Orwellian Nightmare: Science Is Whatever ‘the Party’ Says It Is

Excellent piece.

The lack of basis in reality is one of feminists biggest flaws and weaknesses.

Very nice article. 2+2 = 4 …. unless it’s contrary to what an elite WANT it to be.

Can you imagine someone from, say, even just 20 years ago, being here today and seeing what is being done to the U.S. and to our world by the political leaders?

Steven

2 + 2 = 4, by definition. It’s application in the real world depends on correspondence between a particular set of conditions and the meaning of the symbols. Presuming proper correspondence, such applications represent a small part of a greater truth – a physical description of a part of the world we live in, as we perceive it.

Science is limited. That’s true, but on the other hand it doesn’t mean that any whacko that comes along gets to fill the gaps with whatever crap comes to their mind. For example, those things that turn out to be true from folk medicine from around the world become science. Things that are not true don’t.

On the other hand, if you want to be a real scientists (as your philosophy), it is best to try to include limits of science in your understanding – both current science and science generally. How then, do you fill the gaps?

I’ve had the same experience in a philosophy cafe. I had explained many ways to know what ‘knowledge was’ and throughout the whole session, a professor of a university just kept shouting out and arguing that 2+2 does not have to equal 4 and that I had to prove it. He walked out because I ignored his demand. I worked out that all numbers are co-ordinates of space and since space does not change, at least in my definition of exitential nothingness, then co-ordinates like 2+2=4 must be aligned correctly, and whatever language or fonts we use for 2 and 4 and plus and equals, then 2+2 must equal 4. But the psychology of ‘future paths’ are directed by principles of men often underlining scientific, philosophical, religious and mathematical beliefs. Some are barbarians acting as sages believing that they will one day be in authority of technological state of George Orwells 1984. Maybe they are already…

Interesting. I would like another account of this unnamed panel discussion, a transcript, a video or anything to check Tipler’s version of events. Where was the discussion? Who was on the panel? The lack of any citation makes me doubt the veracity of this account. At least some of the time and effort spent on the Orwellian digression could have been spent naming names.

The complete lack of citation leads me to believe the writer is partly engaging in fantasy, or just has no balls.

Mike S: “What bothers me is the need for athiests, and gays for that matter, to get in my face about their beliefs/lifestyle, as if I need to hear it and if I don’t agree with it, I’m either less intelligent than they are or a bad person.”

Actually, as an atheist (and by now spelling it correctly is a courtesy I have ceased to expect) I don’t have a need to get in anyone’s face.
The idea of an atheist “getting on someone’s face” has it backwards, like claiming someone repeatedly struck your fist with their nose.

I’m sure athiests don’t actually get in your face either. What they are probably doing is responding in kind to your religious assertions and you don’t like it. From experience what usually happens is that a theist makes some completely unsubstantiated assertion — like an “uncaused first cause” — or reveals the suspicious correlation between the will of their god and their preexisting biases — and when called on it, gets all offended and accuses the non-believer of “getting in their face”. The alternative to “getting in their face” would be for rational people to ceding the field to any and all religious pronouncements regardless of how dubious.

It’s would be a cushy life if you can badger people into silence with your hair-trigger offense, but you shouldn’t expect it. If you say something stupid, even stupidity dressed up as religion, expect to be called stupid. Or just cry that the bad atheists who have to put up with religious people’s shit on a daily basis are oppressing you.

This is one of the silliest and poorest articles I have ever read on MND on this topic.

First, the author arbitrarily defines “God” as being the singularity of the big bang … well that’s convenient … why not just say “God” is whoever is playing 3rd base for the Yankees on any given day, or better yet that “God” is Obama … that would be even more convenient and would convert a lot of libtards.

Second, relativity is not a special case of classical mechanics … its Albert Einstein’s description of the geometry of the universe … at odds with newtonian physics.

Third, the author writes:

“what is this “singularity”? Looking at its properties, one sees that it is the uncaused first cause … ”

Well hallelujah! At least he understands the properties and nature of the singularity of the big bang. No other respectable physicist anywhere/anytime has gone beyond speculation and conjecture regarding said properties!

Fourth, does 2 + 4 always equal 4?

Well maybe.

But, I’m not so sure anymore.

Why?

Quantum Mechanics (the ‘science’ the author uses to make ‘his’ case) says this may not be ‘the’ case.

In 1964 J.S. Bell published his theorem known as Bell’s inequality. In 1975 Stapp called Bell’s Theorem “the most profound discovery of science.” Note that he says science, not physics. I agree with him.

Bell’s Inequality, under all known mathematics and principles of logic should never be violated … EVER … just like 2+2=4.

However, Quantum mechanics predicts that it will be violated … and repeated experiments under the strictest of controls have shown that in the subatomic realm Bell’s Inequality is indeed violated all the time.

I’m sure the casual reader here does not understand the implications of this violation … but simply put this mean that one of the following must be the case:

1. Logic (mathematics) is not valid.

2. There is no underlying reality apart from its observation.

3. Faster than light communication (which would violate relativity … the other theory the author uses to ‘prove’ his case)

While relativity and QM may indeed suggest philosophically the existence of a “God” … the author’s proof presented in this article is terribly lacking.

The state of science these days is surely in ill repute … no argument here. But, the proof the author posits here detracts from his credibility and the credibility of his critique of the global warming faux science.

spectre, thats impressive but irrelevant.

I agree on the wiggle room, and I know the things of which you speak. Frankly though, Im not existentially convinced by mathmatical prrofs anyway….lets see, because one cannot divide by zero OR/AND because we cannot have infinite mass we cannot exceed lights speed? Im not convinced. yes I know thats tangential to the point…hold your ammo.

You went to great lengths as the “heady” folks do, to avoid the pressing question posited in the first paragraph….the cause without a cause. You cast a bunch of uncertainly by, well, er, casting a bunch of uncertainty. May as well toss in a pinch of Heisenberg, something about the now pedestrian concept of the stupid cat in a box, and maybe invoke LaPlace’s demon for good measure….NOW DUDE we are talkin uncertainty stuff!!!! Or, does it asymptotically approach unknowable?

Sheesh, when astrophysicists can, when doing their nasty (balancing the two sides of an equation as proof), see an inequality and fix it by inserting a “constant”…or worse, creating from whole cloth a new “thing”…..(dark matter for example) to balance said equation, then claim that the math led them to DISCOVER the constant of the dark matter……and thats cool, but you cannot accept the childlike concept that something cannot come from literally nothing……

its not unlike Morgan Freeman told Nicholson in The Bucket List……”maybe your head is in the way”

It is interesting to note in relation to article that George Orwell named the author of the Theory and Practice To Oligarchical Collectivism (The book Winston Smith reads in 1984) as Emmanuel which means God is with. Emmanuel Goldstein, Goldstein means gold rock basically. Gold is symbolic.
I just read The Complete Patriot’s Guide to Oligarchical Collectivism: Its Theory and Practice. This article relates to ideas in it.

I’m sorry that Spectre does not approve of Professor Tipler’s POV. I have addressed this topic before, including this post: Intelligent Design, The Omega Point Theory, and the Elephant in the Room, which was published on MND about 3 years ago.

In brief, professor Tipler — a protege of famed American physicist John Wheeler — is a leading mathematical physicist in his own right, having co-authored a popular college textbook in the 1980s: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, published by Oxford University Press. Since then, Tipler has been published widely in peer reviewed journals ( http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Tipler/0/1/0/all/0/1?per_page=100 ). His Omega Point Theory establishing the existence of a singularly intelligent, omniscient and omnipresent God has been acknowledged by leading scientists including Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and David Deutsch. Of course it’s absolutely no surprise that establishment scientists don’t agree with his conclusion that God is inevitable — but there’s no doubt that Tipler has discovered a model that could generate a Supreme Computational Intelligence (aka “God”) under the right conditions.

Let’s quote Oxford physicist David Deutsch (winner of the Paul Dirac award for creating the world’s first quantum computer) from chapter 14 of his seminal book, The Fabric of Reality:

“The key discovery in the omega-point theory is that of a class of cosmological models in which, though the universe is finite in both space and time, the memory capacity, the number of possible computational steps and the effective energy supply are all unlimited. This apparent impossibility can happen because of the extreme violence of the final moments of the universe’s Big Crunch collapse.” (source)

I think the probability that we live in a multiverse is quite high. If it’s true, then an almost infinite number of universes must exist, and we are only living through the history of one of them. Whether our universe ends in a heat death or a big crunch is therefore immaterial: in the multiverse, there is room for universes that expand infinitely, and universes that collapse to a Big Crunch. It is my contention (as I said in my 2007 article) that the existence of the Multiverse guarantees the emergence of the Omega Point, because the collapse that Tipler describes in his Omega Point only needs to happen once for God to become real across the entirety of the Multiverse. And as you say, The Causal Order Postulate was disproven by Bell’s experiments. Therefore it is not counter-intuitive to say that God could have an identifiable beginning point in Time and Space, or that He could use Time and Space to Create Himself.

Wow! Interesting and deep topic with nary an agreement in a room with more than one person! The smaller topic–that of Truth as illusion being promulgated in our centers of lower learning–is heartbreaking. I know, I know…it’s supposed to be liberating–just like playing softball with no score or defining “gender” to be whichever side you woke up on the bed. Of course, it all leads to the bigger topic–God. (In fact, I can’t see how any topic does not lead to a discussion of God.)

If I may interject my interpretation of the author’s definition of God–it’s not as arbitrary as it appears in print. In fact, almost anything you define God to be can appear to be prima facie silly. Is God a cosmic “being” of some fantastic material and proportion who goes **zip** >>zap<< !!SCORE!! from time to time depending on which football team prays the best? Well, that's the straw-man argument many atheists use for a good laugh. Is God Love? Well, what's love, cause that teacher-student thing in the paper could be mistaken for it. Is God Jesus the Christ in the flesh? Then insofar as the flesh ain't around, God is dead I'm afraid. And calling God the "first mover" merits a Q.E.D. by definition but seems to offer no enlightenment.

I'm afraid trying to box God up isn't going to work (by which I do not mean to impugns anyone's attempt to do so here, since it is a necessary human endeavor). God is not an equation or an immutable set of laws or some universal theory of everything. These are all intersting but in the end just metaphors and pointers for that which cannot be named (but most certainly can be experienced). I think the author's definition is as good as many others I have heard (God is love, God is the Creator). Mike L's musings above are universal, and they are precisely what leads to this definition. This IS (or I AM).

Ok, so that convinces no-one–until you probe God's character and attributes? Does God love? Well, do you think the breath, the food, the song, the mirth, the beauty you enjoy daily are guaranteed? Use your imagination to peer down into hell to recognize that it could all be taken in a flash. You are most certainly loved by God, and it is palpable. Or, on a more positive note, the next time you are struggling to survive (a daily affair) see whether your prayer is answered. As everyone knows, "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right."

Regarding the experience that he and his fellow climber had as documented in the movie, Touching the Void, much has been made of Joe Simpson's atheism, and how it helped him survive. (Paraphrasing) “I knew that there was no God who would help me–this made me all the more determined to survive on my own.” HELLO, JOE! You’re talking to God when you say that. It’s called prayer!

I’ve gotten a bit off topic–sorry, too much coffee and a lot of intelligent and deep posters here, so I couldn’t help it.

Mike, your discussions and artilces are always mind-expanding. I have only briefly looked at Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point Theory (Wikipedia article–forgive me!), but I think it is inevitable that God “pokes his head up” wherever we choose to look whether that be Omega Point Theories, TOEs, or a dandelion.

Still, regardless how much “evidence” of God is uncovered, we are always free to look and say “I do not see.” A liberating insight (for me!) that finally freed me from having to lock everything down (including 2+2=4) with a finitistic, absoultely error free (HA HA!!) mathematical proof.

“Whether you think you can (believe) or can’t (don’t believe)–you’re correct!”

Likewise for you, Professor! Keep opening the closed mind that academia has regrettably become!

A fun read along these lines is “The Dilbert Future” by Scott Adams. Much of the book is setting up for Chap. 14 (I beleive), where the multiverse, directing one’s path through the multiverse, and similar issues are explored. Lots of funny cartoons, too.

@ Mike LaSalle

You wrote:

“His Omega Point Theory establishing the existence of a singularly intelligent, omniscient and omnipresent God has been acknowledged by all the leading cosmologists from Stephen Hawking to David Deutsche”

Can I have a cite where Hawking has “acknowleged” Omega Point Theory? By “acknowledged” you are implying acceptance, above Hawking merely being aware of OPT being out there in the market of ideas along with Flat Earthers and people who cut off their balls and commit suicide to join the UFO in the tail of Halley’s Comet.

If you don’t mean that Hawking accepts it, then you are just playing word games geared at people who know little about the subject.

I am a certifiably non-religious man.

I thought the article was an excellent piece that points to the crippling orthodoxy that hard science is increasingly demonstrating. Academic orthodoxies become every bit as antithetical to intellectual progress as religious ones.

I am by no means an expert on physics, but I do recall reading that mathematics adequately explains the big bang theory back to the point just after the singularity, but that it falls apart at that point.

I don’t see how anyone with so little certainty about the nature and origin of the universe can be so quick to rule out in the possibility of a designing intelligence.

@Paul Elam

You are assuming that the events described actually happened. Again, I will point out that Tipler fails to mention where this panel was, when it took place, who was on it and the names of the radical epistemic relativists he is writing about.

Sorry, until we get that information, I’m calling bullsh*t. Nothing personal. It’s a standard I would apply to anyone. Failing to include any information to verify this account — much less give a chance for those present to refute it — is, at best, the work of someone who is simply lazy. At worst, it’s the calling card of someone just making sh*t up.

I mean, is it so much to ask for? And one would think that people so on edge about orthodoxy and able to make reference to Orwell would notice this sort of thing. The fact that many accept this on face value, I think, reveals who the dogmatists really are.

You wrote, of the “crippling orthodoxy that hard science is increasingly demonstrating”. Would you care to cite some examples of this so we can get an idea of what you are talking about?

Mykeru -

Read my words again:

Of course it’s absolutely no surprise that establishment scientists don’t agree with his conclusion…

Contrary to your claim, the text shows that I did not “imply acceptance” of OPT on the part of Hawking or Deutsch. My point was that Tipler is a PEER of Hawking and Deutsch, and that –while they may not agree with Tipler’s CONCLUSION, his peers certainly acknowledge that OPT is an actual theory and not a “flat earth” figment as you claim.

Read Deutsch again:

“The key discovery in the omega-point theory is that of a class of cosmological models in which, though the universe is finite in both space and time, the memory capacity, the number of possible computational steps and the effective energy supply are all unlimited. This apparent impossibility can happen because of the extreme violence of the final moments of the universe’s Big Crunch collapse.”

Hawking has referenced Tipler in some of his published papers regarding the Tipler cylinder

# ^ Hawking, Stephen (2002). The Future of Spacetime. W. W. Norton. pp. 96. ISBN 0-393-02022-3.
# ^ Hawking, Stephen (1992). “Chronology protection conjecture”. Physical Review D 46: 603–611. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.603. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v46/p603.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipler_cylinder

Again, Tipler, Hawking, Deutsch are all PEERS. If the celebrities of cosmology and quantum physics are his PEERS, then your claim that Tipler is a “flat-earther” is thus exposed as the rhetoric of ignorance and reaction.

Out of 50 articles, Tipler’s … was selected as “[one of] the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005. Articles were selected [...] 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.” source

Please .. this article is so hypocritical I can’t stop laughing.

The author profers his suppositions and conjecture as proof of the existence of God. This is not science this is speculation and philosophy.

Full stop!

Doesn’t matter who his “peers” are or aren’t.

As a “scientist” he should know better.

And Mike … its not that I don’t ‘approve” of Tipler’s ‘point of view’ … what I don’t approve of is the use of his ‘point of view’ as proof of “God”.

He can say he believes in his conclusion … but, he has not proven the existence of God and is claiming he has.

Now, his point of view is all fine and dandy and if that was all he was expressing I would never have responded to his article.

However, and this is the crux of the matter …

… he presents his scientific non-proof as proof in the SAME article he lambasts the gloal warming bullshit proofs.

It’s hypocrital to bash the global warming BS science … while at the same time offering up total non-proof of the existence of God. He lambasts the global warming horde for their failure to follow the scientific method … while a few paragraphs prior does the same thing.

Tipler’s articles are most wonderful and thought provoking … makes for great discussions at the coffee shop … but he still hasn’t proved the existence of “God” .. except for his convenient and poorass definition i.e. “the uncaused first cause” (the singularity).

Because he can’t define a cause to the big bang … it MUST be GOD himself.

Just like lightning, eclipses etc. in days of yore. If you can’t find a ready explanation … “it’s God”.

That’s religion not science.

He’s positing a theory not a scientific proof.

That’s OK in and of itself … but it’s quite hypocritical to bash the Global Warmers” for their sorry assed scientific method when in the same breath he posits his own beliefs, points of view, speculations as “Proof”.

Mike, for the record I apologize if my criticisms seemed overly harsh and/or insulting.

You know full well from our previously ‘conversations’ that I dig this stuff and I myself entertain and subscribe to the idea of intelligent design.

The science itself does indeed present indicia and evidence that there is ‘someone’ behind the curtain.

But, indicia and evidence is waaay short of proof.

And, to present these theories and speculation as proof … while at the same time excoriating the GW ‘science’ just seemed hypocritical and over the top.

BTW … the repeatedly demonstrated violations to Bell’s inequailty I referenced above should have raised more than an eyebrow here … as these proven demonstrations ADD to Tipler’s POV of a universal intelligence … nothwithstanding the fact that violations of Bell’s inequality are tantamount to 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4!

It has been stated a jillion times, and is a fundamental feature of QM that the observation of a particle alters/influences the particle.

A common, but erroneous IMO, explanation in QM regarding entangled pairs is that the observation of the spin one of the particles in an entagled pair influences (or causes) the other to spin in the opposite direction.

E.g. the observance and measurement of the spin along the ‘x’ axis of particle *a* instantaneously causes the spin of particle *b* a billion miles away.

Applying special relativity to this situation one can find a reference frame whereby the spin of particle *b* was observed first … and hence THAT OBSERVATION was the cause of the spin of particle *a*.

So we have one observer that claims that *a* was measured first and hence influenced *b* …. and another observer who for him the measurement of *b* actually occured first and hence influenced *a*!

Both and neither are the cause of each other!

That should give you something to chew on for a while.

Therefore, of the three conclusions I offered earlier to explain violations of Bell’s inequality … no 2 … there is no reality apart from its observation … becomes more and more plausible.

This fits in well to intelligent design … and removes the need for multiverses in your own theory.

Regarding any and all “proofs” of God–there is no such thing. You either believe or you don’t. So “evidence” is all you’re ever going to get–which is almost always mistaken for evidence pointing to the “existence” of some “thing” at which God laughs quite heartily.

This exactly accords with “no reality apart from observation.” When you believe in God, God exists. When you don’t, God doesn’t. This is not sophomoric fluff. A consequence of the latter combined with the fact that nature abhors a vacuum is that hell takes His place. This is all very real and palpable and experienced by everyone everyday if they’d only bother to look.

It is the height of absurdity to believe that any mathematical/physical/medical/chemical theorem or theroy proves or disproves the existence of God. These are all very interesting and provocative, but they offer no more evidence of God than Bach’s Brandenburg #4 or the universe within a grain of sand.

From wikipedia, with sources…

Tipler has published his Omega Point Theory in a number of peer-reviewed scientific journals since 1986.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The first book wherein the Omega Point Theory was described was 1986′s The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, written by astrophysicist John D. Barrow and Tipler.[11] The first book solely concentrating on the Omega Point Theory was Tipler’s The Physics of Immortality in 1994.[12]

Physicist David Deutsch in his 1997 book The Fabric of Reality defends the physics of Tipler’s Omega Point Theory in Chapter 14: “The Ends of the Universe” (of which chapter concentrates mainly on the Omega Point Theory):[13]

I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory of the future of spacetime until and unless it is experimentally (or otherwise) refuted. (Experimental refutation is possible because the existence of an omega point in our future places certain constraints on the condition of the universe today.)

Deutsch later comments within a concluding paragraph of the same chapter regarding the synthesis of his “four strands” of fundamental reality, which includes the strengthened version of mathematician Alan Turing’s theory of universal computation in the form of the Omega Point Theory:

It seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the ‘natural’ view to hold. It is the conservative view, the one that does not propose any startling change in our best fundamental explanations. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing view, the one against which proposed innovations are judged. That is the role I am advocating for it. I am not hoping to create a new orthodoxy; far from it. As I have said, I think it is time to move on. But we can move to better theories only if we take our best existing theories seriously, as explanations of the world.

End excerpt

Yes, the theory is audacious. Many people will be offended by the very idea that a human being could logically prove the existence of God. But audacity and personal offense are not drivers here. To me, this is about the search for truth and the quest for a way out of the postmodernist maze within which the search for the Real is considered an exercise in futility (if not a thought crime). That’s why Baudrillard quotes Ecclesiastes:

The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth–it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.

Mike, I know you’re very fond of Omega Point, and because you’ve mentioned it quite a number of times on this site I’m going to delve a little deeper into it. I have nothing against examining the beauty of God’s creation and using all senses and extra-senses available to understand Him (Her? It?). I am intrigued by the comment above that “…this is the ‘natural’ view to hold…” because I am a big believer in the non-multiplication of entities.

Just, from my experience, you can show people to themselves in a mirror and they still claim they don’t exist. I think one has an epiphany about the existence of God (perhaps egged on by all the arguments and theories and reasons and descriptions to which he’s ever been exposed)–but not by dint of the last line preceding Q.E.D. in a proof. Nonetheless, yah never know!

You mention above that “I’m no scientist or philosopher…” Well, I don’t know whether you wear a white coat or glasses on the tip of your nose, but I know deep, considered, and hearfelt thought when I hear it.

This article is vain, stupid, and embarrassing. I understand that this is your blog, but your arrogant self-righteousness tarnishes the Men’s Rights cause.

MRA is a response to feminism, which is itself a manifest part of postmodernism.

Nothing is true. All is Referent with no Intelligent Cause or coherent Inclination.

That’s postmodernism. You must accept your Determined role as a Plastic Bag in the Swirling Wind, and that is why Baudrillard points up Ecclesiastes as literary proof that Free Will does not exist.

That’s Ideology.

I don’t respect ideology over reason. I don’t respect Determinism. Like Neo, I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my life.

Morpheus: I imagine that right now, you’re feeling a bit like Alice. Hmm? Tumbling down the rabbit hole?
Neo: You could say that.
Morpheus: I see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, that’s not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo?
Neo: No.
Morpheus: Why not?
Neo: Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my life.
Morpheus: I know *exactly* what you mean.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/quotes

Mike LaSalle;

Thank you for the additional information and orientation. I’ve seen your articles on the topic before, but never quite knew what to make of it. I think I might be catching on now – just a bit at least. Keep it up.

At a debate at Caltech, Sunday, June 3, 2007 at 2:00 pm, between Dr. Frank Tipler and Dr. Lawrence Krauss, (Professor of Physics and Astronomy and Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University) called “Can Physics Prove God & Christianity?” Dr. Krauss, an expert on cosmology, quantum mechanics, and general relativity, and being quite familiar with Tipler’s arguments, provided a cogent response and arguement that the scientific evidence from these fields, upon which Tipler rests his case, do not confirm the central tenets of Christianity or any other religion, and that attempts to employ science in the service of religion are doomed to failure. Science and religion, Krauss believes, are best kept separate, and that the tools of science that search for naturalistic explanations cannot be used to prove the supernatural.

Tipler spoke first and Krauss rebutted, but I think one of the most important points brought up was the first thing Krauss mentioned in his rebuttal – he cited this quote:

“When any scientist rejects the implications of physical law, for any reason other than experiment, then he ceases to be a scientist. He becomes a philosopher, practicing a discipline in which he has no special expertise. When he rejects the implications of physical law without experimental warrant, he is no longer speaking as a scientist; he is speaking as a layman, with no more authority that the average person in the street.”

“Fortunately, when a scientist leaves the discipline in which his expertise rests for philosophy, he generally retains his scientific habits of honesty. If pressed, he will tell you that he is no longer speaking as a scientist but as a philosopher. Just ask him what the experimental evidence is for his claim, any claim. He will generally tell you that there is none. Any scientist can cite at length the experimental evidence for a true scientific claim.”

That quote, is actually by Tipler and Krauss was using it to point out the reason that people like Tipler are so dangerous right now. He’s making claims and statements that have no basis in science, and no basis in fact, yet because he himself in a scientist presents them as such and people will assume there is some factual basis for it all. And there isn’t. Tipler’s entire argument was basically the old “I can prove there is a god because the bible says there is, so it must be true” only with bigger and grander terminology being thrown around. This argument only holds water if you believe the bible is factual and not a work of fiction. You can’t cite fiction as evidence to prove something, and that’s essentually what Tipler is doing with his entire argument. Every thing he has to say hinges on one key point, which he believes to be true, yet is unprovable via science and experiment.

As to Tipler’s new book, Dr. Krauss has stated:

“By the time I was halfway through Frank Tipler’s new book I scanned the table of contents and was disappointed to find there would be no explanation of the recently reported miraculous appearance of Mother Teresa’s image on a cheese Danish in Nashville. That was unusual, given that Tipler goes out of his way to provide convoluted physics justifications for key Christian miracles, including the image of Jesus on the Shroud of Turin, long debunked as a 14th-century forgery by many experts. Moreover, whenever conventional physics doesn’t provide a sufficient explanation for the phenomenon of interest, Tipler re-invents it.”

“As a collection of half-truths and exaggerations, I was first tempted to describe Tipler’s new book as nonsense, but I soon realized that that would be unfair to the concept of nonsense. These descriptions are far more dangerous than nonsense, because Tipler’s reasonable descriptions of various aspects of modern physics, combined with his respectable research pedigree, give the distinct illusion that he is honestly describing what the laws of physics imply. He is not. This book provides an object lesson in the dangers of pushing science beyond its domain of validity, and using various scientific approximations as if they are completely valid in all contexts.”

I think I’ll stick with that newer prophet, Adam on Mythbusters:
“Everything that we can’t explain is God.”

Now, can anyone explain what any of this has to do with men’s issues?

Krauses criticisms then gets better:

In a review by the highly esteemed Dr. Lawrence Krause in “New Scientist” (subscription required) …

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426032.000-ithe-physics-of-christianityi-by-frank-tipler.html

Dr. Krause writes:

“For example, he (Tipler) argues that the resurrection of Jesus occurred when the atoms in his body spontaneously decayed into neutrinos and antineutrinos, which later converted back into atoms to reconstitute him. Here Tipler invokes the fact that within the standard model of particle physics the decay of protons and neutrons is possible, although he recognises that such decay would likely take 50 to 100 orders of magnitude longer than the current age of the universe: thus, the probability of such an occurrence is essentially zero. However, using a strange “Christian” version of the anthropic principle, a subject he once co-authored a book about, he then claims that without Jesus’s resurrection, our universe could not exist – therefore, when one convolves this requirement with the almost, but not exactly zero, a priori probability, the net result is a near certainty.”

Personally, I wonder if Dr. Tipler has an agenda other than the search for truth.

Learning that 2 + 2 = 4 is not necessarily true was at first liberating.

Now I could go back and claim all those answers I gave on math exams that the instructor marked wrong might actually be right. Yes! My grades would go up.

But then I looked at the other side of the coin.

All those answers the instructor marked right might actually be wrong. In which case, my grades would actually go down.

What this does make clear is my wisdom in choosing not to go into mathematics as a career.

Of course it’s easy to find scientists who will have a visceral negative reaction to Tipler’s ideas. But what about the Deutsch? Poor David Deutsch is that rarest of things — an honest atheist.

David Deutsch is a physicist at Oxford University. He is the 1998 winner of Paul Dirac award for being the “first person to formulate a specifically quantum computational algorithm, and is a proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.” He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, and his book The Fabric of Reality was “shortlisted for the Rhone-Poulenc science book award in 1998″.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deutsch

Let’s review again the words of David Deutsch from his 1998 book:

I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory of the future of spacetime until and unless it is experimentally (or otherwise) refuted.

….It seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the ‘natural’ view to hold. It is the conservative view, the one that does not propose any startling change in our best fundamental explanations. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing view, the one against which proposed innovations are judged. That is the role I am advocating for it. I am not hoping to create a new orthodoxy; far from it. As I have said, I think it is time to move on. But we can move to better theories only if we take our best existing theories seriously, as explanations of the world.

These are very strong words from a leading scientist in support of the OPT. You can pull deuces out of the deck all day long, but at the end of the day, my Full House beats your Two Pair.

“my Full House beats your Two Pair.”

Are we playing cards Mike?

Sure … but in a moment.

Yeah, I get it … instead of responding to the arguments presented … you simply name drop and basically state ‘science IS whatever Deutsch says it is’.

Where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah … the title to this Article!

“Orwellian Nightmare: Science Is Whatever ‘the Party’ Says It Is”

Beyond your faux pas … let’s revisit what Deutsch actually said.

He said:

“I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory … it seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the ‘natural’ view to hold”

Sorry Charlie … but “prevailing theory” and “natural” view is light years from proclaiming that Tipler has proven his theory much less the existence of God. He likes the theory but doesn’t proclaim it gospel as you do.

I get it Mike … Tipler is the protege under Wheeler (along with Feynman) peer of Deutsch, cousin of Newton, and mentor to Einstein.

I really do … I respect Tipler … he’s truly one of God’s gifts to mankind. But, he’s human … and fallible.

OK … now let’s play cards!

Deutsch … Deutsch … Deutsch.

I’ve got news for you … Dr. Krause is no slouch … he’s totally highly respect and accomplished. He’s an renowned expert in the matters that Tipler writes about.

But, it gets worse …

I didn’t want to say it before because I didn’t want to disparage Dr. Tipler … but at this time most of the physics community holds Tipler as non-reputable … they believe he’s gone over the deep end.

They think he’s a NUT Mike!

So while you hold may hold a full house … I hold the rest of the deck.

Thanks for playing.

Now, if you wish to move past name dropping and citing awards and the like … and move on to the business of discussing actual science … and when appropriate, or if pressed, concede that he is no longer speaking as a scientist but as a philosopher … then we’re on the same page.

It’s ironic given the title to this article that we’re having this conversation. Science is to be closely scrutinized by the scientific method. It ain’t gospel cuz Deutsch nods in approval.

We’re suppose to search for truth here …

… and not simply be True Believers.

@Martian,

Another silly definition by Adam?

I’ll take a stab at your question: everything. Any rights that anyone enjoys are the inalienable rights given by God. And while the differences in the sexes make certain issues more relevant to one or the other, there really is no such thing as Men’s Rights–or Women’s Rights or Children’s Rights or Black’s Rights or Gay Rights, etc. The obsession of our legally infested world of classifying everything into protected species of any and all stripes is a ruinous path which will do nothing but ensure everyone’s slavery.

This is to say nothing of the need to focuse on re-establishing justice for men–that’s an issue of extraordinary importance. But the idea that issues and rights are little boxes of legalistic syntax (which is exactly what many believe them to be, among MRA’s as surely as elsewhere)–is willful slavery to whomever proclaims to be the guardian of those “gifts”–typically called government.

God is at the absolute root of any and all rights and liberties men or women can and should enjoy. The attempt to define God as this or that, with the vapid straw-man circularity of the result (“God is everything that we can’t explain”) is a tall barrier to understanding God, and therefore to understanding liberty, men’s or otherwise.

You will never have any liberty until you recognize God–and doing so has little to do with being baptized or even uttering the words “I believe.”

“move on to the business of discussing actual science … and when appropriate, or if pressed, concede that he is no longer speaking as a scientist but as a philosopher … then we’re on the same page.”

I have already admitted that I am not a scientist. Therefore I speak as a layman. Therefore I cannot defend Tipler’s science, but can only support it in context.

I have a moldy copy of the Physics of Immortality which I bought at the bookstore in 1994. It’s a first edition, though it’s looking a bit well-worn now.

Pages 395 – 517 contains the Appendix for Scientists in which Tipler lays out the Omega Point Theory in the language of Mathematical Physics. This section of the book is admittedly Greek to me, but based on Tipler’s pedigree as a scientist and original thinker — and given the LACK of any serious pushback on the core elements of his theory — I am able to accept that his Greek is legitimately Greek, and not a cheap Persian knockoff of the genuine article.

For proof — I direct you to the various anti-Tipler articles in the public domain. They are frequently emotional, defensive — often spiteful — and they invariably focus on their philosophical disagreements with OPT, but they NEVER talk about the science. (See Oppy’s critique of OPT for a flavor of what I am talking about.)

In fact it is the rhetoric of the Tipler detractors that makes my ears quick. They are too emotional and too emphatic. And many of the most emotional detractors appear to be people at the lowest end of the academic totem poll, bashing Tipler to win career points. I don’t need to be a mathematical physicist to see through that kind of smoke.

Another salient point: Both Tipler and Deutsch are certified original thinkers. That makes them the cream of their professional crop. They are the leaders while the rest of the 99% are left to follow or carp.

As I mentioned, I first read The Physics of Immortality in 1994. I came across Deutsch’s The Fabric of Reality by accident in 1998. When I read Deutsch’s description of the OPT, it caused me to go back and read Tipler’s book again.

I thought about it for a few more years. You and I had discussions about this back around 2005 in the old forum, if I am not mistaken.

In the summer of 2006, I had an “a ha” moment about OPT which I posted here.

In that article, I tried to make what I still think is a logical case for a Theory of Everything, using the OPT to carry most of the load of my argument. My solution uses a 4-dimensional model called the Bicameral Universe in which the present is defined as the point of contact between two colliding universes.

Is this belief or a legitimate hypothesis? Call it a need to believe in something believable. I sometimes wish I had more credulity as it seems to help people sleep at night. In my case, I can believe something if I can be reasonably certain that it’s true. OPT is my way of doing that. It makes sense to me in the context of my own idea. That makes it my personal prevailing theory, so now I do sleep better knowing that “God” is a logically defensible concept.

Mike —

Please don’t feel that my ‘science’ is an attempt to shake your faith.

I believe in God … although I also believe that my belief is ‘scientifically’ irrational.

Science is neither the Alpha nor the Omega … it’s just a tool we use to help us understand the Universe … the Universe possesses Grandeur far greater than can be contemplated by the meager minds of common mortals living in a material world.

I’m an American living in Asia … my girlfriend is devout Buddhist … and she is absolutely totally Zen. God shines from her face and her eyes Mike.

I am in awe daily!

I don’t need partial differential equations nor tensor calculus to ‘know’ there is a higher power. I believe any attempt to define it by math or thru science is folly. Let your heart and your spirit guide you.

You don’t have to wait for the event of an Omega point …

… the Kingdom is among us!

Sleep well my friend.

Mele Kalikimaka!