Foto do autor
5+ Works 1,200 Membros 14 Reviews

About the Author

Frank J. Tipler is a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University.

Inclui os nomes: Frank Tipler, Frank J. Tipler

Obras de Frank J. Tipler

Associated Works

What Is Your Dangerous Idea? Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable (1914) — Contribuinte — 632 cópias, 8 resenhas
Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (2004) — Contribuinte — 157 cópias, 1 resenha


Conhecimento Comum

Data de nascimento



The only advice I can say is that despite the fundamental divulgation attempt to share some knowledge about this complex relationship, this marvelous work is very hard for beginners. But it is really worth it!
Mandrilillo99 | outras 2 resenhas | Jul 24, 2022 |
Prof. Frank J. Tipler points out on pg. 95 of The Physics of Christianity, "if the other universes and the multiverse do not exist, then quantum mechanics is objectively false. This is not a question of physics. It is a question of mathematics. I give a mathematical proof of [this] in my earlier book ..." That book is: “The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead” (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Appendix I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," pp. 483-488.)

There exists only one interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that is the many-worlds interpretation. All other so-called "interpretations" either make no attempt to actually explain quantum phenomena (such as the Statistical interpretation), or they are merely the many-worlds interpretation in denial (such as David Bohm's pilot-wave interpretation).

Anything that acts on reality is real and exists. Quite strange then that quantum phenomena behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist if in fact they don't exist. If the actual physical nature of the "wave functions" and "pilot waves" are not the other particles in the multiverse, then new physical entities with their own peculiar physics are being invoked: for if these aren't the other particles in the multiverse interacting with the particles in this universe, then we will do well to ask what is their actual physical nature? Pinball flippers, bumpers and ramps? What is their actual physical form, and why do they behave exactly as if the other particles in the multiverse exist?

Furthermore, all wave phenomena are nothing more than particle phenomena: there is no particle-wave duality. A wave is simply a collection of particles interacting with each other. It is the particles that actually exist; the wave is simply an action by particles interacting with each other. We see this with waves through, e.g., liquids: the individual molecules are jostled about via interacting with the other molecules. Likewise, a single photon in this universe behaves as a wave because it's interacting with the ocean of its parallel photons in the multiverse.

As well, experiments confirming "nonlocality" are actually confirming the existence of the multiverse: see Frank J. Tipler, "Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds Interpretation," arXiv:quant-ph/0003146, March 30, 2000.

See also David Deutsch, "Comment on Lockwood," British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 47, No 2 (June 1996), pp. 222-228; also released as "Comment on ‘Many Minds’ Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics by Michael Lockwood,” 1996. Quantum mechanics is strictly deterministic across the multiverse. If one does away with causation then one also does away with the possibility of explanation, as all explanation is predicated on explicating cause-and-effect relationships. So if by "interpretation" it is meant explanation, then Prof. Deutsch's point in his above paper about there actually only being one known interpretation of quantum mechanics is again found to be inescapable. And as Deutsch writes in “The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes--and Its Implications”, Chapter 9: "Quantum Computers," pg. 217: "The argument of Chapter 2, applied to *any* interference phenomenon destroys the classical idea that there is only one universe. Logically, the possibility of complex quantum computations adds nothing to a case that is already unanswerable. But it does add psychological impact. With Shor's algorithm, the argument has been writ very large. To those who still cling to a single-universe world view, I issue this challenge: *explain how Shor's algorithm works*. I do not merely mean predict that it will work, which is merely a matter of solving a few uncontroversial equations. I mean provide an explanation. When Shor's algorithm has factorized a number, using 10^500 or so times the computational resources that can be seen to be present, where was that number factorized? There are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire visible universe. So if the visible universe were the extent of physical reality, physical reality would not even remotely contain the resources required to factorize such a large number. Who did factorize it, then? How, and where, was the computation performed?”

See also the below paper by Prof. Tipler:

Frank J. Tipler, "Testing Many-Worlds Quantum Theory By Measuring Pattern Convergence Rates," arXiv:0809.4422, September 25, 2008.
… (mais)
antao | outras 4 resenhas | Jun 12, 2019 |
When I studied engineering at college level a fundamental rule was "don't extrapolate a curve beyond the last data point". We now have proposals for a multiverse of multiverses ranging from the quantum to the cosmological. When I see some data that supports the existence of any of them, I will start to take them seriously. Until then, it looks as if physicists have reinvented the Deus-ex-Machina. And most leading physicists do accept the Many-Worlds Interpretation as true. The political scientist L. David Raub conducted a poll of 72 leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists regarding their view on the truth of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. The possible answers were: (1) "Yes, I think the MWI is true"; (2) "No, I don't accept the MWI"; (3) "Maybe it's true, but I'm not yet convinced"; and (4) "I have no opinion one way or the other." If I remember correctly (I may be mistaken in the percentages), the results of the poll were: 58% said yes; 18% said no; 13% said maybe; and 11% said no opinion. In the "yes" category were Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, and Murray Gell-Mann, while the "no" answers included Roger Penrose…Something wrong in this picture?

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), 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 dependent 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.

Nor does this represent the destruction of the universe for the superintelligent societies near the final singularity, as their experiential time will be of infinite duration due to the universe's computational speed diverging toward infinity, i.e., a supertask of computation is completed before the end of proper time. And so for the societies near the Omega Point, their experienced time never ends.

Or... all particle phenomena are nothing more than wave phenomena, and it is the waves that 'actually exist';-)

My question is: Is it safe to say we're close to alone in this Universe as we haven't encountered any other A.I. leading to a singularity from another life form? I mean, from everything I know about the singularity, which is just through readings and videos, it seems that the singularity will eventually end up being a Universal event, where the knowledge is so vast that it affects the Universe itself? So either Nick Bostrom's take on the Fermi Paradox is true, and or maybe the A.I. singularity has happened and his simulation argument is true. It can be argued we're either close to unique in this Universe, or a universal singularity has happened, and the reason we're not affected by it right now, is because we're not part of the original universe in which it took place Or universes. A singularity may happen in this Universe, giving rise to another simulated Universe were another singularity will occur. Hmm…

Personally, I'm going to stick with Leslie Ballentine's healthy conservatism together with an Isham's book-motivated scepticism about the microscopic 'reality' and 'existence' of any classical concepts unless and until there is some concrete evidence to favour many-worlds or something like it. Wow, Tipler’s all over the place, full of logical leaps and astounding conclusions. Too much of the Space Nutter "the species is doomed" nonsense. Evolution is still happening, there won't be anything remotely resembling us in a million years, never mind a billion. Just shows that past a certain age, the human brain is just Swiss Cheese...Let the old mumble to themselves, let's read some real physics book please!
… (mais)
antao | outras 2 resenhas | Jun 11, 2019 |


You May Also Like

Associated Authors


Also by
½ 3.3

Tabelas & Gráficos