatening to ban me (for my lack of scorn?). Josh then withdrew his threats and withdrew the video itself (along with countless pages of comments) from YouTube. Later that day my computer was brought down by two viruses. I am sending this message from a borrowed computer (my computer problems may or may not be related to the story).

Given that I would like to see a respectful analysis of Tipler's work, I have posted the story (along with a link to your news item) on my own blog. Please let me know if you have any concerns or copyright limitations regarding the internet rebroadcasting of your story. I do not wish to be party to any copyright violations.

Thanks,
William Brookfield -- http://icon-rids.blogspot.com/

The following is my YouTube comment that appears to have brought the thread down;

"I am not at all surprised that Tipler is claiming a God proof. In 1979 Tipler published a general relativistic no-recurrence proof (in the journal Nature 280 203-5). This work proves it impossible (by any physical means) for the universe to re-occur. However, this proof can be more economically stated as a general relativistic no-occurrence proof -- proving it impossible (by any physical means) for the universe to occur in the first place. If the universe cannot physically occur, then the source of the universe must be an external "super-physical" or "supernatural" force -- "God." Hopefully, this (KCTV-5) piece will encourage some much-needed discussion amongst scientists regarding the profound implications of Tipler's work -- WB."

Chris McLaughlin said...

Your point that many scientists may be prejudiced against religion is understood and may have merit. But Tippler's argument is one that is so specious and so simply refuted that it is hard to believe that it comes from anyone with scientific training. There is no need to pursue it any further. Anyone should see that Tippler makes a leap of logic by ASSUMING that his Cosmological Singularity is God. It may very well be proof of SOMETHING, but not necessarily God.

William Brookfield said...

Hi Chris,
Thank you for your comments.

"Tippler's argument is one that is so specious and so simply refuted that it is hard to believe".. That it was published in 1979 the most prestigious peer reviewed journal in the world...

In 1979 Tipler published his general relativistic no-occurrence proof (in the journal Nature 280 203-5).

My concern is not with Tipler's POI argument(God Proof?) but with his stealth God proof.

Mentok said...

Here is my proof of god

http://groups.msn.com/EarthComesAlive/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=101&LastModified=4675626300197772871

Anonymous said...

If Richard Dawkins is indeed "The Oxford Professor of the Public Understanding of Science/Logic/Reason" then why does he maintain an entire category at his web site, that is itself a fallacy of logical argumentation!? The term "Wingnut" (just as with PZ Myers term {and category} "Kooks") is an ad hominum violation of logic. Such terminology is being directed, not at Tipler's arguments/science/logic but at Tipler himself. "Ad hominum" is latin for attacking the man/person instead of addressing the person's argument(s). If you wish to undermine science, then violate logic/reason while pretending to be a champion of reason.

1) Ad hominem is spelled as such.

2) An ad hominem is to discredit an argument by attacking the arguer, it has nothing to do with logic therefore is not a "violation" of logic.

3) Dawkins holds the chair of "Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science". Your conflation of this title to include "reason" and "logic" is in itself an ad hominem, and completely undermines the argument you try to make.

4) Pointing out that someone is wrong about something, even when using the term wingnut or kook, doesn't suddenly make them right because they've been called a name.

5) redefining and putting scare quotes around words (e.g. "bandwidth") doesn't help your argument if you don't explain what you mean when you do so.

6) If the recent studies into non-coding DNA proved ID and disproved evolution, then you can be sure as hell that Francis Collins (you know, head of the NHGRI, the guy that has his feet firmly in this kind of work, christian) would have jumped all over it.

7) The laws of thermodynamics apply to one thing: thermodynamics.

8) There's still no evidence of ID, of a designer, or of any gods or other entities to act as such. If you have evidence, bring it. A Nobel prize awaits you.

This is a joke, right? I thought you might at least have some kind of background in molecular biology, cell biology, biochemistry, ethology, ecology, palaeobiology, biodiversity, bioinformatics or at least some kind of biology related subject, but you appear to be a musician.

I shall now go and ask a banker friend of mine as to the definitive analysis of the use of minor scales in 17-18th century European music. He has no expertise in this area, but I'm sure whatever insights or beliefs he has must be the truth.

Reginal Selkirk said...

I do not agree with your claim that the labelling of a wingnut as a wingnut is an ad himinem fallacy. If the Dawkins site said, "Don't believe what he says because he's a wingnut," that would be fallacious. That is not what is occuring. Instead, the Dawkins site is saying, "What he says is unbelievable. Therefore he is a wingnut." The causality is reversed. An insult is not necessarily and ad hominem fallacy.

The Strong Atheist said...

I must agree with the previous comments. On Dawkins' site, "Wingnut" is at best nothing more than an instance of name-calling and not the ad hominem fallacy. Calling someone a name is not a violation of logic. It seems to me that Dawkins (or Josh) has categorised the video under the "Wingnut" heading precisely because the argument is absurd, and not the other way round. I wish people would stop getting this wrong, its really not very difficult.

William Brookfield said...

1) Ad hominem is spelled as such.

Thank you for correcting my spelling...

2) An ad hominem is to discredit an argument by attacking the arguer, it has nothing to do with logic therefore is not a "violation" of logic.


Perhaps "derailment" of logic would be better...


3) Dawkins holds the chair of "Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science". Your conflation of this title to include "reason" and "logic" is in itself an ad hominem, and completely undermines the argument you try to make.


I am indeed saddened to hear that science no longer includes reason and logic...

4) Pointing out that someone is wrong about something, even when using the term wingnut or kook, doesn't suddenly make them right because they've been called a name.

Of course not.

5) redefining and putting scare quotes around words (e.g. "bandwidth") doesn't help your argument if you don't explain what you mean when you do so.

Perhaps "capacity" would be better.

6) If the recent studies into non-coding DNA proved ID and disproved evolution, then you can be sure as hell that Francis Collins (you know, head of the NHGRI, the guy that has his feet firmly in this kind of work, christian) would have jumped all over it.

Disproved? challenged maybe.
Francis Collins just published a book -- "The Language of God" BTW

7) The laws of thermodynamics apply to one thing: thermodynamics.

I disagree. I am convinced that the second law of thermodynamics can be legitimately applied to order and disorder (as long as one is careful with the statistical uncertainty problem). We had a massive discussion about this over at ISCID see.."Is The Second law a Special case of the fourth law?"


http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000562.html


8) There's still no evidence of ID, of a designer, or of any gods or other entities to act as such. If you have evidence, bring it. A Nobel prize awaits you.


One form of evidence is would present is the existence of a finely tuned, functioning universe -- that cannot be explained as the result of black hole dynamics. Indeed it is a violation of the second law of black hole dynamics. Nor can it be explained by invoking multiple universes and thereby increasing the sum of fine tuning in need of explanation.

This is a joke right?

I have already answered that (see first thread)

BTW - In order to avoid confusion I am asking folks to please use names of some kind (not "anonymous") Thanks.

dobson said...

I disagree. I am convinced that the second law of thermodynamics can be legitimately applied to order and disorder (as long as one is careful with the statistical uncertainty problem). We had a massive discussion about this over at ISCID see.."Is The Second law a Special case of the fourth law?"

I think this is a common misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

In closed systems we expect that the amount of disorder will increase over time, however the earth is blatantly not a closed system. We have a fantastic energy supply: The sun. There are many examples of systems that locally appear to counter-act the 2nd law of thermodynamics: The most famous example is a freezer.

By the way, you are not a closed-system either, since you can eat and drink. A spectacularly handy source of energy which prevents your structure giving way to disorder, something that will almost certainly happen when you are no longer able to feed and respire, say for example as a consequence of death.

I'm really happy for ID people to keep making this argument - for the simple reason that continuing to make the same old disproven arguments sends a strong signal to ID skeptics and science educators, that ID simply is not sicence, and ID proponents are not sufficiently science-literate to determine this for themselves.

:-)

William Brookfield said...

Hi Dobson,

I addressed the "open system" argument in my "Darwinism Is a Hoax" thread...

"ID supporter" said--

"Energy (from the sun) doesn't provide (biological) information"

To which I said "Bingo"

along with..

"In my storage shed I have my very own home built "Jet Plane." It is composed of old wires, toasters, tires, metal and enough jet fuel (energy) strewn around for my first trans-atlantic flight. The problem is that as soon as I hit the ignition "switch" my first trans-atlantic flight will also be my first trans-pacific flight and will also be my first trans-arctic flight -- none of which I will physically survive."

You appear to be suggesting that if I would only open a window and "let the sun shine in," my "jet plane" would get built and I would be up and flying -- just as the birds and the bees are now up and flying.

Haven't you forgotten someting?

The Strong Atheist said...

Is this a parody?

dobson said...

You appear to be suggesting that if I would only open a window and "let the sun shine in," my "jet plane" would get built and I would be up and flying -- just as the birds and the bees are now up and flying.

Can you explain how I was suggesting that, or how the classically stated laws of thermodynamics suggest this.

I think you are muddling information theory with the laws of thermodynamics.

Dobson

James Redford said...

Hi, William Brookfield. Prof. Frank J. Tipler had already published his Omega Point Theory in a number of the leading physics journals. For the proof of God's existence based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God):

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. 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

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper 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.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 ) 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.)

See also the below resources for further information on the Omega Point Theory:

Theophysics http://geocities.com/theophysics/

"Omega Point (Tipler)," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point_%28Tipler%29&oldid=206077125

"Frank J. Tipler," Wikipedia, April 16, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_J._Tipler&oldid=205920802

Tipler is Professor of Mathematics and Physics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters B, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.

Prof. John A. Wheeler (the father of most relativity research in the U.S.) wrote that "Frank Tipler is widely known for important concepts and theorems in general relativity and gravitation physics" on pg. viii in the "Foreword" to The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) by cosmologist Prof. John D. Barrow and Tipler, which was the first book wherein Tipler's Omega Point Theory was described. On pg. ix of said book, Prof. Wheeler wrote that Chapter 10 of the book, which concerns the Omega Point Theory, "rivals in thought-provoking power any of the [other chapters]."

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, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work), endorses the physics of the Omega Point Theory in his book The Fabric of Reality (1997). 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), ISBN: 0713990619; with additional comments by Frank J. Tipler. http://geocities.com/theophysics/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to resort to physical theories 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, 084013 (October 2005); also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171

That is, Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive testament to the Omega Point Theory's correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing.

Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904020 ), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse.

There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependant on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as B - L is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper also demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently discovered by Steven Weinberg and Bryce DeWitt, among others. But because these physicists were looking for equations with a finite number of terms (i.e., derivatives no higher than second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms. Further, they didn't realize that this proper theory of quantum gravity is consistent only with a certain set of boundary conditions imposed (which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities). The equations for this theory of quantum gravity are 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 (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence). As Tipler notes in his 2007 book The Physics of Christianity (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."

When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.