I'm probably going to step on some toes with this one, be warned.
I was reading a post on fellow science communication blog They Let You Graduate?. The author of this blog typically tends to anger me after reading his posts, but I'm fairly certain that's the very reason he's writing it. Whatever you think of his blog, he certainly does stir up deep thoughts in my head. His recent post was discussing the the movie Expelled, a documentary about how scientists that believe in the possibility of intelligent design (not necessarily creationism, I suppose it's different somehow...) are being discriminated against in academia.
Consequently, that's not what my post is at all, but it did get me thinking about something that's dwelt on my mind for some time. People don't get what science means. People don't get what theory means. Yet people try to use science to prove unprovable things, and act as if it's perfectly valid! Now, I probably have a more liberal definition than most of what I call science. In a recent discussion in my science communication class, I stood firmly on the belief that science could exist independent of society, in an idealized sense. I believe science is a pure, unbiased entity. But when it comes down to it, this kind of science doesn't exist very often. I want to reserve the term to describe purely the "endeavor to uncover the mysterious truths of the universe."
But we all know science doesn't end up being that. When I refer to science in this post, I speak of the socially, economically, political beast that requires certain ground rules. Here are my simple rules, and I reserve the right to edit this post if I change my mind (I'll leave original stuff intact though, I don't believe in covering up true mistakes.)
1. The only scientific absolute is that there are none.
2. A theory is a well established, physically motivated set of rules that describes something about how we perceive the world to work.
3. In order to be a theory, it must make testable predictions, and there must be some way to prove it wrong.
For example, I could write down a set of rules, but if I cannot determine whether or not they are correct, it's simply not science, it's just a guess! When a scientist talks about a theory, he doesn't mean, "this is our guess at how it works," he measn "this explains a particular set of observations, but could be proven wrong by x.". A well established theory is considered "fact" if it is unlikely to be proven wrong. The word fact here doesn't mean absolute certainty (absolute certainty is unscientific.), it is simply used to describe a well established theory because the colloquial use of the word theory is very very different from the scientific use.
This brings us to our main issue: Science and Religion. I should be perfectly transparent, so that should I introduce bias into my posts, hopefully you can take that into account. I am an atheist. This does not mean, however, that I think religion is a useless institution, nor do I believe the world would be better off without it. Quite the contrary, I believe religion is necessary, but this isn't the point of the post - I just wanted to make sure you understand where I am coming from.
What motivated me to write this post was a physical theory I read about some time ago. A mathematical physicist cosmologist Frank J. Tipler devised a physical theory of everything - how everything works at a fundamental level. This is the holy grail for physicists! So what's the problem?
Religion is the problem with this theory. There are two major physical theories that dominate our understanding of the way the universe works, namely Einstein's general theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics (the very subject of this blog!) has been exceptionally successful when dealing with small objects (and sometimes large objects!). General relativity, on the other hand, describes LARGE objects well, but really doesn't naturally extend to small objects because it isn't a quantum mechanical theory. This is a problem. Both theories cannot be correct, because quantum mechanics can't deal with gravity, and relativity can't deal with small things. The solution to this issue is known as quantum gravity. The issue? It doesn't work. More explicitly, if one tries to make certain calculations with the naive mating of relativity with quantum mechanics, you get infinity as you answer. I don't know about you, but anything infinite in this universe just doesn't make sense. Tipler's explaination? God. He says, accept the infinities in the theory, call it complete, and explain the infinities as the presence of God.
Contrary to the belief of some people, you cannot disprove the existence of God or Gods. I don't like it, but I don't have to! I can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus either. My point is, it's not science! If it isn't falsifiable, it's not science!
I suppose you may be thinking, okay Dan, this is one crackpot theory, maybe you can put science into religion somewhere? My answer to you would be, notice how the title is "Religion is NOT science - part 1"? Well, you'll just have to wait for part two. Next I'm going to discuss what I'm simply going to call "quantum theology," to generally discuss attempts to mix religion and science (though there is a book by the same name).
This post was interesting. It was a little difficult to read though because of the length. I look forward to your 'part 2'. I have been sheltered to my one belief for all my life and I like to hear what others think on the topic of God and religion (since I have only ever heard it one way).
ReplyDeleteYeah, I saw Expelled a couple years ago. It's pretty much just an hour and a half of time-wasting bullshit. Sure, let's teach ID in the classrooms...okay, but you'd also have to teach numerology, astrology, alchemy, fairy tales, and treat them on the same level as actual science - I cry shenanigans!!
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, while I could see how certain demographics "need" religion, I honestly believe (pun intended) that the world actually would ultimately be better off without it. No 9/11, no bullshit in the Middle East, no bullshit in America, etc. Anytime religion is enforced upon others, or mixed with politics, is borderline synonymous with an intellectual crime against humanity IMHO. In the end, there is no difference between faith and superstition; religion is simply organized superstition.
Naturally, one may argue that requiring a set of axiomatic rules in scientific fields and mathematics is a perfect example of faith in science; however, I would argue that such "faith" is only allowed because we are aware that the interpretation of mathematics (or the results of any physical theory) may very well change in the evolution of the (experimentally correct, and hence useful) theory. Otherwise, you have one of two things: strict unquestioning assumptions (religious faith), or no assumptions whatsoever (solipsism). Neither is ultimately fruitful in understanding reality, and hence wastes of time.
"..No 9/11, no bullshit in the Middle East, no bullshit in America, etc"
ReplyDeleteThis isn't exactly the point of the post, but I'll bite. I think religion is often used as an excuse or as a tool to achieve political goals, but that it's not the core of the issue (which I believe to be the selfish, self serving nature of all humans). I think if there were no religion, it would just be some other excuse to take it's place...
My focus in this post is more on testability than utility.
If you're saying that scientific theories need to be falsifiable, then how do you feel about String Theory?
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Walter that religion is not necessary and in fact hinders society. I guess I share the sort of "militant atheist" sentiment of Dr. Richard Dawkins. Imagine the scientific and social progress that could have occurred during the dark ages. Imagine no hatred based on who one prays to or which direction one prays. On an unrelated note, Dan makes a good point on what a scientific theory is and what it isn't. I have seen so many religious people make an argument against evolution saying "Oh, its just a theory" when actually a scientific theory is much more rigorous than an idea of how something works.
ReplyDeletenice explanation of a scientific theory and how intelligent design cannot be considered one.
ReplyDeleteI think it is unfair to talk like people who have religion are wrong. I mean, what is science to most people? It seems that science is the process of trying to discover the overall governing truth of the universe around us. How is this any different from religion? To a scientist, science is their religion and their faith. But it is unfair to say that every one else is wrong just because we can't prove the existence of God. You said yourself, Dan, that science is made up of ideas that can't necessarily be proven but just have to be founded in observation. To many people, their faith is founded in their observation. Many like to think that they are living their faith just as a scientist lives his. I just ask you do you really believe there is not a God? How could you believe there is not a God if you believe in an overlying, governing truth to the universe. What makes this truth any different than a so called "God?"
ReplyDelete"To a scientist, science is their religion and their faith."
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement. Religion requires faith - I have no faith in science, but it is what makes most sense to me.
"But it is unfair to say that every one else is wrong just because we can't prove the existence of God."
Never did I say we can't prove the existence of God, in fact I said, "...you cannot disprove the existence of God or Gods."
If someone could quantitatively verify the existence of God, I'm all for it.
"What makes this truth any different than a so called 'God?'"
Depends on your definition of God. I think that requires a wide definition of God that most religions would disagree with.
"Many like to think that they are living their faith just as a scientist lives his."
A scientist SHOULDN'T have faith in science. A scientist should study science with the belief that any of it could be disproven at any time.
Hi, Dan. That's an incorrect explanation that you gave of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE).
ReplyDeleteProf. Frank J. Tipler's below 2005 Rep. Prog. Phys. paper demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first discovered by Richard Feynman in that year, and independently developed by Bryce DeWitt, and Steven Weinberg, 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 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."
When combined with the Standard Model, the result is the Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.
We've known for some time that the infinities of gravitational collapse are unavoidable in General Relativity (i.e., given realistic energy conditions). As Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler wrote in Gravitation (San Francisco, Cal.: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1973), p. 934, "That singularities are very general phenomena, and cannot be wished away, has been known since 1965, thanks to the theorems on singularities proved by Penrose, Hawking, and Geroch."
If a well-tested theory such as General Relativity says that actual infinities exist, then we ought to accept that they exist unless the theory is disconfirmed. Your rejection of actual infinities is due to philosophical assumptions--assumptions which empirical science and mathematics state are wrong. Tipler makes the point in his below Rep. Prog. Phys. paper that a theory can be mathematically consistent even if it contains a countable infinite number of axioms (of which the countable number of terms in the quantum gravity Lagrangian would be the axioms of the theory): the finite case is merely easier for humans to deal with (provided the finite number is a small number). It's a human prejudice to want a theory with a finite number of axioms--a prejudice that isn't required by mathematics.
For details on the above, see:
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.
Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in quantum field theory and computation theory. His Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of prestigious 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, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc.
I didn't really "explain" his theory. I was simply referring the the proven non-renormalizability of quantum gravity.This hasn't changed, and mainstream physics DOES NOT accept the Feynman–Weinberg–DeWitt theory of quantum gravity as a meaningful theory (what good is a theory that can't make consistent, correct calculations?) Tipler is one of the few out there that refers to this as an accurate theory, there's a reason hardly anybody else does. I'm not denying Tipler is a very smart man.
ReplyDeleteI read "The structure of the world from pure numbers" some time ago. While an very interesting idea, it's not what you are claiming.
"...demonstrates that the correct quantum gravity theory..."
Hardly. It gives an possibility, yes.
"...they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms..."
No, they abandoned it because it was not a consistent quantum field theory! QED and QCC can be renormalized, quantum gravity cannot! QED and QCD BOTH require an infinite perturbation expansion, that's NOT the issue. A consistent quantum field theory requires a finite number of parameters, QED and QCD meet the criteria, the FWD quantum gravity theory does not. Just because his paper is self-consistent (as far as I know), doesn't mean it's correct!
"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)"
Cosmologically maybe, but it low order scattering calculations? It explodes.
"...infinities of gravitational collapse are unavoidable in General Relativity..."
Yes, we know this. Infinity as an answer doesn't make sense in our universe. This doesn't hint at the existence of God, it hints at the fact that general relativity is inherently an incorrect theory at small scales! We've known this for some time!
"...(of which the countable number of terms in the quantum gravity Lagrangian would be the axioms of the theory)..."
The problem is we cannot compute these. If there are an infinite number of unknown independent parameters, how can we say anything about the theory?
"Your rejection of actual infinities is due to philosophical assumptions--assumptions which empirical science and mathematics state are wrong."
No, no, no... The problem is that we can't know the parameters, and therefore cannot make meaningful calculations. Infinity is a problem in physics, if a physical theory predicts an answer of infinity for something that exists in our universe, there's a problem, physically!
Also, how is adding in God to explain the infinities NOT philosophy? My very point with this post was to discuss why science and religion should stay separate. Please show me some proof that Tipler's theory proves the existence of God. Also, if you're like to continue this discussion, I'd like to know what your physics background is.
Hi, Dan. You state that you've read Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper some time ago. Yet based upon your comments, you didn't understand it, since it already addresses the matters you raised.
ReplyDeleteAs Prof. Steven Weinberg (1979 Nobel laureate in Physics) has stressed, this quantum gravity Lagrangian is just as renormalizable as quantum electrodynamics and the Standard Model of particle physics: see Steven Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I: Foundations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 518-519, and see also p. 914 of Tipler's 2005 Rep. Prog. Phys. paper. As Weinberg therein pointed out, what made this quantum gravity Lagrangian nonrenormalizable was the attempt to cut off the higher terms in the Lagrangian.
There are a countably infinite number of coupling constants in the Lagrangian, which are in effect axioms of the theory, and which must be determined by experiment. But as Prof. John Donoghue and Dr. Tibor Torma have shown, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg Lagrangian will not contradict experiment so long as the renormalized values of the infinite number of new coupling constants are adequately small. For that, see:
John F. Donoghue, "General relativity as an effective field theory: The leading quantum corrections", Physical Review D, Vol. 50, No. 6 (September 1994), pp. 3874-3888. Also at arXiv:gr-qc/9405057, May 25, 1994
John F. Donoghue and Tibor Torma, "Power counting of loop diagrams in general relativity", Physical Review D, Vol. 54, No. 8 (October 1996), pp. 4963-4972. Also released as "On the power counting of loop diagrams in general relativity", arXiv:hep-th/9602121, February 22, 1996.
The higher terms in the quantum gravity Lagrangian will only become important (and indeed, can only be experimentally known) near the final singularity: see p. 928 of Tipler's 2005 Rep. Prog. Phys. paper.
The foregoing addresses your concerns about the countably infinite number of terms in the quantum gravity Lagrangian.
Moving on, you're improperly using "infinity" to mean "inconsistent" (e.g., "Infinity as an answer doesn't make sense in our universe"), yet infinity is mathematically consistent. Again, your rejection of actual infinities is due to philosophical assumptions--assumptions which empirical science and mathematics state are wrong.
Regarding God, Prof. Tipler doesn't put that in as an assumption: rather, that comes out of the known laws of physics as a conclusion. The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.
And given an infinite amount of computational resources, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial (per the Bekenstein Bound), requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.
By the way, your posts keeping getting labeled as spam... it's pretty difficult to take you seriously. Also, you're in an extreme minority in the physics community, you understand this, yes? Do you just search for anything negative about Tipler's theory so that you can try to defend a dead, non-accepted theory? Either way... here goes.
ReplyDelete"...this quantum gravity Lagrangian is just as renormalizable as quantum electrodynamics and the Standard Model of particle physics..."
Just because each term is renormalizable, doesn't mean the theory is. If there are infinite many terms, you can't renormalize the theory. That's the way it is. Infinite many parameters, infinite equations or experiments to solve for them! This quantum gravity theory is an attempt to mate GR with QFT, this failure hints to the physics community that GR has problems in this region. You ever heard of gravitomagnetism? It's nearly exactly the same as modern E&M, and agrees mostly with experiment, but it's wrong due to more recent experiments. GR fits with cosmological data, but the point of quantum gravity isn't solely to explain cosmology (Tipler's expertise), but to explain how gravity works at small scales (including at singularities of GR).
Tipler says, each term is renormalizable, so let's say it's the correct theory! Never does he give any conclusive proof that the theory is correct. Again, and still unshown, the entire theory is still unrenormalizable.
"Moving on, you're improperly using "infinity" to mean "inconsistent" (e.g., "Infinity as an answer doesn't make sense in our universe"), yet infinity is mathematically consistent."
Just because a theory is consistent mathematically, doesn't mean it's physically meaningful. String Theory (an area I've been doing a little work in... kinda) is consistent mathematically, and very beautiful, but that doesn't make it reality! String Theory isn't scientific as of yet, it's math! Tipler's theory is interesting, but it's just math! Infinity isn't physical!
I'm not denying that QG hasn't made some useful calculations, but it's still an outstanding issue.
"...mere 2^10^123 bits..."
Last time I checked, that was a huge number...
Seriously, you're making very very VERY bold statements of fact. You're lack of skepticism is very unscientific. Your faith in this one physicist is rather troubling to me. Where is the proof of his statements? Please, show me.
For my readers that are unable to follow the physics discussion, I direct you here:
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/01/05/the-varieties-of-crackpot-experience/
Hi, Dan. You state, "By the way, your posts keeping getting labeled as spam... it's pretty difficult to take you seriously." And yet you know that my posts aren't spam, because you have approved them. It seems that what you meant to say is that it's pretty difficult to take Google's spam software seriously. But thank you for telling me that, as I didn't know why they were being held up from being posted on your blog. Your blog is the only one, as far as I know, where I've experienced this issue. Or if it's not the software, then perhaps there's an employee at Google who doesn't like me. If so, or even if just the software, there might not be much I can do about it. I just posted about this issue on the Blogger Help forum, although I not sure how much help that will be.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the countably infinite number of terms in the quantum gravity Lagrangian: we will never have the *complete* quantum gravity theory, since within spacetime there will always be infinitely more coupling constants that must be determined by experiment. But as I pointed out in my previous post, the higher terms in the quantum gravity Lagrangian will only become important (and indeed, can only be experimentally known) near the final singularity: see p. 928 of Tipler's 2005 Rep. Prog. Phys. paper. And as Prof. John Donoghue and Dr. Tibor Torma have shown, this Lagrangian will not contradict experiment so long as the renormalized values of the infinite number of new coupling constants are adequately small.
This infinite divergence cannot be avoided. As Prof. 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 more on this, see:
John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "The Finite Action Principle; or, Singularities without Singularities", an entry in the Gravity Research Foundation's 1987 essay competition. Published as "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 (January 7, 1988), pp. 31–34.
Concerning your question as to why this is the correct quantum gravity theory: mathematically it must be the correct quantum gravity theory if General Relativity and quantum field theory--viz., the Standard Model, which includes Quantum Mechanics--are correct, since this is the Lagrangian which is forced in order to make them mutually consistent. For the details on that, see pp. 913-914 of Tipler's 2005 Rep. Prog. Phys. paper. These known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date.
Pertaining to the Omega Point cosmology, it is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. For the details on that, see pp. 925 and 904-905 of Tipler's 2005 Rep. Prog. Phys. paper.
Furthermore, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology, and of which is itself also required by the known laws of physics. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.
Regarding Dr. Sean Carroll's Discover Magazine blog post criticizing Prof. Tipler, it is exceedingly faulty. In reply No. 44 on that blog page, I address the errors of Carroll's post.
I'm fairly sure you are labeled as spam because I've seen your comments on numerous blogs (nearly any blog that dares say something negative about Tipler...), and you post nearly the same post, all referring to the "Science of Immortality", "The Science of Christianity", and "The structure of the universe from pure numbers". Pretty much the same stuff that you've posted here. You act like just because that one paper is peer reviewed, it has to be true, even when 99% of the physics research community disagrees.
ReplyDeleteYou state that there is one conclusion. Maybe under the assumption that all of our current laws are correct (which I think is a rather large assumption in the first place), there is only one - I don't know enough to say either way.
How can you call Tipler's TOE a true TOE if it still can't make predictions? The standard model isn't even proven yet! Has the Higgs been found? No. Yeah, considering the SM isn't even established, it's extremely bold to say we have a complete TOE.
Why is Tipler so sure ALL current laws are correct? Just because they all agree with CURRENT experiments, does not mean they are conclusively correct.
Neither String Theory (misnomer, it's not yet a true "theory"), nor LQG (loop quantum gravity) disagree with experiment. By your reasoning, we must conclude these are correct too. At least these theories solve the renormalization/divergence problems that FDW quantum gravity theory have. Current research points to gravity being a different beast than the other forces.
Furthermore, and this is important, you missed the entire purpose of my post! The point is - religion should not be considered science, and viewpoints, unless falsifiable have no business being taught as scientific theories. Is Tipler's theory falsifiable?
You can believe what you want James, that 9/11 was caused the the government, that science has proven the existence of God, and that whatever Tipler says is true. Please, stop trolling countless blogs, I have unmarked your posts as a courtesy, but you've gone FAR from the original topic of my post. How did you find my blog in the first place? Do you just search for anything about Tipler so that you can defend it?
As a physicist-in-training, I really must agree with Dan here, on multiple points.
ReplyDeleteQuickly taking a naive approach to physics philosophy in this paragraph (completely ignorant of the current "facts" of the universe produced from theory/experiment), I'll just mention that regardless of the theory (and indeed, mathematical framework), any connection to a god (or gods) requires a priori knowledge (or at least some sort of axiomatic description) of the properties of a god. (As a related aside, I would be surprised if any intelligent mind would disagree with the notion that things without properties exist at all; those with a lack of creativity notwithstanding).
To date, the (oftentimes contradictory) spectrum of such properties is tantamount to a desperate, unending struggle to reduce reality to a black/white (good/evil) worldview deeply rooted in the religious up-bringing of humanity, and comprehensible to even the most intellectually stagnant minds. Simply put, "what is god?", or even better, "what god?".
Clearly, Tipler associates the Big Crunch singularity with "God" (which I really can't imagine being anything other than "God" in a pantheistic sense), yet Tipler (and you) have yet to rigorously demonstrate why or how God has anything to do with such a state of the universe (other than mention a few common qualitative descriptions of the Abrahamic God, such as omnipresence, omniscience, etc). Oh yeah, isn't omniscience forbidden by quantum mechanical uncertainty to begin with? What about Goedel's incompleteness theorems? High-energy theory is one thing, but to connect it to the fairy tales..err, "holy" scriptures written thousands of years ago by goat herders is about as pathological as you can get, honestly.
It's a desperate attempt to validate your religious upbringing with theoretical physics, and it disgusts me to see science being misused as such. Did you realize that Tipler is a fellow of ISCID, a front for ID advocacy? Yeah...the hell if I'm going to take Tipler as a true scientist seriously when he clearly favors intelligent design over evolution. Who cares if his papers were peer-reviewed? Regardless of the validity of the Omega Point (which requires a closed-universe geometry), the moment he interprets the Big Crunch singularity as "God" is the point at which he becomes a pseudo-scientific crackpot. It's fine if you want to label the general relativistic predictions of such a collapse a form of pantheism, but to associate it in any way, shape, or form with God in the traditional sense (really, associating human sentience with the universe) is just religious nonsense, it's new age crap.
To continue that last post....
ReplyDeleteJames, when you state that to avoid Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science, how do you (or rather, Tipler) take into account the fact that current experimental evidence indicates an open, flat universe, hence one in which the Big Crunch scenario is avoided entirely? Near future experiments should have even greater precision in this matter, so until they indicate the possibility of the universe slowing its expansion and reversing to an effective singularity, I'm not going to pay any attention to Omega Point cosmology (with OR without introducing God in a rather ad hoc manner).
There are waaay too many assumptions in trying to pathologically create conditions for such a God, even by solely defining God in the Omega Point sense (which, if you do this btw, means that there exists no God outside, before, or "after", of this "singular" state, rendering Christianity, and other mainstream religions, completely obsolete).
It's not so much that I'm outright rejecting Tipler’s ideas (as of now), it's that I have a huge problem anytime anyone invokes "God" in science, when absolutely nothing about God is known. Besides, in order for the Omega Point to even be possible, not only do aforementioned conditions on the shape of the universe need to be satisfied, but Tipler also assumes that in order for his ideas to make sense, life must "engulf the entire universe and control it"... so if this doesn't happen, then his theory breaks down? But I can't predict that, so the only way I could take the ramifications of his "self-consistent" theory as fact is if I accept that everything he predicts will happen? That's just circular reasoning! It’s no different than trying to defend that the Bible is truth because it’s the word of God – why? Because the Bible says so!
Also, another thing...clearly you're just copying and pasting previous statements made in other forums discussing QG (e.g., http://12tuesday.com/review-once-before-time-by-martin-bojowald/). Do you really view Tipler's work as the infallible end-all to high-energy physics? Have you studied other, more commonly accepted alternative APPROACHES towards unifying QM and GR, like string theory, loop QG, or E8, and compared them? Do you even have a degree in physics? Especially since Tipler's ideas regarding this "Omega Point" really are considered fringe science (even pathological, due to his religious beliefs) in the mainstream community. Honestly, now, are you an ardent follower of Tipler for the sole reason you truly think his theory correctly describes gravitation at the quantum scale, or is it because you yourself are religious, and will stop at nothing to try and "prove" God, or at least Tipler's version of such a being or state of the universe?
Honestly, some people like Tipler (and some of the more fanatical devotees of movements like transhumanism who claim that anything is possible through of the power of consciousness) tend to have delusions of grandeur, and that's never a good thing. Sure, given enough time, a great many things are possible. Realistically, though, one should differentiate between that which is possible and that which is probable. Science should be about questioning, not stating that one KNOWS everything, that one KNOWS about God. In the end, god seems to me to be a substitute for humanity's ignorance and intense want for closure....regardless of the lengths one must go in order to convince themselves that their worldview is the right one. To me, Tipler is such a person - a pathological, yet intelligent, pseudoscientist.
Hi, Dan.
ReplyDeleteYou state, "you post nearly the same post, all referring to the 'Science of Immortality', 'The Science of Christianity', and 'The structure of the universe from pure numbers'." Actually, I've never cited those references that you refer to. I've never heard of any of them.
You go on to say, "You act like just because that one paper is peer reviewed, it has to be true, even when 99% of the physics research community disagrees." On the contrary, no professional physicist has ever expressed disagreement with Prof. Frank J. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper on the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). The Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory had previously been rejected by physicists due to their dislike of its infinite number of terms in the Lagrangian and because it is inconsistent without the proper set of boundary conditions, which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities. With the proper boundary conditions, the Lagrangian is term-by-term finite and renormalizable, but the same mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series to be infinite (i.e., the action in spacetime is finite, but the universe must begin and end in singularities).
Regarding the known laws of physics, viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics, they have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point TOE is to reject empirical science, since it is mathematically required in order for said physical laws to be mutually consistent.
You later write, "How can you call Tipler's TOE a true TOE if it still can't make predictions?" It would help you if you were to read the 2005 Rep. Prog. Phys. paper where Prof. Tipler gives the quantum gravity TOE. You said you've read it some time ago--but if so, apparently you don't recall much of anything about it, as even in the paper's abstract Tipler writes, "I propose several simple experiments to test the hypothesis [i.e, of this quantum gravity TOE]."
Interestingly, there has already been experimental confirmation of the aforementioned Omega Point TOE. In Tipler's April 2005 Rep. Prog. Phys. article, he gave a number of simple experiments to test the Omega Point TOE. As Tipler wrote in a recent preprint:
""
If the CBR is an SU(2)L gauge field combined with the Higgs vacuum, and not a complete electromagnetic field, then it cannot couple to right-handed electrons either. Thus we would expect CBR pseudo-photons to show substantially less Sunyaev-Zel-dovich effect that conventional theory would predict, as I pointed out in [11]. This has now been seen [9].
""
From Frank J. Tipler, "Identifying the Unidentified Auger UHE Cosmic Rays with the Help of the Standard Model of Particle Physics", arXiv:1007.4568, July 26, 2010.
In the above, citation No. 11 is Tipler's stated Rep. Prog. Phys. paper. Citation No. 9 is the below paper:
Richard Lieu, Jonathan P. D. Mittaz and Shuang-Nan Zhang, "The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect in a Sample of 31 Clusters: A Comparison between the X-Ray Predicted and WMAP Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature Decrement", Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 648, No. 1 (September 1, 2006), pp. 176-199. Also available at arXiv:astro-ph/0510160, October 6, 2005.
"Actually, I've never cited those references that you refer to. I've never heard of any of them."
ReplyDeleteYou know very well what I meant. Replace science with physics...
As for the rest. You've ignored everything I've said and just repeated yourself, AGAIN. Also, last time I checked, the Higgs hasn't been discovered! How can you say the entire theory is correct just because we expect it to be proven?
Also, the tests don't prove his theory at all, they simply don't contradict it.
Finally, you're STILL completely missing the entire point of this post.
So, as your professor for this class, I'm really pleased to see this level of discussion happening. Welcome to the blogging world, with its arguments, spam, and hot potatoes! You are now officially official.
ReplyDeleteAs for your original post, and not the ensuing Tipler-fest, about which I am not qualified to discuss, I would say that I think you are occupying a very fair middle ground. I am not an atheist, but do not feel offended by your comments in the least. And yet I'm a little bit interested in Aaron's take on things as well--your belief in a "pure" science as separate from the human realm strikes me as a bit faith-y, and some scientists certainly treat science as faith (you might check out the book The Climate Files for an example). In any case, a very good, provocative, thoughtful post. Well done.