“Mr. Obama, you’re no Einstein”

The key thesis of the Obama-Tribe paper is contained in the opening sentences of its abstract: “Twentieth-century physics revolutionized our understanding of the physical world. Relativity theory replaced a view of the universe as made up of isolated objects acting upon one another at a distance with a model in which space itself was curved and changed by the presence and movement of objects. Quantum physics undermined the confidence of scientists in their ability to observe and understand a phenomenon without fundamentally altering it in the process.”

Here’s the thing: in my experience this is exactly how GR and QM are perceived by laymen and physics undergraduates alike.

I think I agree, Ben. The notion that relativity and quantum mechanics were just business as usual is rather a stretch on the writer’s part.

I was myself a bit surprised to see general relativity listed as part of the classical physics curriculum at Caltech. Though, on reflection, there really is a good argument to be made that GR is the culmination of classical physics.

I have no disagreement with the writer on his basic point, which is that bringing modern physics into a discussion of constitutional law is pure mumbo-jumbo.

I read Frank Tipler’s expose on the Obama-Tribe paper. I have to agree with Ben on this one.

Frank Tipler’s point is that Newtonian Physics already had curvature is mathematically true (he proves it so) but emotionally all wrong. Newtonian physics did not have curvature as part of the “model” or “explanation” even if it was arguably implied in the math.

That seems to be Obama-Tribes’s point — we went through a paradigm shift. This is true enough. Thus the basics of his point form an imperfect analogy that isn’t without merrit. If we come to politically accept that the constitution was based on a false world view, we can and should change it.

However, it seems to me that the point of departure is over “how” to change it. Obama is in favor of reinterpreting it. I’m only okay with following the prescribed ammendment process.

Therefore, I don’t seem to disagree with Obama’s point, I just disagree with his approach and also over what should change.

Also, “classical physics” according to Penrose is just all non-quantum physics. Thus relativity is included.

I agree with both of your comments. The major point of Tipler’s argument in particular merely evokes a melancholy sigh from me.

The philosophy is more interesting. I am attracted to Tipler’s point about GR and QM being founded on perspectives of physics extant (if rare) in the 19th century, but even then the fact that those perspectives came to the forefront for these two disciplines was itself a shift. Perhaps it depends on what you mean by paradigm shift. I’ll be reading Tipler’s full (40-page!) paper.

Not being a physicist, Tipler lost me after the first 10 or so pages. No, actually, he lost me on the first mathmatical interlude where you talked about affine connections. (Though I am almost to that point in Penrose’s book.)

I had to laugh. Tipler claims his math can be followed by a person with a high school education and you’re an idiot of you can’t. Guess that’s me. Why do I not feel ashamed?

I like Tipler a lot, however. I find his Omega Point theory intriguing. His book, Physics of Immortality, is both frustrating and amazing.

One more comment about Tipler. I have not yet read this Physics of Christianity, but I did read a paper he wrote summarizing it. It contained the same genius and frustration factor all of his stuff does.

For example, he has some pretty wild theories about the Shroud and Jesus’ virgin birth. But, as it turns out, they are testable hypothesis. So while most people would laugh at him, I just can’t bring myself to because it would make more sense to just disprove (or prove, I suppose) him. And presumably he’d be happy to make a new hypothesis if proven wrong.

Oh, and don’t forget to read his EPR paradox / MWI paper that I had linked to in my recent physics post.

As I’ve been reading a bit more about him this morning, it seems that Tipler believes that the results of physics are consistent with traditional Christian theology. My question, then, is what he would write were he LDS. I started reading Physics of Immortality as a teen, but got bogged down. Time for another go, eh?

Even though I eventually got my BA in English Lit, I took 2 years of physics in high school, and 4 semesters of physics at BYU.

A non-LDS visiting professor for one of my physics classes joked about how political and humanities professors always wanted to co-opt Relativity to their own disciplines, mistaking it as a support for Relativism. He said that if they actually understood Relativity, they would realize that even though there are different frames of reference, the fact that one frame can be translated into another through Lorentz transformations is in fact an assertion of an objective, shared reality. So he insisted that, contrary to many of the non-physics professors suppositions, Relativity discredited their Relativism insofar as they meant that all points of view were equally valid.

Not sure that is really applicable here, but it reminded me, so I thought I’d share.

Excellent point, Max.

Yes, it’s time to read it, Ben. His view of how it fits with traditional Christianity is such a stretch that literally no Christians accept it. It would even be a stretch for Mormons, though the match is more natural there. I was going to do a post on it.

Max, you go it. Now everyone is doing the same with quantum physics. It’s the new magic.

Just to give you an idea, he interprets Adam and Eve and the garden to be about the introduction of a “sin” gene on a female chromosome back in the time where only single celled animals existed and so “death” was impossible because every animal has multiple copies.

Hardly “traditional Christianity.” Mormons are downright traditional orthodox Christians compared to Tipler’s theology.

On the other hand, I give him credit for out of the box thinking. And his theology is *very* complete. It’s impressive in and of itself, regardless of whether or not it’s “Christian.”

If you can get over the hurdle of the Garden story as allegory, this is an intriguing allegory.

Though I think Carl Sagan (of all people!) came up with a better one: Knowledge of good and evil was associated with the evolution of large brains, which causes painful childbirth. “In sorrow shalt thou bear children.”

I do not pretend to know how much of the Garden story is allegory and how much is literal. No LDS theologian I know considers it completely literal. No LDS theologian I know considers it complete allegory. Enlighten me if I’m mistaken on either assertion.

Interesting comments, Vader. No, I don’t know of any LDS theologian that takes it all as allegory.

However, my original comment wasn’t to compare this to LDS doctrines at all. It was to point out the utter incompatibility of Tipler’s views to “traditional Christianity.”

Yet he sees himself as traditional Christian. If you can stretch “traditional” that far, we fit too.

Tipler’s theories have several points that are much closer to LDS doctrine, such as what might be called a God-collective. (My words, not his.) And “God” is entirely physics bound, a common LDS belief (though a minority view.)

He sees “souls” as the software that runs on our hardware bodies (like I suggested in my fiction post.) He sees the resurrection as recreations of our software in a future VR environment (the omega point) running during the big crunch.

I need to do a post to explain it all better. It actually far more marvelous then it comes across when I explain it half-cocked like this. Everything he’s come up with is, at a minimum, intriguing. And I suspect he’s on track in some areas.

I defintely agree with him that someday physics must subsume theology if theology is true. So I think he’s a trail blazer in that regard showing how it might be done.

“I defintely agree with him that someday physics must subsume theology if theology is true.”

Or perhaps one can declare that someday theology must subsume physics if physics is true. I know a lot of LDS who are more comfortable seeing it that way, though I’m a physicist myself.

The truth, sadly, is that we know next to nothing about the physics of God. I can see why traditional Christianity dodges this issue by making Him the complete Other, but I think our view, in addition to having the merit of being more correct, should make us more comfortable with science.

But if that’s true, there’s no sign of it yet in the recurrent evolution debates, which seem to have had some life stirred into them by the recent Sunday School curriculum. I recently had someone wonder out loud how I could question a universal Flood and still believe the Book of Mormon. I don’t think I need to elaborate on my reasons, but his attitude is unfortunate.

Oh, by the way, for non-physicist, The Fabric of Reality explain the Omega point theory much more clearly than Tipler does, albeit with an atheist spin on it. I could understand that book better, however.