6 Septembre 2009, 17:51pm
Publié par Fabien Besnard
Prof. Besnard, I accept your resignation, although I'm sad to see that you're so delicate. I was enjoying our discussion, and so I looked forward to reading your response.I live for vigorous--yet still polite--intellectual discussion. The main reason for this is because I'm looking for someone to provide evidence that my current Weltanschauung is incorrect. For me, being shown that I'm wrong on something is a truly delicious joy and pleasure. The reason being is because that then provides me an opportunity to improve myself and my thought-processes. (Indeed, it was that aforesaid procedure which brought me to conclude that the Omega Point cosmology is necessarily correct according to the known laws of physics, as I was a thoroughgoing atheist before then. Thus, I still search out positions which contradict this view, in the hope that they can show me some error of my ways.)So now I must continue my search.
M. Redford,in brief : you're wasting my time.
Hi, Prof. Besnard. In addition to your admittance that you are unfamiliar with the recent advancements in Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory, it also appears that you haven't researched his papers in the literature.You state that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory is unscientific, but you don't demonstrate that such is the case. For example, you state "I recall that Tipler insisted in his first book about the omega-point 'theory' on his prediction of the final collapse of the universe, saying that this prediction was the very reason why his theory was falsifiable, and thus, scientific." And as it turns out, the known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. To quote myself from my original post:""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 baryon number minus lepton number [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.""For the details on that, see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper, which in addition to giving testable predictions also details the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/extended Standard Model Theory of Everything required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics):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/0704.3276When Prof. Tipler wrote his book The Physics of Immortality (New York: Doubleday, 1994) he did not anticipate the acceleration of the universe due to the Standard Model baryogenesis mechanism which 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. This invalidates the second part of his Fifth Testable Prediction on p. 149 of the book (i.e., regarding the Hubble constant). This is the only testable prediction that Prof. Tipler got wrong, but then nobody else at that time understood the physics behind this issue, and it's not logically possible to know something before one knows it. Now we have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything describing and unifying all the forces in physics.In the same book Prof. Tipler did correctly predict the mass of the top quark, which contradicted the mass predicted by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN). Indeed, a paper Tipler sent to Physical Review Letters in 1992 correctly predicting the mass of the top quark was turned down with the explanation from one referee that it was "clearly refuted by experiment. The estimate from CERN indicates it is going to be 150." And so Europe's (and indeed the world's) most influential particle physicists were wrong and Prof. Tipler was right. I notice you didn't give him any credit for that correct prediction.I find it amazing, Prof. Besnard, that you would criticize Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory on the grounds of testable predictions. Aren't testable predictions rather quite passé in the field of physics today? What with string theory and all, which has no experimental support whatsoever; makes no testable predictions; and violates the known laws of physics (e.g., general relativity), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Even Prof. Stephen Hawking has come on board with string theory in his paper that attempts to solve the black hole information issue without the universe ending by collapse in finite proper time.Contrast that ad libitum approach to doing physics with that of Prof. Tipler, who bases his Omega Point Theory and the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/extended Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) strictly on the known laws of physics, and of which actually makes testable predictions (and whereof the top quark mass prediction turned out to be correct at a time when the world's most influential particle physicists were predicting it was going to be different); and that of 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). They both believe we have to take the known laws of physics seriously as true explanations of how the world works, unless said physics are experimentally, or otherwise, refuted.One requirement for any theory to be valid is that it be logically consistent. Prof. Tipler demonstrates in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper (and in a number of his other papers published in the literature) that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are unavoidably violated unless the universe collapses into the Omega Point. This constitutes a massive body of empirical evidence for the Omega Point Theory's correctness.Regarding my statements in response to your comments on life vis-à-vis the Turing Test, I therein gave an apodictic derivation of the veridicality of the Turing Test in the sense that anyone who would deny the validity of the Turing Test in demonstrating sapience and also life (i.e., the subset of life that is sapient) would be acting contradictorily. Hence why I said "by definition," i.e., in the sense that one cannot coherently deny the efficacy of the Turing Test in demonstrating sapience and life, any more than one can coherently argue that they cannot argue.The unalterable reason for this is because what a person means when they say that another human is sapient (and hence alive) is that said other behaves in a manner that the person recognizes as human-level intelligence. The foregoing sentence is indeed a tautology, thus its truth is not coherently deniable. Hence, if man-made computers can one day consistently make us think that they are sapient (i.e., to the same level of consistency that humans are able to do so), then they would be sapient and so also alive by the same criteria we apply when speaking of other humans' sapience.A way of summing up this aspect of the matter is that the Turing Test is nothing new: it's been around as long a mankind has been around; we apply it every day. For our purposes here the tautology is fine because we're not trying here to define why it is that we think other humans are sapient--the fact is that we do, and so that's a given--and so indeed this tautology is desirable as it keeps things very simple and it avoids unnecessary complications that are irrelevant to the issue of applying the same criteria of sapience which we apply to other humans to man-made computers, or for that matter to extraterrestrial intelligence if an alien species were to come down in spacecraft to greet us.
Dear M. Redford,Damn, you're quick to react !I assume you can read french, since you've read my article, but cannot write it. Maybe your incomplete knowledge of french explains why you misunderstood my article so much.I recall that Tipler insisted in his first book about the omega-point "theory" on his prediction of the final collapse of the universe, saying that this prediction was the very reason why his theory was falsifiable, and thus, scientific. On the other, in my article, I take the quite opposite view, arguing that his theory isn't scientific, by any standard. I even say that Tipler could easily accomodate any new data by modifying his theory (so I'm not surprised by the "new developments" you announce to me), and that the problem is not with predictions but with basic scientific methodology.Concernig Turing test, you accuse me of being contradictory, but it seems that you don't recognize a tautology. This does not put you in good position to give lessons about contradictions. So, I shall repeat what I said in the article : Turing's test is... a test, precisely, not a definition of intelligence, since you must first have one sample at hand to recognize another.Sincerly yours.
Continued from my previous post:
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 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.
Abonnez-vous pour être averti des nouveaux articles publiés.