God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
1

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory storage) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world’s leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain’s main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world’s leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler’s Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory. Moreover, to here point out, said Singularity Theorems are themselves completely valid proofs of God’s existence in the First Cause aspect of God.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. Further, Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament.

As said, Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the aforementioned known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Indeed, in the Feynman path integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics (i.e., sum-over-paths; sum-over-histories) a singularity is even more inevitable than in the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems, since the Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas the Feynman sum-over-histories get arbitrarily close to infinite curvature. In other words, the multiverse has its own singularity.

Further, due to Liouville’s Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn’t matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, “Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity.” See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, “Action principles in nature”, Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, “The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity”, in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d’Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; “Discussion”, pp. 360-361.)

⁂

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they’re uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It’s the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community’s displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: 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 arithmetical operations 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.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking’s book The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books) coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God’s existence isn’t necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

The evolutionary psychological reason for the above-described bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God’s existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old–i.e., the demons–seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain.

2

Doesn’t agree with the evidence which is that the universe is expanding forever and beyond the capability of any living organism to reach. There is no TOE supported by the evidence let alone forced by it.

That doesn’t make it correct and the evidence disagrees.

This is one of the problems with metaphysical speculations based on old physics – our understanding keeps changing. It doesn’t invalidate the findings of science as Kuhn suggested but speculations (especially philosophical speculations) based on those findings is another matter.

What is required by their philosophical premises is not the same as what conclusions are required by the evidence revealed in scientific investigation.

No. There are those who put their philosophical bias ahead of what the evidence tells us but most modern physicists stick to the methodology of science and accept what it tells us, which most certainly is not a confirmation of your theology.

LOL Your ridiculous simplification of the problems of modern physics is laughable.

I believe God exists – the God of the Bible not the God of philosophical proofs. And I don’t think God requires us to believe He exists – i.e. no proof supplied.

4 Likes
3

The expansion of the universe is accelerating. From my understanding, this would rule out a Big Crunch scenario. I am also unaware of any mathematical proof which requires an intelligence to collapse wavefunctions in quantum mechanics. Since these are two of the pillars of Tipler’s Omega Point, I don’t see how it is viable.

3 Likes
4

Concerning the accelerating expansion of the universe: during life’s advancement throughout the universe, baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling, which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved) is used for life’s energy requirements and for rocket propulsion for interstellar travel. In the process, the annihilation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse.

And we have had the Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics for some 40 years with the arrival of the Standard Model of particle physics, since the Standard Model describes all forces in nature except for gravity. The Standard Model is a quantum field theory, i.e., it involves Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics. And gravity is described by General Relativity. The problem has been to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics consistent with each other, which is accomplished with the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg theory of quantum gravity when the appropriate boundary conditions on the universe are used, which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities.

For much more on this, see my following articles:

It’s mathematically forced if the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) are true statements of how the universe works. As said, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point Theory of Everything (TOE) is a mathematical theorem per the aforementioned known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Regardless of what you or anyone else might mean by “metaphysic[s]”, the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems mathematically prove that the universe must have began at an initial singularity given the amount of matter that is actually observed in the universe. To quote Prof. Stephen Hawking on this (from p. 62 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].):

“”
The final result [of the Singularity Theorems] was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. …
“”

And the singularity case becomes unavoidable once one introduces Quantum Mechanics (i.e., no stipulation on the matter content need be made, nor any other stipulation).

The only “premise” here is Quantum Mechanics, which has been confirmed by every experiment to date.

Your knowledge of the history on this matter is quite lacking. That is what the leading physicists who developed said physics, such as Profs. Albert Einstein, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, etc., stated was the reason for the rejection by the physics community of the Big Bang cosmology: they stated that it was rejected because it logically implies that God exists. For historical details on this rejection of physical law by physicists when conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: “The Big Bang”, pp. 28-33 of my “Physics of God” article cited above.

I see that you take the fideist position. Why bother even arguing on a forum? Since ignorance comforts you, take your comfort and be content. Also, given your above-stated position, why would it be so shocking to you that others also take some form of perverse comfort in ignorance?

Whereas I hold that the Truth–specifically, Knowledge of It–sets us free. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jesus Christ, as recorded in John 8:32).

The only thing that can save us is knowledge of the truth.

5

The wave-function does not collapse. I never stated nor implied such a thing–indeed, quite the opposite.

Concerning the accelerating expansion of the universe: during life’s advancement throughout the universe, baryon annihilation (via the inverse of electroweak baryogenesis using electroweak quantum tunneling, which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved) is used for life’s energy requirements and for rocket propulsion for interstellar travel. In the process, the annihilation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse. For details, see:

Regarding the criticisms of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology:

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Ellis and Dr. David Coule (see G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, “Life at the end of the universe?”, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739). In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

In his review (see Lawrence Krauss, “More dangerous than nonsense”, New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53) of Prof. Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss repeatedly commits the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss gives no indication that he followed up on the endnotes in the book The Physics of Christianity and actually read Tipler’s physics journal papers. All that Krauss is going off of in said review is Tipler’s mostly nontechnical popular-audience book The Physics of Christianity without researching Tipler’s technical papers in the physics journals. Krauss’s review offers no actual lines of reasoning for Krauss’s pronouncements. His readership is simply expected to imbibe what Krauss proclaims, even though it’s clear that Krauss is merely critiquing a popular-audience book which does not attempt to present the rigorous technical details.

Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe’s expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out that “there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be.” (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, “Geometry and Destiny”, General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.)

As pointed out with Ellis and Coule’s criticism, this isn’t the first time that this ironic outcome has befallen critics of Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology. So when Tipler’s critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler’s case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that’s the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics.

Concerning Martin Gardner’s review of Profs. John D. Barrow and Tipler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), notice that Martin Gardner never states any error on Tipler’s part within said review. However, I do find the below exchange between Tipler and Gardner to be quite telling; it transpired from Gardner’s aforesaid review of Barrow and Tipler’s book. Note Gardner’s two-word reply to Tipler.

6

That woo is pure speculation and dogmatic assertion. Let’s hear some arguments.

1 Like
7

Thank you, Cogitoergosuspiro. I quite agree with you. Fideism is a position that results in mass-horrors. Only truth and knowledge of it can save us.

8

I see you take the rationalist position – the poverty of which is well established. All it can do is take you from premises to conclusions, which gets you nowhere without first accepting those premises on faith. And that is when the premises are actually stated, when too often they are neither stated nor even understood by the person making the argument.

Reason has an important role, but the source of understanding reality is not it. Its role is called rationalization and if not misused this is important for consistently extending what we know to new situations before we have evidence one way or another.

We are Christians on this forum and the Bible teaches faith more than reason. But we are also scientists so ignorance of the evidence is no more acceptable than ignorance of what is in the Bible.

Like I said, we are Christians – not Gnostics. It is Jesus who saves. And we are largely evangelicals (which are protestants) – so the salvation we believe in is by Grace alone, which means all we can do is have faith, with Christ as our only mediator, scripture as our only authority, all for the glory of God alone. That is our gospel. Salvation by knowledge is the gospel of the Gnostics.

Well… I am a physicist not an historian, but I doubt that you are either of these. And physics is not my only field of study. …so sorry but I know enough of the actual history to see what you are pushing isn’t even close to the historical reality.

This is incoherent nonsense. It is science and the scientists who accepted and taught Big Bang cosmology for the last century and many religiologs who have rejected it.

…citing your own writings to support your claims? Wow!

…and published on the social science research network? Hmmm…

the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not perform formal peer review on the papers posted on its platform; it functions as a preprint server where researchers can share early versions of their work before full peer-reviewed publication in a journal

…more importantly there is no information about an academic institution behind this publication.

Yes, the scientific community has accepted this idea of a singularity at the beginning for some time. But physicists also have considerable experience of singularities like this representing a failure of known physics at such points. So the conclusion that this represents an actual physical singularity is not completely warranted. This is just a fact regarding what is accepted by the physics community. Personally, as a theist, I have no problem with this being an actual singularity (in time and space) and find it more than sufficient that science is simply unable to measure anything before it.

Yes QM and in fact quantum field theory in the Standard model is confirmed by every experiment. But no that is certainly not the only premise for your claim for the simple fact that this is not a conclusion of QM in any way whatsoever. Therefore, theological additions like yours logically have other premises.

The academic meaning of metaphysics is the philosophical study of the nature of reality.

4 Likes
9

Wave function collapse is a pillar of modern quantum mechanics. It happens every time a photon hits something, or when an atomic nuclei decays.

Baryon annihilation is happening throughout the universe without any intelligence involved through a whole host of natural processes. There is nothing special about the way in which an intelligence interacts with the universe. If all of these non-intelligent processes are not slowing the acceleration of the expansion then it won’t slow if an intelligent being does the same thing.

Physician, heal thyself.

3 Likes
10

Yes and the denial of this is a good example of putting philosophical bias ahead of what the evidence tells us. Calling it decoherence rather than wave collapse doesn’t change this in the slightest, such rhetoric doesn’t alter the irrefutable facts that measurements take you from a state of superposition with respect to a measurement to an eigenstate of that measurement.

What is true, is that before this evidence scientists presupposed that the universe was steady-state and Einstein called it his greatest mistake that he added a term in his gravitational field equation to support this. But once evidence was found for the expansion of the universe, scientists accepted they were wrong about the universe being steady state and developed the so called big bang theory. It is a great irony that religious people spoke against this theory even though it was indeed one of the very few things where religion could claim that it was right in claiming the universe had a beginning. But @JamesRedford 's revision of history regarding this issue is dishonest.

3 Likes
11

Your above position is self-refuting. Mankind’s problem has not been with rationalist philosophies, but rather with irrationalist philosophies, such as yours. Some form of reason must be used in order for a person to convert in belief from one religion to another; or from any belief to another belief, for that matter. It can either be veridical reason, or false reason–but some process of reasoning must be involved.

The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that the Big Bang initial singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given the amount of matter observed in the universe. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the only way to avoid the Omega Point quantum gravity theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Further, due to Liouville’s Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn’t matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, “Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity.” See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, “Action principles in nature”, Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, “The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity”, in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d’Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; “Discussion”, pp. 360-361.)

This begs the question of what “faith” means in the Christian sense. The word used in the New Testament for faith is pistis (πίστις), which means persuasion, as in persuaded by the evidence. It further carries the meaning of a ground of belief, a guarantee, an assurance. Faith in the Christian sense is trust in the truth, even when things seem hopeless. It does not mean a lack of rationality in coming to belief in Jesus Christ.

For those commonly called Gnostics, such an appellation is a misnomer, since such falsely-called “Gnostics” maintain that the physical world is an evil deception by the Demiurge, and hence that there is no point in attempting to gain systematic knowledge of the physical world. By giving up on attempting to better-know the Mind of God via a study of His creation, modern so-called “Christians” are “Gnostics” in this misnomered sense of the word.

That is what the leading physicists who developed said physics, such as Profs. Albert Einstein, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, etc., stated was the reason for the rejection by the physics community of the Big Bang cosmology: they stated that it was rejected because it logically implies that God exists. For historical details on this rejection of physical law by physicists when conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: “The Big Bang”, pp. 28-33 of my “Physics of God” article cited above.

That is what the leading physicists who developed said physics, such as Profs. Albert Einstein, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, etc., stated was the reason for the rejection by the physics community of the Big Bang cosmology: they stated that it was rejected because it logically implies that God exists. For historical details on this rejection of physical law by physicists when conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: “The Big Bang”, pp. 28-33 of my “Physics of God” article cited above.

And again, your knowledge on the history of the Big Bang cosmology is quite lacking. In his famous book A Brief History of Time, Hawking wrote that

“”
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang. The proposal that gained widest support was called the steady state theory. …
“”

(From p. 62 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

I cite their statements. I use the Scholarly Method in my above-cited “Physics of God” article.

My above-cited “Physics of God” article also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology.

The cosmological singularity is not in either time or space, but rather is the boundary of spacetime.

Due to Liouville’s Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn’t matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, “Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity.” See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, “Action principles in nature”, Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, “The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity”, in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d’Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; “Discussion”, pp. 360-361.)

The word “philosophy” simply means the love of wisdom. To quote physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler on this matter: “The history of science is typically about turning insoluble problems of metaphysics into problems of physics and solving them. Like one of Kant’s problems: Has the universe existed forever, or only a finite time? Kant thought this was fundamentally insoluble too, and had a purported proof of this. But in this century, we’ve turned this supposedly insoluble metaphysical problem into one of physics and solved it, to find the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old.” (From Anthony Liversidge, interview of Frank Tipler, “A Physicist Proposes a Theory of Eternal Life that Yields God”, Omni, Vol. 17, No. 1 [Oct. 1994], pp. 89 ff. [8 pp.].)

12

Not so. The wave-function never collapses. For details on this, see:

Life will eventually annihilate all baryons for its energy requirements. What baryon annihilation is occurring presently isn’t nearly enough to force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, thereby cancelling the positive cosmological constant and forcing the universe to collapse.

Curing many common supposedly incurable diseases comes easily for me. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jesus Christ, as recorded in John 8:32).

13

See the citations I gave in my immediate post above regarding this topic in reply to T_aquaticus.

The only person on this planet who even approaches my level of honesty is physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler. After which it is a sharp drop-off into the abyss of Hell.

And again, your knowledge on the history of the Big Bang cosmology is quite lacking. In his famous book A Brief History of Time, Hawking wrote that

“”
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang. The proposal that gained widest support was called the steady state theory. …
“”

(From p. 62 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

For much more historical details on this, see Sec. 5: “The Big Bang”, pp. 28-33 of my “Physics of God” article cited above.

14

Mr Redford, welcome. I see that you have a CV posted, but I can’t find your education. Can you please clarify? Thank you

1 Like
15

Is anyone not named Frank Tipler saying this?

That doesn’t sound at all feasible. This would require the capture of baryons released by each and every fusion reaction in the core of every star. This would also require the capture of every long wavelength photon, most of which are not useful for energy production.

Then why haven’t you opened a hospital where you cure all pediatric cancers?

4 Likes
16

Assuming that one comes to belief by way of reason (as you say where I bolded) but surely that is the exception if/when it ever happens. Reason is most often cited as why atheists come to their disbelief too. But those who actually believe propositions expressed in the Bible as a kind of surrender to reason have more in common with the atheist than with people of faith. It isn’t that either the atheist or the rationalist believer has miscalculated. That both rely most heavily on intellect mark them as true brothers and both make the same mistake.

“Self refuting”? How convenient.

1 Like
17

Hi, Randy. I have the most Special Education one could ever hope for. I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Although perhaps it doesn’t. In which case, this is the fundamental inborn naturally-evolved psychological problem with humans, which is not a problem with me:

18

Yes, many physicists. All physicists who accept the necessarily logical implications of Quantum Mechanics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking stated, “The Many-Worlds Interpretation is trivially true.”

No, it simply requires a great enough degree of quantum coherence to concentrate enough energy onto individual baryons using electroweak quantum tunneling. Solving the problem of quantum computation on a practical scale effectively also solves the problem of life annihilating baryons.

I have opened such a hospital, as I am extraordinarily hospitable. The name of that hospital is called right here, right now.

19

See above, MarkD.

20

I’m a bit confused.
I see nothing related to education.

Are you trolling us?
Thank you.

2 Likes