The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[Jamie Michelle]

Below is an article that I recently wrote. It is published under my legal name. It concerns the Omega Point cosmology by physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, which is a proof of God's existence based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they're attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion.

The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy's ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast" of the article.

Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold.

Below one can download the article for free. I encourage everyone to generously share this article with others. By all means, please save it to your hard-drive and give others copies of it. Also, feel free to share the text of this post. The article is in PDF format.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 20, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1974708 , http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708

Below is the abstract to my above article:

""
ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which itself is also required by the known physical laws. With infinite computational resources, the dead can be resurrected--never to die again--via perfect computer emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. The Omega Point is a different aspect of the Big Bang cosmological singularity--the first cause--and the Omega Point has all the haecceities claimed for God in the traditional religions.

From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology.
""

Below are other places where this article can be downloaded:

Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
2,392,318 bytes
MD5: 33d94a4fda1dfdc6d0bc00ffdf7e4383

http://theophysics.chimehost.net/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
http://www.webcitation.org/64ttFsATE

http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
http://www.webcitation.org/64ttxvzUr

http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/09LMVJTQ/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf_links
http://www.mediafire.com/?i1mdwnac3486d19
http://www.badongo.com/file/26143838
http://www.fileserve.com/file/X8PXdFh

http://uploadmirrors.com/download/PVEUFCLE/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
http://www.wupload.com/file/2650691527
http://extabit.com/file/2dut258dvj4tu
http://www38.zippyshare.com/v/84006266/file.html

http://www.crocko.com/74D2F3CED4FA44CAAE3FFA9BAB4EBF84/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
http://netload.in/datei1ihLqPr7DH.htm
http://www.2shared.com/document/BEk3AMvM/Redford-Physics-of-God.html

Note that the above publication date, the total page count, the file byte size, and the MD5 checksum are subject to change with newer versions of the article, if I were to release such.

The URLs to my Theophysics websites should contain the latest version of the article. With the WebCite URLs ( http://www.webcitation.org ), one can look to see if there is a newer version of this article on the drop-down menu containing the date. Also look at the postings in this forum to see if I have published updated URLs to newer versions of this article, assuming I am unable to update this post.

[trish]

Congratulations, Jamie on your publication.

For those of you not familiar with the conversation I refer you to
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=53278

[Stavros]

Jamie, on the one hand an impressive piece of writing, and it is an intellectually brave -or foolish- person who attempts to make a direct link between cosmology and politics; but on the other hand at 185 pages it is either a pamphlet or a small book, not an article. It would be easier to read if you condensed the core arguments into say 25 pages, but frankly your political ideas are based on a selective interpretation of documents and history, and are considered offensive by enough people to prohibit publication in the standard academic journals, but I guess you know that. Your processional view of human history and as a progressive sequence of enlightenment, is, quite simply, rubbish.

I can't comment much on the cosmology as I have no real understanding of it, so I have no idea how it relates to ongoing debates within cosmology, most of which I find incomprehensible anyway.

The problem with the politics is in part a matter of opinion, I don't share your explanations for events in history, and I feel that because your whole argument is integrated, if one part breaks down, it all breaks down. Here are some comments on some of your political arguments.

1) Your argument for a conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center may be part of the 9/11 conspiracy theory but you never address any of the counter-arguments, or the incidents that took place outside New York City.

2) Your argument about the Second World War suffers from an inability to separate the issue of Germany and the domination of Europe as an historical problem dating from 1870, and your confused ideas about global politics -you seem to suggest that there is a globalising imperative in politics that has been around since the Pharoahs, as a conscious plan, but because of the way you frame an argument, this means that everything you cite to prove your theory, is right, because your theory says so!

3) You call the invasion of Poland in 1939 the key moment in European history, where others would cite the Re-Militarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, or for that matter the failure of German state to deal with Hitler after the Munich Putsch -he was still an Austrian citizen at the time and in theory and fact could have been deported after serving time in prison. The Rhineland issue is critical because without military cover France and Britain would have had easier access to the industrial Ruhr to disrupt any war Hitler planned as part of his vision -once re-militarised, Hitler had secured his western flank, and could focus on removing humans from the 'East' in preparation for his new Aryan civilisation to be populated by the sons of Germany.

4) If it is the case that the 'global oligarchy' benefits from wars, why are there now fewer wars historically than ever before with fewer casualties, as Steven Pinker has argued, undermining a substantial part of your thesis.

5) Who benefitted from the Iran-Iraq war -it bankrupted those two states and led directly to the invasion of Kuwait and the sanctions regime -you can argue that arms manufacturers and smugglers benefited, but given the recent history, it seems you would put Iran-Iraq, Kuwait and Gulf War II into a repetitive syndrome, a great con-game in which the 'masters of the universe' deliberately engage in wars to eliminate useless humans and make a lot of money, and I don't accept that.

6) At one point you argue that 'Jewish banking families' are part of the One World Order Conspiracy (to put Lucifer on the throne of the world), yet a Jew and scion of the banking family Lord Edwin Montagu was aggressively opposed to precisely the same Balfour Declaration (and indeed a Jewish state of any description) which you claim was part of this deal. You cannot get away with saying at one and the same time 'Jewish bankers' were part of the plan and not part of the plan. You also don't deal with the fact that the Balfour Declaration and indeed the League of Nations mandates were not supported by the people who lived in the Middle East but I guess the views of ordinary people are never part of your argument, as popular opinon indeed, people are irrelevant in your scheme of things, your focus is exclusively on the oligarchs. Yet, if 'we' are just little people, why were there so many insurrections against French rule in Syria, and the bitter insurrection against the British in Mesopotamia/Iraq in 1920? None of this figures in your argument, because it doesn't fit with your theory -people are opposed to imperialism, colonialism, racism, wars, and so on, but they are not necessarily guided by Christianity, which for you is the core propulsion of resistance to Lucifer, L Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, George W. Bush et al.

7) One small point: Britain was 'awarded' the mandate over Palestine at the San Remo Conference in 1920 and sent Herbert Samuel to Jerusalem as its first High Commissioner later that year, not in 1922. You imply that Chatham House is no longer the Royal Institute for International Affairs, but that, legally, is still its name; Chatham House is just a re-branding exercise. There are other factual errors I spotted in the paper but I have not read it thoroughly.

8) Finally: Walid (sometimes Wallace) Fard (pronouced Far'ud), the author of Yacub's Book and creator of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, was, according to Elijah Mohammed, God made flesh -Fard founded the 'Nation' in 1930 and 'disappeared' in 1934. It means that we have photographs of Almighty God which you have not cited; ok so its not the Turin Shroud, and it may be a disappointment to some that God looks like a shifty Arab from Detroit, but if you believe there is a God then you need to explain why you don't believe Fard was God, but there is no discussion of the 'Nation' and its 'Mother Plane', or indeed of mainstream Islam in your paper.

[giovanni_hotel]

Interesting.

Appreciate the pdf.

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, on the one hand an impressive piece of writing, and it is an intellectually brave -or foolish- person who attempts to make a direct link between cosmology and politics; but on the other hand at 185 pages it is either a pamphlet or a small book, not an article. It would be easier to read if you condensed the core arguments into say 25 pages, but frankly your political ideas are based on a selective interpretation of documents and history, and are considered offensive by enough people to prohibit publication in the standard academic journals, but I guess you know that. Your processional view of human history and as a progressive sequence of enlightenment, is, quite simply, rubbish.

I can't comment much on the cosmology as I have no real understanding of it, so I have no idea how it relates to ongoing debates within cosmology, most of which I find incomprehensible anyway.

The problem with the politics is in part a matter of opinion, I don't share your explanations for events in history, and I feel that because your whole argument is integrated, if one part breaks down, it all breaks down. Here are some comments on some of your political arguments.

1) Your argument for a conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center may be part of the 9/11 conspiracy theory but you never address any of the counter-arguments, or the incidents that took place outside New York City.


The 9/11 attacks are a conspiracy since more than one person was involved in bringing them about. So any theory regarding the 9/11 attacks is by definiton a conspiracy theory, unless one were to maintain that only one person was involved in carrying them out. It's just that the US government's official conspiracy theory is a mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, antiphysical law, anti-factual, and provably false fairy tale.

Regarding not addressing counter-arguments, I did address them, such as NIST's antiphysical suggestion that the yellow-hot molten metal that cascaded off the South Tower was burning organic materials entrained in molten aluminum.

Concerning the 9/11 event outside of New York City, it's only logically necessary to demonstrate that the US government was involved in executing one or more of the attacks that day. Even if one were to implausibly maintain that the US government wasn't involved in the other 9/11 attacks that day, the US government is still guilty of mass-murdering its own subjects on 9/11.



2) Your argument about the Second World War suffers from an inability to separate the issue of Germany and the domination of Europe as an historical problem dating from 1870, and your confused ideas about global politics -you seem to suggest that there is a globalising imperative in politics that has been around since the Pharoahs, as a conscious plan, but because of the way you frame an argument, this means that everything you cite to prove your theory, is right, because your theory says so!


I never said that. Rather, the plan for the world government has been in place since at least Cecil Rhodes, as I detail in my article.

What you are referring to is libido dominandi, i.e., the lust for domination. The strong tendency is for government rulers to attempt to gain ever-more power by any means they can. I never said that there has been any plan for world government passed down through successive governments. Rather, what I said is that the methodologies of statecraft have been passed down through the court intellectuals and through observation of what has worked in the past, i.e., the techniques of subjugation. This isn't some overarching plan, but rather simply a collection of techniques.



3) You call the invasion of Poland in 1939 the key moment in European history, where others would cite the Re-Militarisation of the Rhineland in 1936, or for that matter the failure of German state to deal with Hitler after the Munich Putsch -he was still an Austrian citizen at the time and in theory and fact could have been deported after serving time in prison. The Rhineland issue is critical because without military cover France and Britain would have had easier access to the industrial Ruhr to disrupt any war Hitler planned as part of his vision -once re-militarised, Hitler had secured his western flank, and could focus on removing humans from the 'East' in preparation for his new Aryan civilisation to be populated by the sons of Germany.


I merely stated the fact that Germany's invasion of Poland was the start of World War II, and I pointed out that the German government's self-proclaimed casus belli for this invasion was the phoney Operation Himmler false-flag staged terrorism campaign.



4) If it is the case that the 'global oligarchy' benefits from wars, why are there now fewer wars historically than ever before with fewer casualties, as Steven Pinker has argued, undermining a substantial part of your thesis.


First of all, Steven Pinker has to ignore most casualties in order to come up with the phoney statistics that he bandies about. I'll also here point out that Steven Pinker is a raging etatist who thinks that total government is the Savior of mankind, and his overall thesis is that government is the reason we have to thank for supposedly less killing (which is at any rate absurd, since it is governments which are responsible for all of the greatest atrocities in history).

The statistics that Pinker cites for the Communist mass-slaughters (such as at http://stevenpinker.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions-about-better-angels-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined ) are too low by around 100 million deaths.

Second of all, you're homogenizing wars. I never said that some amorphous blob called "war" is good for the globalist oligarchy. Rather, the wars they start are ones that they engage in in order to gain more power. It's not that total world war all the time would be in their interest.

But as I point out in my article, the globalist oligarchy are setting up a totalitarian world system where they can effect the extermination of the commonality of mankind as technology advances to the stage when technological immortality will be a reality. When this stage is reached, no good can come the the ruling elite by allowing the masses to live, because if this technology fell into the hands of the commoners then via such a mass-empowerment the ruling class would be in mortal danger of being punished by the masses for their many past and ongoing horrific crimes committed against the commonality.



5) Who benefitted from the Iran-Iraq war -it bankrupted those two states and led directly to the invasion of Kuwait and the sanctions regime -you can argue that arms manufacturers and smugglers benefited, but given the recent history, it seems you would put Iran-Iraq, Kuwait and Gulf War II into a repetitive syndrome, a great con-game in which the 'masters of the universe' deliberately engage in wars to eliminate useless humans and make a lot of money, and I don't accept that.


I never mentioned anything about the US government-backed war against Iran by Iraq or Gulf War I in my article. But if you're just asking me here out of curiosity:

Saddam has been in bed with the U.S. government for quite some time. The US government groomed him for his position as the leader of Iraq (in the US-supported-and-funded Ba'ath party), as he showed good leadership skills and an ability to work closely with the US government during his period as an assassin for the Ba'ath party. In one of his assassination assignments Saddam was shot in the leg--this occured during Saddam's attempted assassination of Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim in 1959.

The Ba'athists finally came into power in a bloody US-funded coup in 1963. As the BBC recounts:

""
The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.

The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party--of which Saddam Hussein was a young member--when it was in opposition.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time.

"I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them," he told me.

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".
""

From "Saddam's parallel universe", Allan Little, BBC, January, 2003 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2694885.stm

On July 25, 1990, eight days before the August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America's ambassador to Iraq. During this time Hussein had already amassed troops on the border with Kuwait, and it was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq invaded. During this meeting Glaspie asked Hussein his intentions regarding Kuwait, whereupon he told her of his intention of enforcing his claim on that country and asked her what the US government's position is regarding his intentions. From a transcript of the meeting, released that September, Glaspie replied: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts", the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your disagreement with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America."

At first the US government attempted to deny the accuracy of the transcript, but later April Glaspie herself confirmed the central issue concerning that meeting:

""
In an interview with The New York Times the day before the record was published, Ms. Glaspie corroborated the key point. She is an experienced, widely respected professional diplomat, and chose her words with care.

"I wish I had been the only one in the world who was right," she said. "Obviously, I didn't think--and nobody else did--that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."
""

From "Between-Lines Disaster", Flora Lewis, New York Times, September 19, 1990 http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/19/opinion/foreign-affairs-between-lines-disaster.html?pagewanted=all



6) At one point you argue that 'Jewish banking families' are part of the One World Order Conspiracy (to put Lucifer on the throne of the world), yet a Jew and scion of the banking family Lord Edwin Montagu was aggressively opposed to precisely the same Balfour Declaration (and indeed a Jewish state of any description) which you claim was part of this deal. You cannot get away with saying at one and the same time 'Jewish bankers' were part of the plan and not part of the plan. You also don't deal with the fact that the Balfour Declaration and indeed the League of Nations mandates were not supported by the people who lived in the Middle East but I guess the views of ordinary people are never part of your argument, as popular opinon indeed, people are irrelevant in your scheme of things, your focus is exclusively on the oligarchs. Yet, if 'we' are just little people, why were there so many insurrections against French rule in Syria, and the bitter insurrection against the British in Mesopotamia/Iraq in 1920? None of this figures in your argument, because it doesn't fit with your theory -people are opposed to imperialism, colonialism, racism, wars, and so on, but they are not necessarily guided by Christianity, which for you is the core propulsion of resistance to Lucifer, L Ron Hubbard, Aleister Crowley, George W. Bush et al.


I never said that there aren't people opposed the New World Order. After all, I'm one of those who is opposed to it. Nor did I ever say that the efforts of people to oppose global tyranny don't have positive effects in the world. The entire reason why I wrote this article is to help save people's souls (i.e., the programs of their minds) by warning them about what is to take place and why it is occurring.

I gave the history of Jewish functionaries being in service to non-Jewish royalty going back to the Babylonian Exile (or back to ancient Egypt if one takes as reliable the Exodus account). But the Rothschilds are the highest cast of Jewish functionaries to the European royalty, and so I focused on them in this regard.

However, the window of opportunity for the common masses to depose governments and create a genuinely free society closed circa 1950. Around that time powerful weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear bombs, because more available (the first Soviet atom bomb explosion occurred on August 29, 1949).

Thus, if a nuclear bomb were to go off in the United States, the US government could blame it on the USSR, and vice versa.

What this means is that around this time and later it was no longer possible for the masses to actually rise up and throw off government in itself, since the superpowers could alway just release weapons upon their own populations until the masses lost resolve and then the government could pose as the Savior in the aftermath.

(The Soviet Union indeed fell, but the KGB is still running Russia under their new name of the FSB, with former KGB spy Vladimir Putin being the current Prime Minister and the former President of Russia. So the actual oligarchs remain untouched.)

This is the reason why Jesus Christ's Second Coming is a physical necessity, because existence would not be possible if the oligarchy were allowed to obtain this coming technology, since the collapse phase of the universe will require a high level of free-market cooperation and mutually-beneficial exchange in order to coordinate the Taublike collapse trajectories of the universe during its Mixmaster oscillations as the radius of the universe diverges to its final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), of which process continues forever in experiential time.



7) One small point: Britain was 'awarded' the mandate over Palestine at the San Remo Conference in 1920 and sent Herbert Samuel to Jerusalem as its first High Commissioner later that year, not in 1922. You imply that Chatham House is no longer the Royal Institute for International Affairs, but that, legally, is still its name; Chatham House is just a re-branding exercise. There are other factual errors I spotted in the paper but I have not read it thoroughly.


The British Mandate for Palestine was formally legally agreed-to in 1922, and came into effect in 1923.

Since 2004, Chatham House is the primary name which the think-tank chooses to go by ( http://www.chathamhouse.org/about-us ):

""
Council in 2004 decided to adopt 'Chatham House' as the primary identity for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which remains the formal name for legal and financial purposes.
""



8) Finally: Walid (sometimes Wallace) Fard (pronouced Far'ud), the author of Yacub's Book and creator of the Lost-Found Nation of Islam, was, according to Elijah Mohammed, God made flesh -Fard founded the 'Nation' in 1930 and 'disappeared' in 1934. It means that we have photographs of Almighty God which you have not cited; ok so its not the Turin Shroud, and it may be a disappointment to some that God looks like a shifty Arab from Detroit, but if you believe there is a God then you need to explain why you don't believe Fard was God, but there is no discussion of the 'Nation' and its 'Mother Plane', or indeed of mainstream Islam in your paper.

For the historical reliability of Jesus Christ's bodily resurrection and the untenability of theories which deny his resurrection, see Prof. William Lane Craig, "Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ", Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought, Vol. 1 (1985), pp. 89-95, http://leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html , http://webcitation.org/69KCm4WtO . For more on the historicity of Jesus Christ's resurrection, see William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 3rd ed., 2008), Ch. 8: "The Resurrection of Jesus", pp. 333-404, particularly pp. 360 ff.

Christianity as described in the New Testament is preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the inherently triune structure of the cosmological singularity and the many other congruities with the known laws of physics. The many, many perfect and striking congruities of Christianity as described in the New Testament with the Omega Point cosmology are astronomically improbable without Jesus Christ having been informed by a superintelligence. Again, for details on this, see Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast", and Sec. 9: "The Omega Point Cosmology Vis-à-Vis the New Testament" of my following article (as well as many other sections of the article which deal with the consilience of Christianity with science).

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf .

And see Sec. 8.1.1: "The Dysteleology of Life without God" of my foregoing article for why life is logically pointless if God does not exist.

[Jamie Michelle]

My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", published under my legal name, and published at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), has been ameliorated on August 6, 2012. The updated links to it are in the below.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1974708 , http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708

Below are other places where this article can be downloaded:

Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
1,740,849 bytes
MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1

http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
http://www.webcitation.org/69kSgTGXl

http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
http://www.webcitation.org/69kSvuziV

http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=817860
http://www.ziddu.com/download/20072034/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf.html
http://bitshare.com/files/dez2dqpa/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf.html
http://www.filedropper.com/redford-physics-of-god_1
http://www.MegaShare.com/4452670
http://www.unibytes.com/lEqk9EJrA80Lqw-Us4P3UgBB
http://www.2shared.com/document/LZkovhZ0/Redford-Physics-of-God.html
http://www.crocko.com/F0E60B3C041E42DEAE6F1BC60DCCE95B/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
http://fileshare.in.ua/6551116

Note that the above publication date, the total page count, the file byte size, and the MD5 checksum are subject to change with newer versions of the article, if I were to release such.

The URLs to my Theophysics websites should contain the latest version of the article. With the WebCite URLs ( http://www.webcitation.org ), one can look to see if there is a newer version of this article on the drop-down menu containing the date. Also look at the postings in this forum to see if I have published updated URLs to newer versions of this article, assuming I am unable to update this post.

[loveboof]

Wow. I'm not going to read that at all...

I apologise for being so rude and willfully ignorant of your opinion, but unfortunately your jargon filled, nonsensical ramblings, filled with historical inaccuracies and mind boggling leaps in logic make for a serious snoozefest of a read!

Just take this for example (read it as if you're being introduced to the topic for the first time):


This is the reason why Jesus Christ's Second Coming is a physical necessity, because existence would not be possible if the oligarchy were allowed to obtain this coming technology, since the collapse phase of the universe will require a high level of free-market cooperation and mutually-beneficial exchange in order to coordinate the Taublike collapse trajectories of the universe during its Mixmaster oscillations as the radius of the universe diverges to its final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), of which process continues forever in experiential time.

That is either complete nonsense or you desperately need to learn how to write! (in an engaging way - i.e good writing)

[buttslinger]

My brother's pal from school worked on the team with George F. Smoot and John C. Mather, winners of the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on the big bang theory (not the TV show) He said even though these guys had brains coming out of their ears, that they also got bummed out, had fights, were jealous, all the human frailties that come out when you're trying to get your work done. One of the guys, I don't know which one, was the MOTHER of the team. He unruffled feathers, talked people down, calmed tempers and unbruised egos. He was like the Mother of all geniuses.
My brother's friend had a father who worked at the Naval Observatory and used to school Junior. My Mom substitute taught him in Elementary School, she didn't like him, thought he was a pompous little ass. By the time he got to High School he was always correcting the teachers.
I'll have to get a big steaming cup of Joe and try to wade into Jaime's Opus, but I can't even understand half the words. I've always thought God was rooted in Biology.

[Stavros]

Rather than reply to Jamie's responses to my critical comments on parts of her original ppaper, I have divided my response into two parts.

Part I: Cosmology

In an attempt to take seriously the new version of the paper Jamie has made available, I have read that part of it which I understand, and have divided this very long response into two parts, dealing with the Cosmology as far as I can in part 1; and the ‘History’ in a second post which will appear after this one in the next day or so.

Since this thread was initiated by Jamie French, she has re-written the paper that she has made available on the weblinks in her post.

For those of you who do not want to read the whole of my refutation of the paper written by Jamie French, my resume is as follows:

The author, who claims that Frank Tipler’s work has been published in peer-reviewed science journals and that this gives Tipler a position of respect, deliberately ignores the ridicule and rejection that his version of ‘Intelligent Design’ has produced.
There are examples here:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/PhysicsChrist.htm
http://www.joly.org.uk/gordo/ellis3.html
http://sfgospel.typepad.com/sf_gospel/2008/12/the-theological-forest-and-the-dogmatic-trees-frank-j-tiplers-the-physics-of-christianity.html--a relatively positive review of The Physics of Christianity.

Instead, Jamie uses Tipler’s anti-evolutionary cosmology to argue not only that God exists, but that most of recorded human history since the death of Jesus has been a giant conspiracy to undermine the legacy, the values and the message of Jesus Christ. Omega Point Cosmology not only proves the existence of God, it predicts a ‘Day of Judgement’ as an event –or sequence of events- in which those with the ‘Mark of the Beast’ will be punished, and those who have accepted Jesus into their hearts will be saved. A global conspiracy led by ‘the Rothschilds’ (phoney Jews who make a mockery of Jews and Judaism) has enabled the rulers of Empires and States to form secretive societies –the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bilderberg Group et al- to maintain their campaign of financial greed and universal evil, based around a pagan pre-Christian and indeed, Anti-Christian cult. Using Government as the instrument of absolute evil, God has forced humans to live through the evils of mass murder and hatred in order to learn the difference between it and the absolute purity of Christ’s message. No Pain, No Gain. The paper draws on numerous events in history to show how this Global Conspiracy has victimised ordinary people –mostly through hugely destructive world wars and genocide- and claims that only those who have lived in the way of Jesus will be saved.

I am not sure how far Jamie has actually understood the theory of Frank Tipler, but here is a succinct resume of his theories by a scientist:

In The Physics of Immortality, Tipler provided the mechanism by which we will all live forever. In a billion-billion years or so, life in the form of highly advanced and supremely intelligent robots, evolved from those that we humans invented and sent into space before destroying ourselves as a species, will have spread throughout the universe. At that point the robots will control the collapse of the universe down to a final singularity called the Omega Point. Following the teaching of the famous Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who died in 1955, Tipler associates the Omega Point with God, in particular, God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. This also follows from God's message to Moses in Exodus 3:14, "I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. The collapse to the final singularity takes an infinite time as viewed from inside the universe. During that time the robots recreate all the humans and life forms that ever existed in a computer simulation. Not only do we all live our lives over again in that simulation, but over and over and over again. And not just our lives, but also all the possible lives we ever might have had, good and bad. That's the immortality Tipler says we can look forward to.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/PhysicsChrist.htm

It should be noted that Jamie has included this biographical note at the end of the paper:

Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, James Redford is a born-again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who concludes that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists’ technical term for God) and the Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) are an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics (Page 128).

The starting point for Jamie’s version of Tipler’s cosmology is a book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) co-authored by John D. Barrow and Frank J.Tipler. Works subsequently written by Tipler form the main body of work on ‘Omega Point Cosmology’.

I have no expertise in hard science and am frequently baffled by cosmology; and to me the author has done nothing to advance the cause of those who rely on cosmology for the ‘big picture’ of how the Universe was created, and where it is going.

Here is a key point that drives much of the paper’s arguments:

The Omega Point is a term used by Prof. Tipler to designate the final cosmological singularity, which according to the known laws of physics is a physically-necessary cosmological state in the far future of the universe. Per the laws of physics, as the universe comes to an end at this singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage) increases unlimitedly with a hyperbolic growth rate as the radius of the universe collapses to zero, allowing an infinite number of bits to be processed and stored before the end of spacetime. Via this supertask, a simulation run on this cosmological computer can thereby continue forever in its own terms (i.e., in computer clock time, or experiential time), even though the universe lasts only a finite amount of proper time (page 4).

Crucially, the Omega Point is the definition of God…well sort of, as the author writes:
The Omega Point final singularity and its state of infinite informational capacity is by definition God, due to it having all the haecceities claimed for God by the traditional religions (as is detailed in Section 7.1). The final singularity is actually a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by the Abrahamic religions. (page 4).

The key point here is that of all the world’s religions and belief systems, the only one that matters is Christianity. As the author remarks, without naming Islam, Hinduism Buddhism or any other religion of system of belief:

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Cosmological Singularity within the Omega Point cosmology, which is deselective of all other major religions (Section 7.1, p44).

Indeed, the author, having dismissed all other religions from her mathematical equation, goes further in claiming that

Jesus Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck, and along with it the rest of the world. A great irony is that even antitheists benefit enormously from the civilization that Christ founded: indeed, almost all of the Earth’s current population—and hence, almost all antitheists—couldn’t even be alive were it not for the advancements made by Christian civilization (page 33).

There is no need to mention the achievements of ‘Science and Civilization in China’, no need to mention the crucial role that Islamic civilisation played in keeping alive the science of the Greeks and the Romans when Europeans were not interested in it; as well as its own achievements, because when you crunch the numbers, the Chinese and the Muslims are, quite simply, irrelevant to the history of science.

But to get back to that moment when the universe collapses and the super-computer starts up: If you want to know HOW this computational capacity has been reached, the author writes:

The known laws of physics require there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time in order to force the collapse of the universe and then manipulate its collapse so that the computational capacity of the universe can diverge to infinity (Page 4)

This divergence is performed by human life that has transferred

its information processes to higher energy states, eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on via traveling waves and standing waves. As the radius of the universe goes to zero, the matter energy of the universe goes to positive infinity, thereby allowing the number of particle states in which to store information to diverge to infinity (page 5).

The computing power that these ‘higher energy states’ have enables them to compute the whole of life from the beginning of the Big Bang, and in the process go further by colonising space:

The interstellar colonization phase required for achieving the Omega Point will be accomplished by naturally-evolved sapient life forms (with such species independently evolved on average roughly every Hubble volume2) whose brains have been transformed (e.g., with nanotechnology) into artificial computers (such as quantum computers) onboard tiny starships of circa one kilogram that will exponentially colonize space, many times faster than mortal human beings. The incredible expense of keeping flesh-and-blood humans alive in space makes it highly improbable that such humans will ever personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient substrate transformations of naturally-evolved sapient minds and artificial intelligences will spread civilization throughout space. Given the rate of exponential growth of human technological development, this colonization phase should likely start before 2100 (page 5).

The crucial point here is the way in which Tipler, supported by the author, presents human beings as machines, capable therefore of evolving into, in effect, super-computers.

The discussion of the Omega Point in Jamie’s paper continues by supporting the theory of Prof Tipler, and discusses the way in which Science has tried to accommodate itself or distance itself from God through various interpretations of the ‘Big Bang’, culminating in Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity (2007). Further discussion of science and the physics of the Omega Point are presented up to page 33, but I don’t understand it so I cannot comment.

The rest of the paper, from Section 6 on p33 to p121, is discussion of the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology (from the Abstract).

It is difficult for me to offer a summary of a cosmology that I do not understand, but I think I know enough about the history of civilisations to believe that it is nothing but pure arrogance, as well as a factual error, to claim that it is only the work of European scientists working in a culturally and theologically Christian environment that has any value in the history of science. This is Western Imperialism of the Mind taken to a really quite offensive level. No allowance is made, for example, in the history of medicine, which is part of science, for the use of Quinine as an anti-malarial in China and Peru long before Ronald Ross in the 19th century discovered the transmission of the disease through the bite of an infected mosquito (in India). It is also the case that Tipler, rather obviously, believes that ‘Intelligent Design’ explains the origin of the universe, not evolution; and that there has been no human agency in the creation of climate change and advanced global warming, which has been caused by sunspots.

The colonisation of space has me completely baffled, it seems to me to an idea that has more relevance to Star Trek. We have enough issues for science to deal with right here on Planet Earth, without seeing a need to send our robotic clones into the Galaxy to spread the word of Jesus.

[Stavros]

Part II
The section of Jamie’s paper that deals with the social, ethical, economic
and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology interprets the whole of human history as the act of a Christian God whose plan has been laid out in the Bible, the New Testament and the Book of Revelation in particular.

I have read Jamie’s paper, and I would like to say something positive about it, but the core arguments and the interpretation of secondary literature contain no merit. There is no original research in this paper, there are numerous errors of fact, and distortions of historical truth, but above all, for someone who claims to be a Born Again Christian, there is an arrogance and disregard for non-Christian cultures that undermines a key value in Christianity to love one’s neighbour as oneself.

It would be a tedious exercise to go though the paper to point out all of its errors and distortions. I have also not responded to the earlier comments to the first paper now that it has been replaced.

1) Consider Jamie’s responses to matters of life and death:
The answer as to why anything exists as opposed to nothingness is that existence is mathematics, i.e., logic. Only this and nothing more. (p37-thirty-eight).

This explanation is then undermined completely by the numerous references that are made to the narrative of Jesus’s life in the Gospels, and her own insistence that only Christians whose belief and behaviour are pure and based on the teachings of Jesus can attain eternal life. No reference to mathematics at all.

And now consider Jamie’s response to the hypothesis that there is no meaning to life:

If it could be definitely proved that God and eternal life do not exist, then the only rational course would be to commit suicide. The reason for this is because even if one is presently enjoying one’s life, tragedy and horrific pain can strike at almost any time, quite apart from how one lives one’s life. Since one can have no real control over whether one ends up in a situation of horrific pain, the only rational course if God and eternal life do not exist would be to commit a painless suicide. Since in such a hypothetical scenario one’s eternal death is certain anyway, one might as well get there in a manner which ensures the least pain. (p54).

Suicide as an option for those who reject Christ the Saviour is to me a perversion of Christ’s message. Sadly, this intolerance of other people’s views is common among doctrinal Christians who in reality are unable to love their neighbour, regardless of what the neighbour thinks or believes –I can’t imagine a real Christian recommending suicide to their neighbour.

2) The negative view of the Christian Church is amplified through its association with government because all government is a wicked and violent conspiracy against Jesus:

Government is a massive death-cult which requires gargantuan levels of human sacrifice. The bloody human sacrifice is still regarded by mankind as the most sacred of ritual, instead of being viewed as the depraved and ghoulish institution it is. The human-sacrifice orgies in which throngs of lamentably deceived people kill and get killed so that a relative handful of the most rich and powerful can become even more rich and powerful are made holy by the secular priesthood of power which officiates the state’s bloodstained pantheon that sits atop a mountain of rotting human corpses. Truth is the most hated thing in the world (p 56).

There is no room here for political theory, no room for any sense of the way in which government has changed over time, no room for an argument about what the meaning of sacrifice might be, and, critically, why human societies and their governments have actually striven to avoid human sacrifice. Why for example, did Japan sue for peace in 1945 when the opportunity to slaughter another million was available?

Jamie has no interest in any faith other than Christianity, all other faiths are either dismissed as irrelevant, or in the case of Judaism, presented as essentially pagan religions that came ‘too soon’ for the truth of Christ, even though Christ was a Jew. This intolerance of other faiths is a denial of the Christian idea that one should love one’s neighbour as oneself, regardless of that person’s belief. It also trashes thousands of years of culture and civilisation which according to Jamie was created by the same God that created her. Not a democratic view of other cultures.

The claim that:
Not only are all governments inherently terroristic, but they are by far the largest and most murderous terrorist organizations in existence. Just within the last century governments butchered over 200 million people, almost all of them innocent noncombatants (p65)...

Ignores the devastation caused by the Plague or ‘Black Death’ in Europe and Asia, by Influenza, Malaria, Measles and Smallpox and Meningitis all over the world; yet not only have flies, fleas and mosquitoes caused vast deaths, there is no discussion of the role played by nature in ‘God’s Plan’, perhaps because Jamie thinks it unimportant. It matters because Jamie believes in Intelligent Design, and should therefore at least offer an explanation for God’s role as the slayer of billions. Presumably nothing happens by accident –tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, epidemics: these must all be acts of God, for what else can they be in Jamie’s scheme of things?

3) An inability to analyse historical events.
Jamie gets even deeper into the mire when attempting to depict the duplicity of state terrorism using ‘false-flag’ operations to start wars –the Reichstag Fire (1933) and the attacks on German units on the Polish border in 1939; Pearl Harbour in 1941, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam in 1964. The problem with these accounts is that Jamie does not know how to analyse historical events. A common mistake made by high school students is to mistake an event for a cause –the false-flag events Jamie draws attention to may have been the events that sparked war, but the cause lay somewhere else –the need for the Nazi’s to eliminate opposition parties in the Reichstag; Germany’s belief that it could not survive unless it were the dominant state in Europe; the USA’s determination to prevent Communism from taking root in South-east Asia. FH Hinsley discussed the difference between ‘occasions’ and ‘causes’ in history in Power and the Pursuit of Peace (1961), and is still worth reading as a guide to historical methods.

The inability to understand historical events is evident in the depiction of secretive societies such as the Illuminati, the Freemasons and the Bilderberg Group as leading actors in the conspiracy of the Beast at war with Jesus. The ‘Rothschilds’ are trotted out as the manipulators of power behind the thrones, although Jamie claims

…the current head Rothschilds are Jewish by ancestry only, not by religion or culture: as given the pagan, neo-Egyptian occult symbolism of the Israeli Supreme Court building built by the Rothschilds the Rothschilds obviously hold Jewish religion and culture in contemptuous mockery (p91)

To confirm that the modern state of Israel is integral to the creation of the beast’s one world government, Jamie quotes Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, but out of context in order to promote her point. Thus Jamie claims

David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, stated in a 1962 article for Look magazine that this court in Jerusalem would become “the Supreme Court of Mankind”…(p92)

In fact, in 1962 Ben-Gurion was responding to a common page-filler used by newspapers and journals, and asked to predict what the world would be like in 25 years time, the brief article is here;

"The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnanacy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years."
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1641

4) Jamie attacks her Inspiration
On page 96 she writes:
The great tyrannies of the 20th century were first and foremost an attempt to abolish Christianity. The reason for this governmental antagonism against Christianity is the same reason this temperament is so prevalent in current academia. Both academia and the corporate media in our present day are grafted to the hip of the state, and the natural tendency of the state is to tolerate no God before it.

Does this also apply to Prof. Frank Tipler of Tulane University? Jamie’s paper is rooted in the belief that Tipler has proven the existence of God. But he has tenure on the hip of the Beast.

I could go on and on, but it just gets more embarrassing. Arguing in a footnote that Karl Marx did not invent the concepts of class and class struggle –something every sociology undergraduate has known for years, Jamie (n223, ninety-eigt) goes on to give ‘early examples’ of class struggle but they are all references to the books of the Bible, and I couldn’t find any that referred to class or class struggle.

5) Beheading is the natural form of execution for the Beast One-World Government, but it will end in tears for the anti-Christ:
Of course, the heads of all the innocent people beheaded for their witness of Jesus Christ and their refusal to accept the Mark of the Beast, if they were to be cryogenically stored as part of the world government’s program into researching mind-uploading, would be nicely preserved and available for technological resurrection if the world government were deposed, as Revelation says it indeed will be. Such people—the meek—would reign on Earth and go on colonize space, never to die again. Their minds will be immortal minds with vastly more computational resources than current human minds, and hence they could create any reality they could conceive via computer simulation. That is, they would live in literal heaven, i.e., paradise (p106-107).

Destined for colonial rule, the world is not enough for superhumans. If there are ‘alien beings’ on the new planets the new superhumans colonise, will they be exterminated if they refuse to accept the message of Christ?

6) Are we really human, if we are evolving into computers? Last word to Jamie:

Left to their own devices, the Sun will eventually move off the main sequence (main sequence stars use hydrogen in their cores as their fuel by fusing it into helium via nuclear fusion) and become a red giant; in the process, in approximately 7.6 billion years from now the Earth will be engulfed by the Sun and incinerated. Although before this destruction can take place, the future immortal beings will dismantle the Earth and convert its mass into computing machines, upon which the Earth’s biosphere will be preserved through simulation. However, during the eventual collapse phase of the universe, the temperature of the universe will diverge to infinity. The matter of the universe will eventually become hot plasma. As the temperature continues to increase, it will subsequently become too hot for the atomic elements to exist, at which point information processing and storage will have to be encoded via traveling waves and standing waves, eventually using using elementary particles to directly compute on, with the universe itself acting as the container to enclose the waves. The matter which now makes up the Earth will eventually be ionized into plasma, but by then life will have gained control over all matter in the universe and converted it into superintelligent computers (p112).

[loveboof]

You are not a retired director of a mental hospital are you Stavros?

Because of his patience dealing with the clinically insane? lol

I can fully understand the desire to have a rational explanation for your beliefs - that is why I have discounted Christianity (and the other main religions) as viable options for me. But what I don't understand is religious people who have already abandoned the 'rational choice', seeking to reconcile their faith with some sort of pseudoscience...

Once you have made that faith based decision to accept a religion - surely you are implicitly accepting 'faith' as your reasoning?

It doesn't really make sense to put your faith in something while you hope for some proof to emerge. If that is your inclination, then a more reasonable decision would be agnosticism. The whole 'faith' aspect of religion is simultaneously it's biggest weakness and it's biggest strength. If you desire proof in addition to your faith, that only leaves faith as a weakness.

[Stavros]

Loveboof I think that is a hugely important point. I am not sure if Tipler's claim proves anything, it doesn't make sense to me to try and imagine what God is, so it is just as odd to assume that physics can do so through hypothetical ideas about a future we cannot know. And I also thought it was the mystery of God that makes the concept so flexible. Is it possible that God did create the heavens and the earth, and then moved on to other things and has forgotten us? It is is easy to ridicule someone with Jamie's beliefs, I at least gave her the benefit of the doubt, and was disappointed at the poor quality of the reasoning. Sometimes, a simple faith is the most effective way of finding peace with God, if that is what some people believe in. The rest sounds like the propaganda of the obsessed.

[loveboof]

Loveboof I think that is a hugely important point. I am not sure if Tipler's claim proves anything, it doesn't make sense to me to try and imagine what God is, so it is just as odd to assume that physics can do so through hypothetical ideas about a future we cannot know. And I also thought it was the mystery of God that makes the concept so flexible. Is it possible that God did create the heavens and the earth, and then moved on to other things and has forgotten us? It is is easy to ridicule someone with Jamie's beliefs, I at least gave her the benefit of the doubt, and was disappointed at the poor quality of the reasoning. Sometimes, a simple faith is the most effective way of finding peace with God, if that is what some people believe in. The rest sounds like the propaganda of the obsessed.

Exactly. And I respect your even-handed response to Jamie!

Before I even opened the thread I knew it was complete nonsense, but I lost interest very quickly when I saw exactly how half-baked and inaccessible the ideas had been portrayed to us.

Breaking down that mysticism behind God/religion is the surest way to desolve the power it has over people, and so it is strange to see religious people attempting to do just that! (Perhaps that's why they use 'scientific' theories - to discredit real science with a load of nonsense that is dressed up as the same thing?)

[buttslinger]

i like it!!!!

[broncofan]

When ideas are shrouded in terms of art and expressed in sentences so interminable and incomprehensible, it is clear that the point is to win converts through sheer confusion. Where the sentence structure allows people to actually understand what Jamie has written, the logic is not nearly as airtight as she pretends. Why does a potentially painful death without an afterlife make suicide the only rational option? Perhaps people want to enjoy the time they have and don't want to trade a long life for a certain outcome. In fact, the argument seems to indicate a lack of respect for the richness of life's experiences. I find that unattractive to begin with. The uncertainty of life does not make the entire enterprise worthless.

Since I don't understand the Cosmology, and have not made a good faith attempt to unravel what seems very muddled because I am afraid it will be a giant waste of time, I will just state one impression I have. It seems like a giant tautology. We prove the existence of Gd by assuming that Jesus is the savior and that all of these conspiratorial forces have undermined the real message of Gd. Then we cite the work of someone who speculates about the future. Neither inductive nor deductive reasoning can reliably predict the future without taking into account all causal forces. That means we must have a deity in our presence, or someone who is really confused and thinks that plucking together a bunch of disparate events and stating a conclusion that doesn't follow is political or hard science. It's junk science, pseudo-science, and the epitome of arrogance. I don't mean that as an insult though.

[broncofan]

Jamie,
since I find your writing to be really difficult to understand and since you say that all existence is mathematics, the following request seems to me at least eminently reasonable. State your arguments in the form of inductive and deductive reasoning. For the induction, briefly cull together the events that lead you to your axioms or postulates (we don't need all the details). For the deduction, state what premises you are starting with and what you are attempting to prove. I think you will find some gaps along the way, and will thus save everyone an enormous amount of time.

Of the questions I would like answered. What empirical evidence do you have that Jesus lived, and that he is the savior of mankind? What is the basis for believing anything Tipler or anyone else says about the future? When you cite a conspiracy, could you state all individuals involved, any correspondences between them proving that their actions were concerted, as well as any proof you have of their central goal? I am a firm believer that if something can't be expressed in terms that most people can understand, there's probably not much to it. So, help me out.

[hippifried]

The answer is 42.

[Jamie Michelle]

Rather than reply to Jamie's responses to my critical comments on parts of her original ppaper, I have divided my response into two parts.

Part I: Cosmology

In an attempt to take seriously the new version of the paper Jamie has made available, I have read that part of it which I understand, and have divided this very long response into two parts, dealing with the Cosmology as far as I can in part 1; and the ‘History’ in a second post which will appear after this one in the next day or so.

Since this thread was initiated by Jamie French, she has re-written the paper that she has made available on the weblinks in her post.

For those of you who do not want to read the whole of my refutation of the paper written by Jamie French, my resume is as follows:

The author, who claims that Frank Tipler’s work has been published in peer-reviewed science journals and that this gives Tipler a position of respect, deliberately ignores the ridicule and rejection that his version of ‘Intelligent Design’ has produced.
There are examples here:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/PhysicsChrist.htm
http://www.joly.org.uk/gordo/ellis3.html
http://sfgospel.typepad.com/sf_gospel/2008/12/the-theological-forest-and-the-dogmatic-trees-frank-j-tiplers-the-physics-of-christianity.html--a relatively positive review of The Physics of Christianity.

Instead, Jamie uses Tipler’s anti-evolutionary cosmology to argue not only that God exists, but that most of recorded human history since the death of Jesus has been a giant conspiracy to undermine the legacy, the values and the message of Jesus Christ. Omega Point Cosmology not only proves the existence of God, it predicts a ‘Day of Judgement’ as an event –or sequence of events- in which those with the ‘Mark of the Beast’ will be punished, and those who have accepted Jesus into their hearts will be saved. A global conspiracy led by ‘the Rothschilds’ (phoney Jews who make a mockery of Jews and Judaism) has enabled the rulers of Empires and States to form secretive societies –the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bilderberg Group et al- to maintain their campaign of financial greed and universal evil, based around a pagan pre-Christian and indeed, Anti-Christian cult. Using Government as the instrument of absolute evil, God has forced humans to live through the evils of mass murder and hatred in order to learn the difference between it and the absolute purity of Christ’s message. No Pain, No Gain. The paper draws on numerous events in history to show how this Global Conspiracy has victimised ordinary people –mostly through hugely destructive world wars and genocide- and claims that only those who have lived in the way of Jesus will be saved.

I am not sure how far Jamie has actually understood the theory of Frank Tipler, but here is a succinct resume of his theories by a scientist:

In The Physics of Immortality, Tipler provided the mechanism by which we will all live forever. In a billion-billion years or so, life in the form of highly advanced and supremely intelligent robots, evolved from those that we humans invented and sent into space before destroying ourselves as a species, will have spread throughout the universe. At that point the robots will control the collapse of the universe down to a final singularity called the Omega Point. Following the teaching of the famous Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who died in 1955, Tipler associates the Omega Point with God, in particular, God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. This also follows from God's message to Moses in Exodus 3:14, "I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. The collapse to the final singularity takes an infinite time as viewed from inside the universe. During that time the robots recreate all the humans and life forms that ever existed in a computer simulation. Not only do we all live our lives over again in that simulation, but over and over and over again. And not just our lives, but also all the possible lives we ever might have had, good and bad. That's the immortality Tipler says we can look forward to.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/PhysicsChrist.htm

It should be noted that Jamie has included this biographical note at the end of the paper:

Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, James Redford is a born-again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who concludes that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists’ technical term for God) and the Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) are an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics (Page 128).

The starting point for Jamie’s version of Tipler’s cosmology is a book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) co-authored by John D. Barrow and Frank J.Tipler. Works subsequently written by Tipler form the main body of work on ‘Omega Point Cosmology’.

I have no expertise in hard science and am frequently baffled by cosmology; and to me the author has done nothing to advance the cause of those who rely on cosmology for the ‘big picture’ of how the Universe was created, and where it is going.

Here is a key point that drives much of the paper’s arguments:

The Omega Point is a term used by Prof. Tipler to designate the final cosmological singularity, which according to the known laws of physics is a physically-necessary cosmological state in the far future of the universe. Per the laws of physics, as the universe comes to an end at this singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage) increases unlimitedly with a hyperbolic growth rate as the radius of the universe collapses to zero, allowing an infinite number of bits to be processed and stored before the end of spacetime. Via this supertask, a simulation run on this cosmological computer can thereby continue forever in its own terms (i.e., in computer clock time, or experiential time), even though the universe lasts only a finite amount of proper time (page 4).

Crucially, the Omega Point is the definition of God…well sort of, as the author writes:
The Omega Point final singularity and its state of infinite informational capacity is by definition God, due to it having all the haecceities claimed for God by the traditional religions (as is detailed in Section 7.1). The final singularity is actually a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by the Abrahamic religions. (page 4).

The key point here is that of all the world’s religions and belief systems, the only one that matters is Christianity. As the author remarks, without naming Islam, Hinduism Buddhism or any other religion of system of belief:

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Cosmological Singularity within the Omega Point cosmology, which is deselective of all other major religions (Section 7.1, p44).

Indeed, the author, having dismissed all other religions from her mathematical equation, goes further in claiming that

Jesus Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck, and along with it the rest of the world. A great irony is that even antitheists benefit enormously from the civilization that Christ founded: indeed, almost all of the Earth’s current population—and hence, almost all antitheists—couldn’t even be alive were it not for the advancements made by Christian civilization (page 33).

There is no need to mention the achievements of ‘Science and Civilization in China’, no need to mention the crucial role that Islamic civilisation played in keeping alive the science of the Greeks and the Romans when Europeans were not interested in it; as well as its own achievements, because when you crunch the numbers, the Chinese and the Muslims are, quite simply, irrelevant to the history of science.

But to get back to that moment when the universe collapses and the super-computer starts up: If you want to know HOW this computational capacity has been reached, the author writes:

The known laws of physics require there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time in order to force the collapse of the universe and then manipulate its collapse so that the computational capacity of the universe can diverge to infinity (Page 4)

This divergence is performed by human life that has transferred

its information processes to higher energy states, eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on via traveling waves and standing waves. As the radius of the universe goes to zero, the matter energy of the universe goes to positive infinity, thereby allowing the number of particle states in which to store information to diverge to infinity (page 5).

The computing power that these ‘higher energy states’ have enables them to compute the whole of life from the beginning of the Big Bang, and in the process go further by colonising space:

The interstellar colonization phase required for achieving the Omega Point will be accomplished by naturally-evolved sapient life forms (with such species independently evolved on average roughly every Hubble volume2) whose brains have been transformed (e.g., with nanotechnology) into artificial computers (such as quantum computers) onboard tiny starships of circa one kilogram that will exponentially colonize space, many times faster than mortal human beings. The incredible expense of keeping flesh-and-blood humans alive in space makes it highly improbable that such humans will ever personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient substrate transformations of naturally-evolved sapient minds and artificial intelligences will spread civilization throughout space. Given the rate of exponential growth of human technological development, this colonization phase should likely start before 2100 (page 5).

The crucial point here is the way in which Tipler, supported by the author, presents human beings as machines, capable therefore of evolving into, in effect, super-computers.

The discussion of the Omega Point in Jamie’s paper continues by supporting the theory of Prof Tipler, and discusses the way in which Science has tried to accommodate itself or distance itself from God through various interpretations of the ‘Big Bang’, culminating in Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity (2007). Further discussion of science and the physics of the Omega Point are presented up to page 33, but I don’t understand it so I cannot comment.

The rest of the paper, from Section 6 on p33 to p121, is discussion of the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology (from the Abstract).

It is difficult for me to offer a summary of a cosmology that I do not understand, but I think I know enough about the history of civilisations to believe that it is nothing but pure arrogance, as well as a factual error, to claim that it is only the work of European scientists working in a culturally and theologically Christian environment that has any value in the history of science. This is Western Imperialism of the Mind taken to a really quite offensive level. No allowance is made, for example, in the history of medicine, which is part of science, for the use of Quinine as an anti-malarial in China and Peru long before Ronald Ross in the 19th century discovered the transmission of the disease through the bite of an infected mosquito (in India). It is also the case that Tipler, rather obviously, believes that ‘Intelligent Design’ explains the origin of the universe, not evolution; and that there has been no human agency in the creation of climate change and advanced global warming, which has been caused by sunspots.

The colonisation of space has me completely baffled, it seems to me to an idea that has more relevance to Star Trek. We have enough issues for science to deal with right here on Planet Earth, without seeing a need to send our robotic clones into the Galaxy to spread the word of Jesus.

Who is "Jamie French"? That's not my name. My name is Jamie Michelle Redford, and my article is published under my legal name of James Redford. I don't see where you get this "French" surname from, whether from my posts on this forum or from my article.

At any rate, your objections to my article are as fallacious as the name you have repeatedly applied to me.

My article is based upon the either the known laws of physics (which have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment to date); or upon the cited historical record which is not in dispute, and hence is not subject to change without a major reworking of history.

Your problem is that you are bringing to the table far too much intellectual baggage, and that is causing you to attempt to shoehorn reality to fit bounds which you are comfortable with, i.e., that simply confirm what you already believed before. Yet the entire point of my article is to demonstrate to people that their common conception of reality is for the most part utter bilge--and moreover, utter bilge that is causing the sociopolitical problems in the world which we see.

Yet you want to wallow in this utter bilge. If your parochial conception of the world were the correct view, then we would already be in paradise, as most people accept a conception of the world close to yours.

The reason the world is in such societal horror is not due to most people being in possession of the truth.

So obviously if I speak the truth it will be objected to quite strenuously by most people, since it is out of bounds of the lies that we all grow up with.

Yet the lies that we all grow up with are killing us. And the killing has only just begun.

The care that you have taken with my name is the same care that you have applied in your response to me. Which is to say, it has almost no connection to reality.

For those who are actuallty looking for veridical answers, instead of merely reinforcements of the massively destructive lies which were are told to believe by the mass-murderous elite who rule over us, see my below article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2

Note that the contents of my above article aren't subject to the type of fallacious critique which you have attempted, as I actually cite my sources per the Scholarly Method, and so people can see for themselves that what I say in my foregoing article is true.

Hence, your bizarre responses (such as coming up with the name "French") to me on this forum are a manifestation of your own worries and fears. It is up to you to let go of the lies which you were raised with, instead of attempting to rebuke one who shows you the way out of such deception. Many are not able to do that, as they are too wedded to their fairy-tale conception of reality.

Many would rather believe in a lie and lose their soul by doing so than to wake up. Waking up another person is hard to do when that person is committed to their dream-world. All I can tell you is that you're putting your very soul (i.e., the program of one's mind) in jeopardy by hanging on to these inculcated beliefs of yours, i.e., the lies imparted to you by others, with those others being the power-elite who stand to gain by them. Perhaps you think I'm telling you that as a ruse, in order to get one over on you. But in reality I'm just telling you that because it is the truth.

As well, it would be nice if you could join me in Heaven. But that option is purely your choice, and so for you wish to reject that option.

Truth is the most hated thing in the world. Whereas lies are accepted readily.

This world is not suffering from an overabundance of truth. Indeed, quite the opposite.

For those who would like to learn about the alternative to the way of this truth-disparaging world, see my above article.

----------

If I get the time, then I'll reply to Stavros's specific fallacious points when I get around to it. But it's sort of like replying to a mentally retarded child: there's not much point in doing so in the first place, and at any rate the poor child can just come up with an endless stream of nonsense anyway. So it's not as if one can ever "win" an argument with such a child.

And just to be clear, my appologies go out to mentally retarded children, as I did not mean to suggest that your arguments delve to the level of Stavros's.

[trish]

Jamie, your article is not based solely upon the “known laws of physics” together with that part of the “historical record which is not in dispute.” It is also based upon a proposed and not yet generally accepted and therefore not yet “known” formulation of quantum gravity. It is also based upon a number of reductive definitions, in particular of knowledge and god, that are neither part of the known laws of physics nor the indisputable historic record. Once again I refer you to ( http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=53278 ) our prior discussion of this issue in which both Bella and I clearly demonstrate the futility of such reductions. I think Stavro will probably point out as well that very little of the historical record is beyond dispute.

I shall take some time now to put forward a somewhat more detailed criticism.

General Relativity (GR) is an extremely general theory. There are infinitely many solutions to the Einstein field equations. Meaningful solutions are found by adjoining to GR additional assumptions; e.g. one could require the solution to display spherical symmetry, one may obtain solutions with absolutely no matter or energy what-so-ever, or one can find solutions in which the universe is filled homogeneously and isotropically with matter and energy. GR alone does not determine the shape of the universe. Yet, GR does have some consequences, one being the following: There are no stable binary star systems; i.e. two stars which are gravitationally bound will spiral toward each other and eventually collide. The lost effective energy of the contracting system is radiated away in the form of gravitational waves. As the stars fall toward each other the distance between them decreases continuously and the frequency of the radiated gravitational energy undergoes a continuous glissando. AFGL 3068 is a beautiful example of one such instability. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/06/awesome-death-spiral-of-a-bizarre-star/

Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory is another example of a classical field theory. It predicts that atoms decay and emit high frequency electromagnetic radiation as the electrons spiral, screaming into the nucleus of the atom. The instability of stellar binaries is a fact and there are many examples like AFGL 3068. The instability of atoms is not a fact and thankfully there are no examples. The resolution to the paradox was supplied by Planck who hypothesized that orbital angular momentum of an electron must come in multiples of h/2pi which is the lowest possible angular momentum for an electron orbit. Hence electrons can only radiate electromagnetic waves with a discrete spectrum (not a continuous glissando) and orbital electrons are bound away from the nucleus by the necessity of maintaining a minimal orbital angular momentum and the stability of the atom is thereby saved. Classical electrodynamics was clearly wrong and inconsistent with quantum theory.

Like GR, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is also a very general theory; less a theory than an amalgam of mathematical techniques designed to describe the interactions between fields and particles. QFT alone doesn’t tell us if there are any fields at all, or only one field, or nine hundred and twenty six. It does tell us that if there is a field, it must be decomposable mathematically into a discrete, if infinite, collection of vibrational modes. One of the great successes of twentieth century physics was the complete reformulation of electromagnetic theory as a quantum field theory known as Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Whereas Maxwell’s theory was inconsistent with QFT, QED is consistent with both special relativity and QFT.

I bring all of this up for two reasons:

QFT requires fields to propagate energy in discrete packets. The radiation from a quantum field will always have a discrete spectrum. GR predicts the gravitational radiation from a decaying binary has a continuous spectrum. The two theories are mutually inconsistent; i.e. GR+QFT is inconsistent. The hope of most working physicists is they aren’t hopelessly mutually inconsistent. Perhaps there is a modification of GR, call it GR’ or a modification of QFT, call it QFT’ so that GR’ and QFT’ are still recognizably the kin of GR and QFT respectively, that GR’+QFT’ is logically consistent and the predictions of GR’+QFT’ are empirically sound.
Since GR+QFT is inconsistent it is over-determined; i.e. you can prove anything from the amalgam of the two. But GR’+QFT’ , should such a unification exist, would be radically indeterminate in the same way that GR alone or QFT alone are radically indeterminate. QFT’ would be consistent with a world with no fields as well as with a world with fifty fields. GR’ would be consistent with a world with no matter, or a world with exactly one rotating blackhole or with a universe filled with energy. From GR’+QFT’ one would not be able to prove the existence of anything what-so-ever, especially gods.

GR’ + QFT’ would only provide a background against which physics can be done exactly like the three Newtonian principles provide the essential background for seventeenth century physics. The Principia doesn’t prove that matter exists, but the Principia does require that if matter does exist, then it’s conserved. What else is needed then for a Theory of Everything? A theory of the specific fields and particles that are known to exist; i.e. one needs to hypothesize the existence of quarks, bosons, etc. as well as their properties and their interactions. The Standard Theory of Particles would be an example.

In short: a consistent unification of GR and QFT cannot even prove a quark exists let alone the existence of even a single god answering to the Christian conception of said being. If Tipler has a proof of the existence of “God” it is false advertising to claim it is a proof from the principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics alone (assuming he has a consistent unification of the two). Such a proof would require many many more assumptions. Assumptions such as the ones we touched on in this post; e.g. assumptions pertaining to boundary conditions and postulates maintaining the existence of specific fields and particles as well as hypotheses regarding their interactions. And assumptions, such as the ones I touched upon in my last two posts and which Bela also addressed; e.g. definitional axioms that introduce the necessary theological language (“God”) which the scientific theory fails to incorporate and meta-assumptions that the definitional axioms do indeed have the intended reference.

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, your article is not based solely upon the “known laws of physics” together with that part of the “historical record which is not in dispute.” It is also based upon a proposed and not yet generally accepted and therefore not yet “known” formulation of quantum gravity. It is also based upon a number of reductive definitions, in particular of knowledge and god, that are neither part of the known laws of physics nor the indisputable historic record. Once again I refer you to ( http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=53278 ) our prior discussion of this issue in which both Bella and I clearly demonstrate the futility of such reductions. I think Stavro will probably point out as well that very little of the historical record is beyond dispute.

I shall take some time now to put forward a somewhat more detailed criticism.

General Relativity (GR) is an extremely general theory. There are infinitely many solutions to the Einstein field equations. Meaningful solutions are found by adjoining to GR additional assumptions; e.g. one could require the solution to display spherical symmetry, one may obtain solutions with absolutely no matter or energy what-so-ever, or one can find solutions in which the universe is filled homogeneously and isotropically with matter and energy. GR alone does not determine the shape of the universe. Yet, GR does have some consequences, one being the following: There are no stable binary star systems; i.e. two stars which are gravitationally bound will spiral toward each other and eventually collide. The lost effective energy of the contracting system is radiated away in the form of gravitational waves. As the stars fall toward each other the distance between them decreases continuously and the frequency of the radiated gravitational energy undergoes a continuous glissando. AFGL 3068 is a beautiful example of one such instability. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/06/awesome-death-spiral-of-a-bizarre-star/

Maxwell’s electromagnetic field theory is another example of a classical field theory. It predicts that atoms decay and emit high frequency electromagnetic radiation as the electrons spiral, screaming into the nucleus of the atom. The instability of stellar binaries is a fact and there are many examples like AFGL 3068. The instability of atoms is not a fact and thankfully there are no examples. The resolution to the paradox was supplied by Planck who hypothesized that orbital angular momentum of an electron must come in multiples of h/2pi which is the lowest possible angular momentum for an electron orbit. Hence electrons can only radiate electromagnetic waves with a discrete spectrum (not a continuous glissando) and orbital electrons are bound away from the nucleus by the necessity of maintaining a minimal orbital angular momentum and the stability of the atom is thereby saved. Classical electrodynamics was clearly wrong and inconsistent with quantum theory.

Like GR, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is also a very general theory; less a theory than an amalgam of mathematical techniques designed to describe the interactions between fields and particles. QFT alone doesn’t tell us if there are any fields at all, or only one field, or nine hundred and twenty six. It does tell us that if there is a field, it must be decomposable mathematically into a discrete, if infinite, collection of vibrational modes. One of the great successes of twentieth century physics was the complete reformulation of electromagnetic theory as a quantum field theory known as Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). Whereas Maxwell’s theory was inconsistent with QFT, QED is consistent with both special relativity and QFT.

I bring all of this up for two reasons:

QFT requires fields to propagate energy in discrete packets. The radiation from a quantum field will always have a discrete spectrum. GR predicts the gravitational radiation from a decaying binary has a continuous spectrum. The two theories are mutually inconsistent; i.e. GR+QFT is inconsistent. The hope of most working physicists is they aren’t hopelessly mutually inconsistent. Perhaps there is a modification of GR, call it GR’ or a modification of QFT, call it QFT’ so that GR’ and QFT’ are still recognizably the kin of GR and QFT respectively, that GR’+QFT’ is logically consistent and the predictions of GR’+QFT’ are empirically sound.
Since GR+QFT is inconsistent it is over-determined; i.e. you can prove anything from the amalgam of the two. But GR’+QFT’ , should such a unification exist, would be radically indeterminate in the same way that GR alone or QFT alone are radically indeterminate. QFT’ would be consistent with a world with no fields as well as with a world with fifty fields. GR’ would be consistent with a world with no matter, or a world with exactly one rotating blackhole or with a universe filled with energy. From GR’+QFT’ one would not be able to prove the existence of anything what-so-ever, especially gods.

GR’ + QFT’ would only provide a background against which physics can be done exactly like the three Newtonian principles provide the essential background for seventeenth century physics. The Principia doesn’t prove that matter exists, but the Principia does require that if matter does exist, then it’s conserved. What else is needed then for a Theory of Everything? A theory of the specific fields and particles that are known to exist; i.e. one needs to hypothesize the existence of quarks, bosons, etc. as well as their properties and their interactions. The Standard Theory of Particles would be an example.

In short: a consistent unification of GR and QFT cannot even prove a quark exists let alone the existence of even a single god answering to the Christian conception of said being. If Tipler has a proof of the existence of “God” it is false advertising to claim it is a proof from the principles of general relativity and quantum mechanics alone (assuming he has a consistent unification of the two). Such a proof would require many many more assumptions. Assumptions such as the ones we touched on in this post; e.g. assumptions pertaining to boundary conditions and postulates maintaining the existence of specific fields and particles as well as hypotheses regarding their interactions. And assumptions, such as the ones I touched upon in my last two posts and which Bela also addressed; e.g. definitional axioms that introduce the necessary theological language (“God”) which the scientific theory fails to incorporate and meta-assumptions that the definitional axioms do indeed have the intended reference.

The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) incorporates all the known laws of physics into a logically-consistent whole. So your claim that this is not a Theory of Everything (TOE) is not only logically nihil ad rem, but also a false claim.

Again, for more on this matter, see my below article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2

Regarding the definition of God, see Sec. 7.1: "The Haecceities of God" and the Glossary section "haecceity".

Your attempt to say that we just don't know the meaning of God, and therefore, shucks, any reference to God has no meaning, has no weight. The attributes of God have a well-defined and recurring meaning in the traditional religions. Indeed, the attributes tradditionally applied to God are so peculiar that they can only reference a Being infinite in Its attributes. So your attempt to play definitional sophistry don't work, as the traditional definitions of God apply to only one actual thing in reality, and that one thing is the Cosmological Singularity, of which has all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God. For the details on that, see my previous paragraph.

[Jamie Michelle]

how remarkably abusivee the post from Jamie is to Stavros for his simple slip in confusing her and another regular poster here called Jamie French - and for daring to subject her astonishing ramble through science and idiotic politicking and religion.

Ah, yes, because it's too much to expect that a person could tell the difference between the names of Jamie Michelle (or James Redford) and Jamie French.

Wow, I am just so out of bounds for thinking that a human could do that.

But I don't even care about that. It doesn't bother me if someone can't get my name right, even though my name is very simple, and even though they have encountered it numerous times.

Fine. So you got my name wrong. Repeatedly. Whatever. I don't care.

The point is that this shows a severe lack of attention to detail. And that is Stavros's modus operandi. His whole method of operation is taking something as being granted (i.e., the beliefs he wants to hold) and then constructing the reality of his which he wants to believe in.

So I'm not being "abusivee" (to use your term), I'm simply pointing out that my critics are off their rockers. They're full of it. With "it" being "crud".

[trish]

Jamie, consider the family of subsets of space-time which include your worldline as a subset. The family is closed under intersections and supersets. That makes it a topology...a Hausdorff topology in fact. In that topology you, Jamie, are omnipresent. In the definition above replace Jamie’s worldline with the Omega Point. Now you have another Hausdorff topology. In this topology the Omega Point is omnipresent, in the sense that every neighborhood of every event contains the Omega Point. This is your argument that the Omega Point is omnipresent. But it is only an argument that the Omega Point is in every neighborhood of the topology whose definition is “a set is a neighborhood if and only it contains the Omega Point.” The whole argument is circular and the circularity is hidden in the obscurity of the mathematical jargon that disguises your equivocation; i.e. your definition of omnipresent is only one of many that others are refer to when they talk about god’s omnipresence. Similar criticisms apply to your argument that the Omega Point is all knowing, all powerful etc. The easy acceptance of reductive definition remains a major pitfall in your argument.

[trish]

Addendum: (I hate that we can no longer edit our posts) Corrections in italics:

Jamie, consider the family of subsets of space-time which include your worldline as a subset. The family is closed under intersections and supersets. That makes it a topology...a Hausdorff topology in fact. In that topology you, Jamie, are omnipresent. In the definition above replace Jamie’s worldline with the Omega Point. Now you have another Hausdorff topology. In this topology the Omega Point is omnipresent, in the sense that every neighborhood of every event contains the Omega Point. This is your argument that the Omega Point is omnipresent. But it is only an argument that the Omega Point is in every neighborhood of the topology whose definition is “a set is a neighborhood if and only it contains the Omega Point.” The whole argument is circular. The circularity is hidden in the obscurity of the mathematical jargon that disguises your equivocation; i.e. your definition of omnipresent is only one of many that others [] refer to when they talk about god’s omnipresence. Similar criticisms apply to your argument that the Omega Point is all knowing, all powerful etc. The easy acceptance of reductive definition remains a major pitfall in your argument.

[broncofan]

, and at any rate the poor child can just come up with an endless stream of nonsense anyway.

Your talent for projection is far beyond anything I've seen. While you were writing this sentence, did you smile, sense a type of irony you couldn't quite define, or feel a vague sense that you've encountered such behavior elsewhere? Did you say to yourself, "now here's an example of that behavioral tendency...oh wait a second I've lost my train of thought....yes I was saying about the incoherent plot of anti-Christian, cosmically evil agents intent on world domination.

[trish]

(A warning concerning terminology: The construction above of a T1-space that is not a T2-space is Hausdorff's construction...hence the adjective Hausdorff. However, that language is at odds with some textbooks that refer to any T2-space has Hausdorff owing to the fact that the T2-Separation Property is also known as the Hausdorff Separation Property.)

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie, consider the family of subsets of space-time which include your worldline as a subset. The family is closed under intersections and supersets. That makes it a topology...a Hausdorff topology in fact. In that topology you, Jamie, are omnipresent. In the definition above replace Jamie’s worldline with the Omega Point. Now you have another Hausdorff topology. In this topology the Omega Point is omnipresent, in the sense that every neighborhood of every event contains the Omega Point. This is your argument that the Omega Point is omnipresent. But it is only an argument that the Omega Point is in every neighborhood of the topology whose definition is “a set is a neighborhood if and only it contains the Omega Point.” The whole argument is circular and the circularity is hidden in the obscurity of the mathematical jargon that disguises your equivocation; i.e. your definition of omnipresent is only one of many that others are refer to when they talk about god’s omnipresence. Similar criticisms apply to your argument that the Omega Point is all knowing, all powerful etc. The easy acceptance of reductive definition remains a major pitfall in your argument.

The Omega Point is the solitary-point final singularity: all spacetimes points imping upon the Omega Point final singularity. Thus, your argument concerning worldlines just reinforces the fact that the Omega Point is omnipresent. Your above argument is an argument that the Omega Point is indeed God.

The Omega Point is omniscient, as it knows all that can logically be known and this knowledge is infinite in extent, i.e., consisting of an infinite number of bits (or bytes, or nats) of information.

The Omega Point is omnipotent as it contains all power and energy that exists, wherein this power and energy is infinite in amount, i.e., physically speaking, an infinite number of watts and joules.

For more on the above, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2

[loveboof]

you attempt to shoehorn reality to fit bounds which you are comfortable with i.e., that simply confirm what you already believed before.

Many [...] are too wedded to their fairy-tale conception of reality.

Many would rather believe in a lie [rather] than to wake up.

Waking up another person is hard to do when that person is committed to their dream-world. i.e., the lies imparted to you by others

Truth is the most hated thing in the world. Whereas lies are accepted readily.

[...]just come up with an endless stream of nonsense. So it's not as if one can ever "win" an argument



His whole method of operation is taking something as being granted (i.e., the beliefs he wants to hold) and then constructing the reality of his which he wants to believe in.

Hahahaha...

Are you serious? Or are you really that oblivious to the irony of these comments.

My advice to you would be to seek some professional guidance, but I'm afraid you may already be too far gone. :/

[Jamie Michelle]

I am impressed that someone with Trish's intellectual depth takes the insane meanderings of a complete and utter lunatic seriously - and gives him so much care and attention.

As far as I am aware, Trish has never done anything intellectual in her life.

Next you'll be saying that some homeless person on the street with Tourette's syndrome is your intellectual idol.

[Jamie Michelle]

Your talent for projection is far beyond anything I've seen. While you were writing this sentence, did you smile, sense a type of irony you couldn't quite define, or feel a vague sense that you've encountered such behavior elsewhere? Did you say to yourself, "now here's an example of that behavioral tendency...oh wait a second I've lost my train of thought....yes I was saying about the incoherent plot of anti-Christian, cosmically evil agents intent on world domination.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who themselves have never done anything remotely intellectual in their entire lives have the audacity to pretend as if they have a clue, and that in reply to someone who--even if you disagree with them--is obviously a highly advanced genius.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but give me a fucking break. It's more than a bit ridiculous to have the borderline mentally-retarded come out of the woodworks in order to question my intelligence. You may disagree with me (although you do so at the risk of your own soul, i.e., the program of your mind), but at least give respect where respect is due.

You and others like you could be highly advanced geniuses yourselves, but in order to be that you first would have to give respect to your intellectual betters in enough degree that you could learn from them. Yet you're so caught up in your own omphaloskepsis that you haven't even began that journey of intellectual discovery.

I have indeed seen farther than others, but it's only because I stand on the shoulders of giants. That is, I have given respect where respect is due by actually learning from the best intellects the world has to offer.

For the synthesis of the best minds ever produced by the world, including my own original insights, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2

[Jamie Michelle]

Hahahaha...

Are you serious? Or are you really that oblivious to the irony of these comments.

My advice to you would be to seek some professional guidance, but I'm afraid you may already be too far gone. :/

So says another among the borderline mentally-retarded.

And note that I'm not being mean by saying that, as you choose to be willfully ignorant.

I have indeed seen farther than others, but it's only because I stand on the shoulders of giants. That is, I have given respect where respect is due by actually learning from the best intellects the world has to offer.

For the synthesis of the best minds ever produced by the world, including my own original insights, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2

[trish]

The Omega Point is the solitary-point final singularity: all spacetimes points imping upon the Omega Point final singularity. Thus, your argument concerning worldlines just reinforces the fact that the Omega Point is omnipresent. Jamie, are you saying that if all roads lead to Rome then Rome is omnipresent? Real proofs don't require reinforcement; they work or they don't. Yours doesn't. Instead of reinforcing your confidence in a false characterization of omnipresence, please directly address the circularity in your definition.


The Omega Point is omniscient, as it knows all that can logically be known and this knowledge is infinite in extent, i.e., consisting of an infinite number of bits (or bytes, or nats) of information.My brain cells contain within their nuclei coded copies of my entire genome, yet neither I, nor my brain cells nor their nuclei know a bit's worth of that genome. There is a distinction between knowledge and coded information which you never address. You never demonstrated the Omega Point can think. One strand of DNA contains the blueprints for a brain, but it can't think. You just assume that if you can code some information into the Omega Point, then it knows that information.

My car has quite a bit of power and at the moment it has a full tank of energy. But its doesn't have the power to drive itself. There is a distinction between these two uses of the word "power". One has units of joules per second and the other, which is a complex capacity, has no unit at all. To confuse the two, as you do, is an equivocation. Surely god has more then energy and the ability to spend it at arbitrary rates. Shouldn't he have the power to utilize that energy and power in any way it sees fit.

You have not demonstrated the Omega Point is omnipresent, nor omniscient, nor omnipotent. You have only redefined these terms in contorted and circular ways forcing them into a predetermined mold.

[loveboof]

reply to someone who--even if you disagree with them--is obviously a highly advanced genius.


So says another among the borderline mentally-retarded.

And note that I'm not being mean by saying that, as you choose to be willfully ignorant.

I have indeed seen farther than others, but it's only because I stand on the shoulders of giants. That is, I have given respect where respect is due by actually learning from the best intellects the world has to offer.

For the synthesis of the best minds ever produced by the world, including my own original insights, see my following article:

~The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Does your 'highly advanced genius' stretch to the heights of Shakespeare?

Or perhaps Socrates might be more to your taste since you are clearly such a paragon of scientific thought. (A truly wise man will acknowledge his ignorance, where as the foolish will boast of their genius...)

I apologised for my ignorance of your opinion, but the reason for it was because your article was terribly written, and clearly complete nonsense! I lost patience with it, and with your subsequent replies, you.

And just to facilitate the development of your general knowledge, Tourette's Syndrome is in no way linked to a person's intelligence. You total nutjob...

[Stavros]

Who is "Jamie French"? That's not my name. My name is Jamie Michelle Redford, and my article is published under my legal name of James Redford. I don't see where you get this "French" surname from, whether from my posts on this forum or from my article.

The care that you have taken with my name is the same care that you have applied in your response to me. Which is to say, it has almost no connection to reality.

For those who are actuallty looking for veridical answers, instead of merely reinforcements of the massively destructive lies which were are told to believe by the mass-murderous elite who rule over us, see my below article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2

Note that the contents of my above article aren't subject to the type of fallacious critique which you have attempted, as I actually cite my sources per the Scholarly Method, and so people can see for themselves that what I say in my foregoing article is true.

It is up to you to let go of the lies which you were raised with, instead of attempting to rebuke one who shows you the way out of such deception. Many are not able to do that, as they are too wedded to their fairy-tale conception of reality.


If I get the time, then I'll reply to Stavros's specific fallacious points when I get around to it. But it's sort of like replying to a mentally retarded child: there's not much point in doing so in the first place, and at any rate the poor child can just come up with an endless stream of nonsense anyway. So it's not as if one can ever "win" an argument with such a child.


Jamie:
1) First of all I apologise for calling you 'Jamie French' it was not intentional, it was not an insult and far from exhibiting 'the care that you have taken with my name' it is in fact an example of forgetfullness, as I forget many simple things days. I go to the shops to buy five items and come back with four -I can't help the impact of age, but as my silly error with your name happened only once I think you are over-reacting. Being in possession of a name most people struggle to pronounce and spell, I am aware of the embarrassment, and apologise once again.

2) I have not reinforced insitutional lies, whatever they are, and do not believe that my interpretation of history is 'fallacious' -you are free to argue with my critique, but I doubt you will produce an alternative interpretation based on either original research or published research that is respected by intelligent readers, if you do not trust my judgement, you could submit your article to a refereed journal and receive their comments instead. I have to say it, but anyone who can ridicule the Rothschild family in the manner that you have is not, in fact, revealing anything about that family, but it does reveal something about you. Although you say that you are a Christian, I find your comments on the Rothschilds as intolerant as your dismissal of all other religions and systems of belief.

I did not support my critique of your historical section through the citation of published work, that I spent time reading your article has not been acknowledged, I would have had to devote even more time with the referencing. But if you insist, on the history of Germany which runs counter to yours, two German historians have produced work which attempts to trace the rise of the modern state and the way in which this shaped the origins, development and collapse of the Third Reich: Fritz Fischer: Germany's Aims in the First World War (1961) (Griff nach der Weltmacht was its original title); Golo Mann, The History of Germany Since 1789 (196-eight).

In your historical section you claimed that the modern state has been the most destructive force in history, whereas I did try to point out the destructive impact of disease. If you are interested in the impact of influenza, smallpox, malaria, measles, the 'Plague'/Black Death', Typhus, Cholera,etc -and just as important, the way in which States have chosen co-operation rather than conspiracy to control and in some cases defeat these diseases, try William McNeill, Plagues and Peoples (1976), or Roy Porter: The Greatest Benefit to Mankind:A Medical History of Humanity (1999).

3) It is up to you to let go of the lies which you were raised with...I was raised in a Christian household, are you saying that Christianity is a lie?

4) If I get the time, then I'll reply to Stavros's specific fallacious points when I get around to it. But it's sort of like replying to a mentally retarded child: there's not much point in doing so in the first place, and at any rate the poor child can just come up with an endless stream of nonsense anyway. So it's not as if one can ever "win" an argument with such a child.

I would prefer an adult debate on the arguments, not because I know that I am right -I have changed my opinion on a lot of issues over the decades due to personal experience, debating with others, reading and so forth-, but because I believe that when you balance the different sources and the evidence for your arguments with mine and other people's, I hope you will agree there are alternative interpretations of history, some of which are right, some of which are wrong, and some of which cannot be conclusively determined to be right or wrong.

If you think that a 'mentally retarded child' would spend so much time reading and responding to your work, then you probably need to spend time with children whose psychological development has been damaged or who, for genetic reasons do not have the bodies or brains that have been blessed in the way most people have been, free of debilitation and or deformity.

I would expect a Christian to be tolerant of all people, from whichever background they come, with whatever fortunate or unfortunate mind and body they present. On this issue, you disappoint me.

[broncofan]

It never ceases to amaze me that people who themselves have never done anything remotely intellectual in their entire lives have the audacity to pretend as if they have a clue, and that in reply to someone who--even if you disagree with them--is obviously a highly advanced genius.

I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but give me a fucking break. It's more than a bit ridiculous to have the borderline mentally-retarded come out of the woodworks in order to question my intelligence. You may disagree with me (although you do so at the risk of your own soul, i.e., the program of your mind), but at least give respect where respect is due.

You and others like you could be highly advanced geniuses yourselves, but in order to be that you first would have to give respect to your intellectual betters in enough degree that you could learn from them. Yet you're so caught up in your own omphaloskepsis that you haven't even began that journey of intellectual discovery.

I have indeed seen farther than others, but it's only because I stand on the shoulders of giants. That is, I have given respect where respect is due by actually learning from the best intellects the world has to offer.

For the synthesis of the best minds ever produced by the world, including my own original insights, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2
I'll ignore the insults and just say that you should aim a bit lower. I don't doubt you are intelligent, but your ideas have not gained broad (or any) acceptance and the publications your work is published in are not respected. Start with simpler revelations than the theory of everything and pay close attention to your use of evidence. Make sure your logic follows, that people can accept your basic premises, and that you express yourself clearly. Otherwise, you'll continue to be misunderstood and even ridiculed.

[buttslinger]

I'll be your Sancho Panza, Jamie, some will understand.....

[hippifried]

Better to tilt at windmills than the wind itself.

Don didn't crunch the numbers. It all adds up to 42.
Some will understand.

[martin48]

What a shame, I encountered this thread a little late - it's now burnt out.

I looked at the sa(i)d piece and it total garbage but I, and neither will others, dissuade its author of his errors.

Unfortunately, individuals coming from a faith-based rather than evidence-based background can not understand (or do not wish to understand) the principles of the scientific method (concept of parsimony, falsifiability and refutability, use of evidence, unbiased experimentation/observation, being challenged by one's peer community, etc.).

Singularities are always (along with quantum theory, entropy, etc.) popular terms with the scientifically naive!

[Stavros]

In fact Jamie thinks that it is science that is the proof of her 'faith-based' arguments, and I am sure she will return at some point to keep her thread alive...

[trish]

A Summary of the Omega Point Cosmology

In the theory of perspective a bundle of parallel lines can be thought of as representing a point at infinity. The points of Euclidean 3-space together with all the points at infinity constitute a structure known to mathematicians as projective 3-space. Of course no mathematician claims there really are points at infinity at where for example you might meet for a picnic. Points at infinity are just a convenient way of idealizing bundles of parallel lines (which are already mathematical idealizations).

Physicists do a similar thing with worldlines in space-time. Given a future directed worldline W (i.e. the history of an point-like object in space-time), the past of W is defined to be the union of the interiors of all the past light cones of points on W (i.e. P(W) = Union {C(P): P is a point on W}). We’ll agree to say two worldlines a pastallel (I’ll take the blame for this terminology) if they have the same past in the sense just defined. A bundles of pastallel future directed worldlines can be regarded as a point far in the future at infinity. Penrose called the collection of these points the causal boundary of the space-time under consideration. Neither Penrose, Hawking or any other physicist suggested points on the causal boundary are real events in the universe where things like picnics happen. A point on the causal boundary just a mathematical convenience for dealing with a bundle of pastallel worldlines.

After reading Pierre Teihard de Chardin’s omega point theology, Physicist Frank Tipler got an idea. What if the causal boundary of our actual space-time had only one point; i.e. what if there was only one bundle of pastallel future directed worldlines? Could one argue that it displayed all the features of Chardin’s omega point; i.e. the teleological goal of everything, omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence? Could one argue that single causal boundary point was the Christian god? Tipler convinced himself that one could...that he could.

For an example, since all endless future directed worldlines “meet” at the only point there “is” on the causal boundary, that point is the nexus and goal of all knowledge and all power in the universe.

Tipler saw a few problems with the argument. It might happen that life eventually dies out everywhere within the cosmos. Were that to happen there would be no living things that could bring their knowledge to the causal boundary point. So Tipler hypothesis that at all times there will be life. It is interesting to note that artificial life forms are sufficient for this hypothesis. Tipler assumes a few other hypothesis to overcome other obstacles that he foresaw; for example Tipler assumes all spatial slices of the universe are topologically closed 3-spheres. Contrary to Jamie’s claims, none of these assumptions follow from the current accepted laws of physics, including the assumption that there is one and only one point on the causal boundary of our space-time.

Some Criticisms from Science

1. There is no evidence that there is only one point on the causal boundary.

2. There is no proof that in the far future after stars have burnt out and the universe has expanded and dispersed there will be lifeforms that have preserved past knowledge and continue to expand that knowledge.

3. There is no evidence that spatial sections of the universe are 3-spheres. The WMAP data indicates the spatial sections are flat.

A Criticism from Common Sense (Philosophy)

The causal boundary is a mathematical fiction exactly like points at infinity in the theory of perspective. Worldlines do not actually meet at the Omega Point. To say that they do is just a linguistic shorthand for say they are are pastallel...and that’s just shorthand for saying that if you look at the unions of the past light cones along any two worldlines in the bundle you will get the same set...and that’s just long hand for saying any two worldlines in the bundle were subject to influence from the same past events. To worship the point at infinity is simply to worship a bundle of all future directed worldlines. Indeed when you unfold the definition of the Omega Point this way, the theological appeal makes a little more sense. Clearly the bundle of all worldlines is omnipresent in the sense that every event in space-time is on or near one of those worldlines. The bundle is all powerful, because all energy flows along those lines. It’s all knowing in the sense that all the knowledge that will ever be discovered will be known by lifeforms whose worldlines are included in the bundle of all future directed worldlines. But somehow calling that bundle of lines a god seems to me more like pantheism than Christianity and more like self-delusion than pantheism.

[Stavros]

Thanks Trish for a condensed version of a complex idea. I wonder if the problem is that in describing the physics of the universe, humans cannot refrain from insisting it must have something that is not physical, that is spiritual, intellectual, emotional, even though we must often wonder if it really is just us who possess such attributes.

I think the words Stephen Hawking used in the opening ceremony of the Paralympic Games in London on Thursday night are from A Brief History of Time, but I haven't read it so I can't be sure. But again it does insist on the absence of a human element in the universe:

Ever since the dawn of civilization, people have craved for an understanding of the underlying order of the world—why it is as it is, and why it exists at all. But even if we do find a complete theory of everything, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations, and makes a universe for them to describe?

Ending with a question that suggest some people feel so anxious about eternity that they cannot live without believing they will be part of it. Or could it be, like those dead souls in Dante's Inferno who, when they realise the poet is alive and on a special mission that will return him to the living earth, beg him to remind people there of who they were- because eternity without memory is so bleak a prospect for the human race?

[hippifried]

Singularities are always (along with quantum theory, entropy, etc.) popular terms with the scientifically naive!
Well, after checking my entropy, I decided to "string" together a couple of singularities to create a quantum duality. Just to avoid the chaos, ya know. Should work if what we like to call the "universe" doesn't collapse.

[hippifried]

A poignancy for the first 8 1/2 minutes. The rest is funny too.

Martin Mull - Part of his niteclub routine from the 70's - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIRMfUTulPM)

[martin48]

You're right, it might just hold it all together. Humankind owes you an enormous debt. I'm personally putting your name forward to the Nobel Prize selection committee.







Well, after checking my entropy, I decided to "string" together a couple of singularities to create a quantum duality. Just to avoid the chaos, ya know. Should work if what we like to call the "universe" doesn't collapse.

[BellaBellucci]

Wow. Is this thread really still going? :?

~BB~

[hippifried]

Wow. Is this thread really still going? :?

~BB~
This is at least the second thread that I can remember on the same article, & started by the same poster.

[Lovecox]

This is at least the second thread that I can remember on the same article, & started by the same poster.

I know. Can we just put it to rest already? Ugh!

[Jamie Michelle]

Rather than reply to Jamie's responses to my critical comments on parts of her original ppaper, I have divided my response into two parts.

Part I: Cosmology

In an attempt to take seriously the new version of the paper Jamie has made available, I have read that part of it which I understand, and have divided this very long response into two parts, dealing with the Cosmology as far as I can in part 1; and the ‘History’ in a second post which will appear after this one in the next day or so.

Since this thread was initiated by Jamie French, she has re-written the paper that she has made available on the weblinks in her post.


My name is not "Jamie French". I don't know where you get that idea from, since I have never used the name French for myself.

Nor have I rewritten my article. Mostly I added to it. But it remains the same on all the substantial points.



For those of you who do not want to read the whole of my refutation of the paper written by Jamie French, my resume is as follows:

The author, who claims that Frank Tipler’s work has been published in peer-reviewed science journals and that this gives Tipler a position of respect, deliberately ignores the ridicule and rejection that his version of ‘Intelligent Design’ has produced.
There are examples here:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/PhysicsChrist.htm
http://www.joly.org.uk/gordo/ellis3.html
http://sfgospel.typepad.com/sf_gospel/2008/12/the-theological-forest-and-the-dogmatic-trees-frank-j-tiplers-the-physics-of-christianity.html--a relatively positive review of The Physics of Christianity.


I "claim" that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's papers on his Omega Point cosmology have been peer-reviewed in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals?

Are you that daft? Apparently so.

Do you know what a citation is, Stavros? (Which, unlike me, you're apparently afraid to give out your legal name in these discussions, so I'm left with calling you "Stavros", which is the handle you've chosen on this forum.)

Do you know how a citation works, Stavros? Apparently not.

You act as if I'm making some mysterious claim that is just so utterly hard to check. Me-oh, my-oh, just how ever would one go about verifying such a "claim"?

Why, with the citations that I gave to the actual journal articles: that's how!

But apparently the concept of a citation is new to you.

Yet even though you so far haven't grasped the standard citation process of the Scholarly Method (which includes as a subset the Scientific Method), you're going to be the one to critique my article. God help anyone who takes you seriously--including you.

Regarding critiques of the Omega Point cosmology, see Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology" of my following article which is the topic of this thread:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), August 6, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1740849 bytes, MD5: 20b5fffb10038ab679cd7be4825176a1. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Pertaining to this ridiculous "claim" insinuation of yours, Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.) http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs , http://flashmirrors.com/files/kfxn99g270zgumr/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C. http://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0xicxaqsgtd8r0f/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R. http://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0kwtgp8cbbseq17/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X. http://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1uim5bivyp0gvlu/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz , http://flashmirrors.com/files/wschm7ionfihrq6/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T. http://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/zfu3hbe0ar9pmi7/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/tb8kpbbjlgklkhm/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS , http://flashmirrors.com/files/h7lkzd1cmp5x0m4/Tipler-No-Limits-To-The-Open-Society.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB , http://flashmirrors.com/files/mhaaliygozh6tad/Tipler-et-al-Closed-universes-with-no-event-horizons.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

* 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, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. 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/0704.3276

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-93. http://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/09x8nrhfj9tpsx4/Tipler-Existence-and-Goodness-of-the-Singularity.pdf

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board 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." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see my aforecited article in addition to my below website:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com , http://theophysics.freevar.com

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.



Instead, Jamie uses Tipler’s anti-evolutionary cosmology to argue not only that God exists, ...


Here you demonstrate that you haven't understood the first thing about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, as his Omega Point cosmology is as pro-evolution as is logically possible.

What Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem mathematically demonstrates is that evolution must continue to its logical conclusion. That is, evolution mathematically must proceed to infinity, according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).



... but that most of recorded human history since the death of Jesus has been a giant conspiracy to undermine the legacy, the values and the message of Jesus Christ. Omega Point Cosmology not only proves the existence of God, it predicts a ‘Day of Judgement’ as an event –or sequence of events- in which those with the ‘Mark of the Beast’ will be punished, and those who have accepted Jesus into their hearts will be saved. A global conspiracy led by ‘the Rothschilds’ (phoney Jews who make a mockery of Jews and Judaism) has enabled the rulers of Empires and States to form secretive societies –the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bilderberg Group et al- to maintain their campaign of financial greed and universal evil, based around a pagan pre-Christian and indeed, Anti-Christian cult. Using Government as the instrument of absolute evil, God has forced humans to live through the evils of mass murder and hatred in order to learn the difference between it and the absolute purity of Christ’s message. No Pain, No Gain. The paper draws on numerous events in history to show how this Global Conspiracy has victimised ordinary people –mostly through hugely destructive world wars and genocide- and claims that only those who have lived in the way of Jesus will be saved.


Your above paragraph is quite a butchery of what I actually wrote. But then, as with Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, you haven't grasped the first thing about it, so it's not actually possible for you to accurately paraphrase it.

Actually, my position here and in my article is that mankind is evolved from much more primitive animals, such that mankind is evolving from a more brutal and ignorant state into knowledge. The Messiah, in the form of Jesus Christ, showed mankind a far more rational and humane way to live. But mankind's animalistic predispositions cause much of mankind to keep repeating the same brutal and genocidal errors of the past--of which errors continue to our present time.

The brutal desire for dominance over others is what is driving the globalist oligarchy in their self-termed New World Order.

If you wish, you can describe this as a conspiracy against Jesus Christ's message. But that is because Jesus Christ represents the very best of what mankind can become, whereas those who dominate others are giving into their baser, animalistic instincts.

Although this does in many instances take the form of a conscious conspiracy against genuine Christianity, such as with many of the Communist countries and with Nazi Germany, as they sought to destroy Christianity because it conflicted with their philosophies of state power.



I am not sure how far Jamie has actually understood the theory of Frank Tipler, but here is a succinct resume of his theories by a scientist:

In The Physics of Immortality, Tipler provided the mechanism by which we will all live forever. In a billion-billion years or so, life in the form of highly advanced and supremely intelligent robots, evolved from those that we humans invented and sent into space before destroying ourselves as a species, ...


Actually, we will use nanotechnology to transform the substrate of our minds in order to become superintelligent. That is, we will use technology to become immortal.



... will have spread throughout the universe. At that point the robots will control the collapse of the universe down to a final singularity called the Omega Point. Following the teaching of the famous Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who died in 1955, Tipler associates the Omega Point with God, in particular, God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. ...


Actually, Prof. Tipler only "follow[s]" Teilhard in using the name "Omega Point".

You are horrible at paraphrasing, Stavros. You reek at it.

But then, given your above idiotic paraphrase of the evolution topic vis-à-vis the Omega Point cosmology, you obviously haven't understood the first thing about the Omega Point cosmology, as the Omega Point cosmology is none other than the theory of evolution expressed in its fullest extent.



... This also follows from God's message to Moses in Exodus 3:14, "I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. The collapse to the final singularity takes an infinite time as viewed from inside the universe. During that time the robots recreate all the humans and life forms that ever existed in a computer simulation. Not only do we all live our lives over again in that simulation, but over and over and over again. And not just our lives, but also all the possible lives we ever might have had, good and bad. That's the immortality Tipler says we can look forward to.
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/PhysicsChrist.htm

It should be noted that Jamie has included this biographical note at the end of the paper:

Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, James Redford is a born-again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who concludes that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists’ technical term for God) and the Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) are an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics (Page 128).

The starting point for Jamie’s version of Tipler’s cosmology is a book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986) co-authored by John D. Barrow and Frank J.Tipler. Works subsequently written by Tipler form the main body of work on ‘Omega Point Cosmology’.

I have no expertise in hard science and am frequently baffled by cosmology; and to me the author has done nothing to advance the cause of those who rely on cosmology for the ‘big picture’ of how the Universe was created, and where it is going.


That's no fault of me or of Profs. Tipler and John D. Barrow.

Your lack of understanding a matter holds no logical relationship to that matter being correct or to it having been explained correctly.

Rather than holding an adversarial relationship to the truth, you should instead simply seek out and accept the truth for what it is. When a person puts themselves in opposition to something which seems strange to them, they thereby often cut themselves off to what is true.

So rather than attempt to debate me, you should instead seek to understand what I am saying. But in order to do so, you must first take upon yourself a spirit of genuine inquisitiveness and curiosity. You must first genuinely want to know the truth and seek out the truth. Only then can understanding come.

Above you just admitted that you don't have the slightest clue as to what in the world you are talking about. Yet nevertheless you took it upon yourself to attempt refuting me.

That's a very strange action on your part. No clear-headed person would undertake such an impossible task.

Do you just like arguing with people even when you have no real idea what you are arguing about?



Here is a key point that drives much of the paper’s arguments:

The Omega Point is a term used by Prof. Tipler to designate the final cosmological singularity, which according to the known laws of physics is a physically-necessary cosmological state in the far future of the universe. Per the laws of physics, as the universe comes to an end at this singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage) increases unlimitedly with a hyperbolic growth rate as the radius of the universe collapses to zero, allowing an infinite number of bits to be processed and stored before the end of spacetime. Via this supertask, a simulation run on this cosmological computer can thereby continue forever in its own terms (i.e., in computer clock time, or experiential time), even though the universe lasts only a finite amount of proper time (page 4).

Crucially, the Omega Point is the definition of God…well sort of, as the author writes:
The Omega Point final singularity and its state of infinite informational capacity is by definition God, due to it having all the haecceities claimed for God by the traditional religions (as is detailed in Section 7.1). The final singularity is actually a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by the Abrahamic religions. (page 4).

The key point here is that of all the world’s religions and belief systems, the only one that matters is Christianity. As the author remarks, without naming Islam, Hinduism Buddhism or any other religion of system of belief:

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Cosmological Singularity within the Omega Point cosmology, which is deselective of all other major religions (Section 7.1, p44).

Indeed, the author, having dismissed all other religions from her mathematical equation, goes further in claiming that

Jesus Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck, and along with it the rest of the world. A great irony is that even antitheists benefit enormously from the civilization that Christ founded: indeed, almost all of the Earth’s current population—and hence, almost all antitheists—couldn’t even be alive were it not for the advancements made by Christian civilization (page 33).

There is no need to mention the achievements of ‘Science and Civilization in China’, no need to mention the crucial role that Islamic civilisation played in keeping alive the science of the Greeks and the Romans when Europeans were not interested in it; as well as its own achievements, because when you crunch the numbers, the Chinese and the Muslims are, quite simply, irrelevant to the history of science.


They are just about irrelevant to the history of science. Far too much is made of the Islamic societies' contributions to science, but in reality their contributions are virtually nihil. Islamic societies made some contributions, but they themselves could not advance because they rejected the notion that God strictly abides by natural law. Their conception of God is that He does not follow natural law, but that instead physical reality follows His whims, which may be one thing on one day and another thing on another day. Whereas traditional Christianity holds that God never changes His mind, and hence that there are definite laws of nature which do not change and therefore which can be discovered. It is this crucial concept of God which allowed for the establishment of empirical science.

With the Chinese, they could not progress because they didn't hold to a concept of historical progression: the idea that the future would be radically different from the present (one of the central concepts of Christianity). They never had an idiocultural motivation to improve upon whatever inventions they might have created. So instead, the inventions which they did manage to come up with stagnated and did not progress. Contrast that with the Christian Europeans, who took just about any invention they could get their hands on and started to rapidly improve it.



But to get back to that moment when the universe collapses and the super-computer starts up: If you want to know HOW this computational capacity has been reached, the author writes:

The known laws of physics require there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time in order to force the collapse of the universe and then manipulate its collapse so that the computational capacity of the universe can diverge to infinity (Page 4)

This divergence is performed by human life that has transferred

its information processes to higher energy states, eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on via traveling waves and standing waves. As the radius of the universe goes to zero, the matter energy of the universe goes to positive infinity, thereby allowing the number of particle states in which to store information to diverge to infinity (page 5).

The computing power that these ‘higher energy states’ have enables them to compute the whole of life from the beginning of the Big Bang, and in the process go further by colonising space:

The interstellar colonization phase required for achieving the Omega Point will be accomplished by naturally-evolved sapient life forms (with such species independently evolved on average roughly every Hubble volume2) whose brains have been transformed (e.g., with nanotechnology) into artificial computers (such as quantum computers) onboard tiny starships of circa one kilogram that will exponentially colonize space, many times faster than mortal human beings. The incredible expense of keeping flesh-and-blood humans alive in space makes it highly improbable that such humans will ever personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient substrate transformations of naturally-evolved sapient minds and artificial intelligences will spread civilization throughout space. Given the rate of exponential growth of human technological development, this colonization phase should likely start before 2100 (page 5).

The crucial point here is the way in which Tipler, supported by the author, presents human beings as machines, capable therefore of evolving into, in effect, super-computers.

The discussion of the Omega Point in Jamie’s paper continues by supporting the theory of Prof Tipler, and discusses the way in which Science has tried to accommodate itself or distance itself from God through various interpretations of the ‘Big Bang’, culminating in Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity (2007). Further discussion of science and the physics of the Omega Point are presented up to page 33, but I don’t understand it so I cannot comment.


Again, you admit that you don't understand it, yet you took it upon yourself to write this post of yours.

Are you just a glutton for punishment? Do you just like mouthing off about things you do not understand?

As I said above, you could probably come to understand it if you allowed yourself to. But instead you have taken it upon yourself to present an adversarial position, which is completely insane given that you don't actually understand what you're arguing against.

So on the one hand, you don't actually know what it is that you are arguing against; yet on the other hand, you felt compelled to argue against it.

That is totally bizarre behavior on your part.



The rest of the paper, from Section 6 on p33 to p121, is discussion of the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology (from the Abstract).

It is difficult for me to offer a summary of a cosmology that I do not understand, but I think I know enough about the history of civilisations to believe that it is nothing but pure arrogance, as well as a factual error, to claim that it is only the work of European scientists working in a culturally and theologically Christian environment that has any value in the history of science. This is Western Imperialism of the Mind taken to a really quite offensive level. No allowance is made, for example, in the history of medicine, which is part of science, for the use of Quinine as an anti-malarial in China and Peru long before Ronald Ross in the 19th century discovered the transmission of the disease through the bite of an infected mosquito (in India). It is also the case that Tipler, rather obviously, believes that ‘Intelligent Design’ explains the origin of the universe, not evolution; and that there has been no human agency in the creation of climate change and advanced global warming, which has been caused by sunspots.


You here again admit that you do not actually understand what it is that you are arguing against, yet somehow you have the feeling that you must be against it.

Regarding Prof. Tipler vis-à-vis evolution, Tipler very much accepts the reality of evolution. Indeed, his Omega Point Theorem is the proof per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) that evolution is correct.

Regarding so-called "global warming", shouldn't you now be calling it "climate change"? Did you not get the memo? Since there has been no global warming over the last decade-plus, isn't it just some vague concept of "climate change" that we're all supposed to be afraid of and give up all our rights to government so that it can protect us against some unspecified change in weather?

I dearly wish that there was global warming, as the Earth is colder than it should be in order to support maximal life. That is to say, the equator of the Earth is abundant in life, but the poles of the Earth are virtually absent of life, due to the poles being too cold. It would be a great boon to life if the Earth were to warm. If this warming were to accompany an increase in CO_2, then this would be all the better, as carbon dioxide plant-food: almost all of the non-water weight of plants is from the carbon dioxide which they get from the air. The more carbon dioxide in the air, the greater the yield in crops, and therefore the more people and other animals that can be supported.

Since I'm a Lifest (i.e., one who desires the increase of life), it is my desire that humanity take upon itself to output a great deal more carbon dioxide than it is presently doing. Humanity has been slacking in this regard.

You see, a great deal of previous lifeforms that once existed currently now have their carbon trapped in the Earth (i.e., the carbon which made up the lifeforms' structures). Present carbon dioxide levels are a much lower than they used to be in the Earth's history when it used to support a great deal more life. Humanity should correct this unfortunate state of affairs by releasing this currently-trapped carbon in the Earth's crust into the atmosphere, so that plants can grow much more abundantly and much more robustly. The increase in plants will allow more animals to exist, including more humans.

Unfortunately, this increase in carbon dioxide by burning hydrocarbons will not increase global temperatures, as the ice records show that global temperature increases come first, and then carbon dioxide levels rise. Rising carbon dioxide levels do not cause the globe's temperature to increase.

So even though it is quite unfortunate that we cannot increase the global temperature by burning more hydrocarbons, that should not deter us from burning more hydrocarbons in order to increase the available plant food.



The colonisation of space has me completely baffled, it seems to me to an idea that has more relevance to Star Trek. We have enough issues for science to deal with right here on Planet Earth, without seeing a need to send our robotic clones into the Galaxy to spread the word of Jesus.

As you have admitted, you don't understand the first thing about the Omega Point cosmology. This comment by you simply reinforces that fact.

So this begs the question as to what it is that you think you're arguing against. As you certainly aren't arguing against the Omega Point cosmology, as you actually no nothing of substance about it.

Instead, you're arguing against some idea in your head that you formed that is loosely connected to your self-admittedly uncomprehending reading of my article.

So again I have to wonder if you're some sort of glutton for punishment. It's as if you're begging to be intellectually and psychologically eviscerated.

Are you the type of guy who walks into a biker bar and yells out, "Hey, you flaming faggots, I can take on every one of you sons of whores and still have the energy left to cum up your mothers' asses!"? (I don't suppose that you are, as you'd probably be dead by now.)

Yet translate that into a forum discussion and that's the basic equivalent of what you have done here. You are so far out of your league and understanding that it's truly pathetic. Yet for some strange reason you felt the compulsion to argue with an author about a subject you admittedly really know nothing about.

What did you think the outcome of such a process would be? Well, I can tell you what the outcome would be: it's the intellectual equivalent of walking into a biker bar and yelling out, "Hey, you flaming faggots, I can take on every one of you sons of whores and still have the energy left to cum up your mothers' asses!"

And so I have to wonder what sort of glutton for punishment you are. As it seems that you're looking for an extreme form of intellectual decimation.

If I were a sadistic sort, then I could really let loose upon you. You'd be like a playground for me. But since I don't like hurting people, I've tried to hold myself back.

But still I have to wonder what in the blazing stars you were thinking.

[hippifried]

Okay. I just added that all up, multiplied where I needed to, & divided the whole thing by pi to the last decimal point to the 4th exponent. I even remembered to carry the 4. It still comes up to 42. Oh well.

[trish]

Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date.Has experiment confirmed that spatial sections of the cosmos are diffeomorphic to 3-spheres? Can you cite the paper?

Has experiment confirmed there is at least one life-form having worldlines extending to the causal boundary? Can you cite the paper?

Has this...
Actually, we will use nanotechnology to transform the substrate of our minds in order to become superintelligent. That is, we will use technology to become immortal....been confirmed by experiment? Could you cite the paper please?

The assumptions in Tipler's model are multitude and every bit as whimsical as what you're find in string theory.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Tipler's model actually does pass as a reasonable representation of the universe as well as we can test it. Let's also grant there is a sense in which the Omega Point is omniscient, another sense in which it's omnipresent and yet another sense in which it's omnipotent. Tipler would assert that from the assumptions that were just granted for the sake of argument, there is a proof that, in the sense specified by your definitions, there is a unique omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent point (not actually in our space-time but) on the abstract causal compactification of our space-time. In what sense is that point god? In the sense specified by your definitions of three O's (omniscience etc.) of course. But that's not a proof that the Christian god exists. It's a proof (modulo all of the baseless assumptions of course) that Tipler's mathematical conception of god exists as an imaginary point on the mathematically idealized boundary of a universe that has no real boundary. I have to say (in fact I already have http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1192036&postcount=46 ) that Tipler's conception of god is pretty weak tea. Hippifried's model is simpler, equally explanatory and has much wider support: the answer is 42.

[Stavros]

For those who are interested, I have produced in a separate post an examination of the citations in Jamie's paper. It will follow this one.



Comments edited as below

1. My name is not "Jamie French". I don't know where you get that idea from, since I have never used the name French for myself.
-I have already apologised for this error, I think its time to move on from it.

2, I "claim" that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's papers on his Omega Point cosmology have been peer-reviewed in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals?
Are you that daft? Apparently so.
-Rather than edit the sentence for your convenience, read it again and you will find that it says:
The author, who claims that Frank Tipler’s work has been published in peer-reviewed science journals and that this gives Tipler a position of respect, deliberately ignores the ridicule and rejection that his version of ‘Intelligent Design’ has produced.
You have not admitted that in the peer-reviewed journals Tipler's claim that Omega Point Cosmology is also a proof of God is either ridiculed or just not considered to be the important part of what is anyway a hypothesis.

3. Do you know what a citation is, Stavros? (Which, unlike me, you're apparently afraid to give out your legal name in these discussions, so I'm left with calling you "Stavros", which is the handle you've chosen on this forum.)
-If I did tell you my real name you would probably go through my publications to ridicule them because I have not explained the role played by Jesus of Nazareth in whatever I was writing about. Surely even you have better things to do with your time.

Do you know how a citation works, Stavros? Apparently not.
You act as if I'm making some mysterious claim that is just so utterly hard to check. Me-oh, my-oh, just how ever would one go about verifying such a "claim"?
Why, with the citations that I gave to the actual journal articles: that's how!
But apparently the concept of a citation is new to you.
-On the one occasion when I did examine one of your citations it was to discover that you had deliberately quoted David Ben-Gurion out of context to prove a point -yours, not his. It is in my first response to the new version of your paper. You have not acknowledged that. I have produced a separate post in which I examine your references which I regret to say undermine your credibility as a writer of history.

4. Actually, my position here and in my article is that mankind is evolved from much more primitive animals, such that mankind is evolving from a more brutal and ignorant state into knowledge. The Messiah, in the form of Jesus Christ, showed mankind a far more rational and humane way to live. But mankind's animalistic predispositions cause much of mankind to keep repeating the same brutal and genocidal errors of the past--of which errors continue to our present time.
-So in other words, we have evolved and we haven't evolved? Or are you just too coy to argue that 'we' have evolved but 'the others' are still like beasts of the field? And who are 'the others'? Or indeed, who are 'we'? At what point did mankind make the transition from 'primitive animals' to 'knowledge'? Does Ancient Egypt qualify as an 'intelligent' civilisation? Do cave paintings found all over the world represent the 'naive' drawings of 'primitive animals' or intelligent beings? I don't understand how you understand the history of human societies, most of which are dismissed in your paper anyway because they do not fit into your pigeon-hole. More important, you need to explain why, instead of history exhibiting a procession of increasing knowledge, there have been great civilisations that collapsed and were followed by 'dark ages' which, even if not truly dark, could not maintain the level of economic, political, socio-cultural and technological sophistication that used to exist -Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and Rome come to mind.

You claim to be inquisitive and yet you show no interest in the concept of monotheism in history, even though it must be part of your own story and part of God's Plan as you see it. In Ancient Egypt you may or may not know that Akhenaten believed in one God, there may even be a theory that he was murdered and that it was the High Priests who murdered him for undermining their previous polytheist vision of heaven and earth. The Wikipedia entry is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

If you take it further you might be intrigued by the pre-Christian symbols that some argue are found in Akhenaten's places of worship, cf
Ann Bomann, The Private Chapel in Ancient Egypt, a study of the chapels in the workmen's village at el Amarna with special reference to Deir el Medina and other sites (Kegan Paul International, 1991), she is particularly intrigued by the 'T' shape of the chapel interior.

5. Rather than holding an adversarial relationship to the truth, you should instead simply seek out and accept the truth for what it is. When a person puts themselves in opposition to something which seems strange to them, they thereby often cut themselves off to what is true.
So rather than attempt to debate me, you should instead seek to understand what I am saying. But in order to do so, you must first take upon yourself a spirit of genuine inquisitiveness and curiosity. You must first genuinely want to know the truth and seek out the truth. Only then can understanding come.
-Inquisitive? Curious? You are the one who has dismissed all religious beliefs except Christianity, who has therefore also dismissed the histories of most of the world because it does not fit with your rigid belief that Christ's mission is the only important event we should be concerned with. Where is your curiosity in medical history that I cited in my previous post as an example of how human socieities have collaborated with each other across time rather than waged war? If you were interested in medical history you would not dismiss as you have the achievements of Islam and China, ancient and modern, as you have here:
Far too much is made of the Islamic societies' contributions to science, but in reality their contributions are virtually nihil.
and here:
With the Chinese, they could not progress because they didn't hold to a concept of historical progression: the idea that the future would be radically different from the present (one of the central concepts of Christianity). They never had an idiocultural motivation to improve upon whatever inventions they might have created. So instead, the inventions which they did manage to come up with stagnated and did not progress. Contrast that with the Christian Europeans, who took just about any invention they could get their hands on and started to rapidly improve it.

In the case of Islam, you appear to be saying that the achievements of these below were not really that important, that 'far too much is made' of their contribution:

al-Zahrawi, (Cordoba c936-1013)- considered the 'father of surgery';
Ibn Sina/Avicenna (Persia 980-1037) famous treatise on medicine; author of early medical treatises in use up to the Renaissance in Europe;
Ibn Rushd/Averroes (Spain 1126-119 eight one of the most important mathematicians in history;
For a more general view see:
Michael W. Dols 'Islam and Medicine', History of Science 26 (198eight 417-425.


For China, well, if you haven't heard of the series begun by Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China I am sure your inquisitive mind and curiosity will note the early use -was it the first use?- of drilling technology in the Early Han (210-207 BCE):
Joseph Needham (With Wang Ling), Science and Civilisation in China Vol 4: Physics and Technology, Part 2: Mechanical Engineering (Cambridge University Press, 1965) p56.
See also: Science and Civilisation in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Civilisation_in_China)


6. Regarding so-called "global warming", shouldn't you now be calling it "climate change"? Did you not get the memo? Since there has been no global warming over the last decade-plus, isn't it just some vague concept of "climate change" that we're all supposed to be afraid of and give up all our rights to government so that it can protect us against some unspecified change in weather?
-Yes, dear, I got the memo and also read the book, eg Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming (Harvard University Press, 2003, 2nd Edition 200eight. If you can't get hold of the book its contents are part of an inter-active web-site here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm


7. You are so far out of your league and understanding that it's truly pathetic. Yet for some strange reason you felt the compulsion to argue with an author about a subject you admittedly really know nothing about.
-I have admitted that I am not an expert on cosmology but have relied on people who do, and if Tipler's Omega Point Cosmology was accepted by the scientific community as proof of the existence of God, we would know about it by now, need I say more? Trish has dealt expertly with the issues too.

-But I do know a lot about the non-scientific parts of your paper, which is most of it, and have already demonstrated your deliberate distortion of historical facts to be unacceptable as a credible method in historical analysis, along with your reliance on conspiracy theories that have been ridiculed for many years now because they are not based on facts but extreme positions that also happen to be extremely offensive -baiting the Rothschilds being one nauseating example.
-If you think vanity publishing makes you a published author, that is your view, but the description sells itself.


8. I note that you have not resolved one of the contradictions evident in your paper. I drew attention to it but you ignored it, so I put it here again:

On page 96 she writes:
The great tyrannies of the 20th century were first and foremost an attempt to abolish Christianity. The reason for this governmental antagonism against Christianity is the same reason this temperament is so prevalent in current academia. Both academia and the corporate media in our present day are grafted to the hip of the state, and the natural tendency of the state is to tolerate no God before it.

Does this also apply to Prof. Frank Tipler of Tulane University? Jamie’s paper is rooted in the belief that Tipler has proven the existence of God. But he has tenure on the hip of the Beast.

[Stavros]

[

Do you know what a citation is, Stavros? (Which, unlike me, you're apparently afraid to give out your legal name in these discussions, so I'm left with calling you "Stavros", which is the handle you've chosen on this forum.)

Do you know how a citation works, Stavros? Apparently not.

You act as if I'm making some mysterious claim that is just so utterly hard to check. Me-oh, my-oh, just how ever would one go about verifying such a "claim"?

Why, with the citations that I gave to the actual journal articles: that's how!

But apparently the concept of a citation is new to you.

Yet even though you so far haven't grasped the standard citation process of the Scholarly Method (which includes as a subset the Scientific Method), you're going to be the one to critique my article. God help anyone who takes you seriously--including you.

[/QUOTE]

When writing history, or writing scholarly work of any discipline, citing original documents, secondary sources, interviews, newspaper reports and so on, are valid forms of proof. Of course there are many disputes among scholars about what actually happened at certain times, in history there are contending theories of, for example, the causes and consequences of the First World War.

What Jamie has done is to pervert the process of academic enquiry and distorted and manipulated secondary sources to back up an argument that has no merit. Below I offer three examples, on Cecil Rhodes, David Ben-Gurion, and Class Conflict. It is tediously long but I hope will end the equally tedious attempt Jamie keeps making to convince us that loving Jesus is the only reason for our existence.

1. Cecil Rhodes
On p87 Jamie note 214 says:
214 The goal of Cecil Rhodes, as set forth in his first will and testament of September 19, 1877, was the establishment of a secret society to work for the creation of a world ruled by the British Crown [289, Vol. 1, pp. 67–69]. (Interestingly, Rhodes made this will almost four months after he became a Freemason in the Oxford University chapter of the Ancient and Accepted Rite [called the Scottish Rite outside of the UK] on June 2, 1877 .) Also to this end, in Rhodes’s last will and testament he founded the Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford University [395, pp. 23–45]. With funding from Lord Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild (b. 1840–d. 1915; grandson of Freemason Nathan Mayer Rothschild [102], b. 1777–d. 1836), Rhodes was able take over all the diamond mines in South Africa under Rhodes’s company De Beers Consolidated Mines [343, p. 130].

-Note 214 cites a 2-volume biography of Cecil Rhodes by Sir Lewis Michell where he gives an account of the consequences of a heart-attack suffered by Rhodes at the age of 24. What Jamie deliberately fails to mention is that this was Rhodes’s first Will and Testament, that it was followed by five more, and that the creation of the Rhodes Scholarships was not in the first will. I wonder how many ambitious young men of 24 wanted to rule the world? More to the point, the British Empire itself failed to survive, rendering all of Rhodes’s youthful dreams superfluous, except for his desire that humanity live in peace with itself, to which many people would dismiss him as a hopeless idealist.

As for what Rhodes actually wrote in this first Will and Testament, Michell provides all of it, in context:

In or about this month Rhodes suffered from his first attack of heart failure, which for a time so shook his nerves that his friends once found him in his room, blue with fright, his door barricaded with a chest of drawers and other furniture; he insisted that he had seen a ghost.
It was immediately after this incident, and no doubt as a result of it, that Rhodes made his first will. On 19th September 1877 his confidence in the ultimate success of his projects, though to ordinary observers they were still precarious, led him to make a remarkable testamentary bequest. Elusive fortune seemed to others still far from his grasp, but his robust faith in his power eventually to dispose of millions, led this youth of twenty-four, amid his many anxieties, to leave his entire estate (before he had acquired it) to Lord Carnarvon, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, and to his successors in office, and to his friend Sidney Godolphin Shippard of the Inner Temple, in Trust. In the customary legal phraseology the document was preluded by the statement that it was his last Will and Testament, whereas it was his first and very far indeed from being his last. He describes himself as being of
‘Oriel College, Oxford, but presently of Kimberley in the Province of Griqualand West, Esquire Omitting the usual formalities, which may be taken as read, it will suffice to record that the trust was as follows :
'To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonisation by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of Humanity.
This is the only clause in the Will, possibly because in no document drawn by human hands was there room for any more clauses without an anti-climax.

Sir Lewis Michell, The Life of the Right Honourable Cecil John Rhodes, 1853-1902. Vol 1. (London Edward Arnold, 1910), p68-69.
You can read the entire volume online here:
http://ia700301.us.archive.org/22/items/lifeofrthoncecil01michiala/lifeofrthoncecil01michiala.pdf



2. David Ben-Guron and the Supreme Court Building in Israel
I have already pointed out how Jamie deliberately manipulated a short article by David Ben-Gurion to imply that the design and construction of the Supreme Court Building in Jerusalem was the fulfilment of some conspiracy of world government. Here it is again with a broader context, from pages 90-92:

Families such as the Rothschilds are a servant caste to the royalty, with titles of nobility that reflect their rank. For example, the Rothschilds have ranks of barons, but certainly not of princes, kings or queens. And a banker is a servant of another, whereas the only function of a monarch is to rule. This arrangement of a caste of Jewish functionaries being in service to non-Jewish royalty goes back to the Babylonian Exile, and continued with the Jewish diaspora in Alexandria during the Hellenistic period, and with the Roman province of Judaea. Although the current head Rothschilds are Jewish by ancestry only, not by religion or culture: as given the pagan, neo-Egyptian occult symbolism of the Israeli Supreme Court building built by the Rothschilds, the Rothschilds obviously hold Jewish religion and culture in contemptuous mockery. These Rothschilds’ religion is the same as the rest of the globalist oligarchy, which is a form of pagan occult mystery religion, i.e., Freemasonry as practiced by those called the “Adepts, the Princes of Masonry” by Scottish Rite Sovereign Grand Commander Albert Pike, and those the Freemasonic author Manly Palmer Hall termed the “inner brotherhood of the elect”, who both Pike and Hall contrast with the mass of Freemasons, who Pike states are “intentionally misled”. David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, stated in a 1962 article for [I]Look magazine that this court in Jerusalem would become “the Supreme Court of Mankind”
[44].
But the reference to Look magazine that follows is to an article from 1962 that David Ben-Gurion wrote in response to a request to predict what the world would be like in 25 years time, the brief article is here;

"The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnanacy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years."
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1641

3. The Class Struggle
In a discussion of the state and its war against Christianity, Jamie writes:

Thus the love affair by academia and the corporate media with collectivist ideologies, beginning in a major way in the 19th century. If the state hadn’t loved Marx, almost no one would even know his name today. As contrast his ideology’s popularity with governments and their sycophants with that of the liberal thinkers of the 19th century, including the French liberals of the 19th century whom Marx admits in his writings is where he obtained his class-conflict theory from: the original being the state against voluntary society—of which he butchered, making it into a struggle of voluntary actors in society against each other, with the state as the Savior.

Note 233 ends with this statement and citations:
The class-conflict theory (i.e., the authentic, original version of it unbutchered by Marx) was preached by Jesus Christ (see Mark 10:42–45; Matthew 20:25–28; Luke 22:25,26—cf. Luke 4:5–8; Matthew 4:8–10; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:8–11; Revelation 13:2; 19:19–21) and Paul (see 1 Corinthians 2:6–8; 15:23,24—cf. 2 Corinthians 4:3,4; Ephesians 6:12), and can also be found in the Old Testament in the form of prophetically-imparted statements by God (see Psalm 110; Isaiah 24:21,22; Ezekiel 34:1–10; Hosea 8:4; Zechariah 10:3).

Jamie has not understood class struggle –by definition it is NOT a ‘struggle of voluntary actors’ but a conflict between classes! Which is why he uses terms such as Bourgeois and Proletarian. Here are the texts of the citations which Jamie claims are the ‘authentic, original version’ of class conflict. All are from the King James version of the bible which can be found on the web.

Mark 10:42–45
42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Matthew 20:25–28
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.26 His lord answered and said unto him, thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

Luke 22:25,26—
25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.26 And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace.

cf. Luke 4:5–8
5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Matthew 4:8–10
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

John 12:31; 31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
14:30; 30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
16:8–118 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Revelation 13:2; 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
19:19–2119 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Paul (see 1 Corinthians 2:6–8;
15:23,24—cf. 2 Corinthians 4:3,4; Ephesians 6:12)
1 Corinthians 2:6–8 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
15:23,2423 But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
2 Corinthians 4:3,4; 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Ephesians 6:1212 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Psalm 1101 (A Psalm of David.) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.
Isaiah 24:21,2221 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.
Ezekiel 34:1–10; 1 And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them.7 Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD;8 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;9 Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD;10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.
Hosea 8:44 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.
Zechariah 10:3 3 Mine anger was kindled against the shepherds, and I punished the goats: for the LORD of hosts hath visited his flock the house of Judah, and hath made them as his goodly horse in the battle.

[loveboof]

-If I did tell you my real name you would probably go through my publications to ridicule them because I have not explained the role played by Jesus of Nazareth in whatever I was writing about.
Is your field of expertise related to history? I'm always impressed with the depth in your comments...

Again, I can only applaud your patience dealing with this lunatic Stavros! You (and maybe Trish) have actually attempted to properly grapple with the content of this article. I would have thought that a modicum of respect could be thrown your way from Jamie on this basis alone; after all, what was the purpose for starting this thread if not to engage with someone about the subject matter?

Unfortunately it seems that Jamie is stuck on nasty, arrogant, and condescension. If she (?) really wants to convince people of her beliefs, surely an open debate with the issues is the best approach...

[Stavros]

Is your field of expertise related to history? I'm always impressed with the depth in your comments...

Again, I can only applaud your patience dealing with this lunatic Stavros! You (and maybe Trish) have actually attempted to properly grapple with the content of this article. I would have thought that a modicum of respect could be thrown your way from Jamie on this basis alone; after all, what was the purpose for starting this thread if not to engage with someone about the subject matter?

Unfortunately it seems that Jamie is stuck on nasty, arrogant, and condescension. If she (?) really wants to convince people of her beliefs, surely an open debate with the issues is the best approach...

Thanks for your insight, I think the point really is that if someone goes to that length to research and write on a complex relationship -in this case between cosmology and history- they should get some attention, but equally if they don't like what I or anybody else says about it they should be able to do better than be abusive, and fail to explain glaring errors when they are presented with them. I think at a basic level Jamie wants to share her love of Jesus with everyone and inspire us to live an exemplary life, without realising that many of us have already been raised as Christians, or Jews, or in any other religion, or have no religion at all -and on the basis of her paper, are unlikely to be converted to her peculiar idea of 'the truth'.

[buttslinger]

finite and eternal is how i roll

[mrtrebus]

Physics of god?!? WTF?!? Hilarious!

[Jamie Michelle]

Stavros - i have no idea if you re a man of faith or an atheist, but in your patience with this person Jamie you display ideal Christian virtues. That you've been met with arrogant disdain and plain rudeness is very disappointing from someone who purports to live the Christian God.

Jamie why not simply be polite to Trish and Stavros who have - in my view - been astonishingly respectful of what the rest of us see as the ravings of a lunatic.

Because I'm basically replying to mentally-retarded children. So long as they persist in their mental retardation, then there is essentially no hope for them. All they can do is scoop up their excrement and throw it at shiny, bright objects, like the mental simians they are.

But for those who are interested in the truth, God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see my below article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause):

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0mawzqh3rumfvod , http://depositfiles.com/files/oo7eqzopw , http://ziddu.com/download/20326479/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf.html

Below is the abstract to my above article:

""
ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which itself is also required by the known physical laws. With infinite computational resources, the dead can be resurrected--never to die again--via perfect computer emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. The Omega Point is a different aspect of the Big Bang cosmological singularity--the first cause--and the Omega Point has all the haecceities claimed for God in the traditional religions.

From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology.
""

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.) http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs , http://flashmirrors.com/files/kfxn99g270zgumr/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C. http://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0xicxaqsgtd8r0f/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R. http://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0kwtgp8cbbseq17/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X. http://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1uim5bivyp0gvlu/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz , http://flashmirrors.com/files/wschm7ionfihrq6/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T. http://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/zfu3hbe0ar9pmi7/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/tb8kpbbjlgklkhm/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS , http://flashmirrors.com/files/h7lkzd1cmp5x0m4/Tipler-No-Limits-To-The-Open-Society.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB , http://flashmirrors.com/files/mhaaliygozh6tad/Tipler-et-al-Closed-universes-with-no-event-horizons.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

* 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, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. 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/0704.3276

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-93. http://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/09x8nrhfj9tpsx4/Tipler-Existence-and-Goodness-of-the-Singularity.pdf

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board 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." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see my above-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com , http://theophysics.freevar.com

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[Prospero]

Jamie. Please desist from the rudeness which you here apply to long established members of this board ... That is referring to Stavros and Trisha as "mentally retarded children"

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie. Please desist from the rudeness which you here apply to long established members of this board ... That is referring to Stavros and Trisha as "mentally retarded children"

That is not being rude. This is a moral failing on their part. They have the mental capacity to understand, yet they choose not to due to their cowardice. So instead, they deliberately choose to misunderstand.

The fate of all cowards is Perdition.

It would be exceptionally rude of me not to tell them what imbiciles they are being. The point of my article is to save peoples' souls, i.e., the mental programs of their minds.

The problem with that is that a number of people regard the very concept of immortality, even through technology, with derision.

What can one say to such people? It doesn't matter what one says. Whatever one says, however true it is, will simply be regarded as a joke to them.

There is no set of words which can have any affect upon such people. They believe themselves to be the walking dead. They are mental zombies.

Their only belief, their only faith, is death.

[buttslinger]

Jamie reminds me of Dr Morbius, the brilliant but obsessed Scientist from Forbidden Planet. HOWEVER, that movie was based on the Shakespeare play The Tempest, and the Morbius character was based on Prospero!!! Coincidence? I think not.

Lord, What fools these mortals be!!! -Puck, the Fairy.

[Jamie Michelle]

Has experiment confirmed that spatial sections of the cosmos are diffeomorphic to 3-spheres? Can you cite the paper?


That is established by the Omega Point cosmology itself.



Has experiment confirmed there is at least one life-form having worldlines extending to the causal boundary? Can you cite the paper?


That has no relevance to the truth of Omega Point cosmology, since that would itself be established by the correctness of the Omega Point cosmology. For the details on that, see my below article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0mawzqh3rumfvod , http://depositfiles.com/files/oo7eqzopw , http://ziddu.com/download/20326479/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf.html



Has this......been confirmed by experiment? Could you cite the paper please?


Sure. All life is based upon nanoassemblers. My reference: life.

But if you wish to have references that are commonly considered more substantial, then see Appendix A: "The Bekenstein Bound" of my previously-cited article.



The assumptions in Tipler's model are multitude and every bit as whimsical as what you're find in string theory.


Actually, the only "assumptions" of the Omega Point cosmology are the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), which have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment to date. The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science.



But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Tipler's model actually does pass as a reasonable representation of the universe as well as we can test it. Let's also grant there is a sense in which the Omega Point is omniscient, another sense in which it's omnipresent and yet another sense in which it's omnipotent. Tipler would assert that from the assumptions that were just granted for the sake of argument, there is a proof that, in the sense specified by your definitions, there is a unique omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent point (not actually in our space-time but) on the abstract causal compactification of our space-time. In what sense is that point god? In the sense specified by your definitions of three O's (omniscience etc.) of course. But that's not a proof that the Christian god exists. It's a proof (modulo all of the baseless assumptions of course) that Tipler's mathematical conception of god exists as an imaginary point on the mathematically idealized boundary of a universe that has no real boundary. I have to say (in fact I already have http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1192036&postcount=46 ) that Tipler's conception of god is pretty weak tea. Hippifried's model is simpler, equally explanatory and has much wider support: the answer is 42.

It's God because it has all the unique properties of God. How else could it be Gold?

You are very strange. Obviously you dislike this result, yet you're of so low morals that you're wasting my time with such inane inquiries.

I'm sorry if reality isn't whatever you thought it was or what you obviously want it to be, but at least have the decency not to take that out upon me.

You should be thanking me, not harassing me with so many self-absorbed and antagonistic questions.

Like I said, I'm sorry reality wasn't what you wanted it to be. In actuality, I'm not sorry, because this is the best thing possible. But you're too self-absorbed to even begin contemplating how divergence to infinite knowledge would be a boon to pleasure.

And no, the reponse that you're just being of scientific mind won't do, either. Because if infinite computation does not exist then we're all fucked royally. In which case it doesn't matter what anyone's beliefs are, as we're all dead then.

[Jamie Michelle]

For those who are interested, I have produced in a separate post an examination of the citations in Jamie's paper. It will follow this one.



1. My name is not "Jamie French". I don't know where you get that idea from, since I have never used the name French for myself.
-I have already apologised for this error, I think its time to move on from it.

2, I "claim" that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's papers on his Omega Point cosmology have been peer-reviewed in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals?
Are you that daft? Apparently so.
-Rather than edit the sentence for your convenience, read it again and you will find that it says:
The author, who claims that Frank Tipler’s work has been published in peer-reviewed science journals and that this gives Tipler a position of respect, deliberately ignores the ridicule and rejection that his version of ‘Intelligent Design’ has produced.
You have not admitted that in the peer-reviewed journals Tipler's claim that Omega Point Cosmology is also a proof of God is either ridiculed or just not considered to be the important part of what is anyway a hypothesis.

3. Do you know what a citation is, Stavros? (Which, unlike me, you're apparently afraid to give out your legal name in these discussions, so I'm left with calling you "Stavros", which is the handle you've chosen on this forum.)
-If I did tell you my real name you would probably go through my publications to ridicule them because I have not explained the role played by Jesus of Nazareth in whatever I was writing about. Surely even you have better things to do with your time.

Do you know how a citation works, Stavros? Apparently not.
You act as if I'm making some mysterious claim that is just so utterly hard to check. Me-oh, my-oh, just how ever would one go about verifying such a "claim"?
Why, with the citations that I gave to the actual journal articles: that's how!
But apparently the concept of a citation is new to you.
-On the one occasion when I did examine one of your citations it was to discover that you had deliberately quoted David Ben-Gurion out of context to prove a point -yours, not his. It is in my first response to the new version of your paper. You have not acknowledged that. I have produced a separate post in which I examine your references which I regret to say undermine your credibility as a writer of history.

4. Actually, my position here and in my article is that mankind is evolved from much more primitive animals, such that mankind is evolving from a more brutal and ignorant state into knowledge. The Messiah, in the form of Jesus Christ, showed mankind a far more rational and humane way to live. But mankind's animalistic predispositions cause much of mankind to keep repeating the same brutal and genocidal errors of the past--of which errors continue to our present time.
-So in other words, we have evolved and we haven't evolved? Or are you just too coy to argue that 'we' have evolved but 'the others' are still like beasts of the field? And who are 'the others'? Or indeed, who are 'we'? At what point did mankind make the transition from 'primitive animals' to 'knowledge'? Does Ancient Egypt qualify as an 'intelligent' civilisation? Do cave paintings found all over the world represent the 'naive' drawings of 'primitive animals' or intelligent beings? I don't understand how you understand the history of human societies, most of which are dismissed in your paper anyway because they do not fit into your pigeon-hole. More important, you need to explain why, instead of history exhibiting a procession of increasing knowledge, there have been great civilisations that collapsed and were followed by 'dark ages' which, even if not truly dark, could not maintain the level of economic, political, socio-cultural and technological sophistication that used to exist -Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and Rome come to mind.

You claim to be inquisitive and yet you show no interest in the concept of monotheism in history, even though it must be part of your own story and part of God's Plan as you see it. In Ancient Egypt you may or may not know that Akhenaten believed in one God, there may even be a theory that he was murdered and that it was the High Priests who murdered him for undermining their previous polytheist vision of heaven and earth. The Wikipedia entry is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten

If you take it further you might be intrigued by the pre-Christian symbols that some argue are found in Akhenaten's places of worship, cf
Ann Bomann, The Private Chapel in Ancient Egypt, a study of the chapels in the workmen's village at el Amarna with special reference to Deir el Medina and other sites (Kegan Paul International, 1991), she is particularly intrigued by the 'T' shape of the chapel interior.

5. Rather than holding an adversarial relationship to the truth, you should instead simply seek out and accept the truth for what it is. When a person puts themselves in opposition to something which seems strange to them, they thereby often cut themselves off to what is true.
So rather than attempt to debate me, you should instead seek to understand what I am saying. But in order to do so, you must first take upon yourself a spirit of genuine inquisitiveness and curiosity. You must first genuinely want to know the truth and seek out the truth. Only then can understanding come.
-Inquisitive? Curious? You are the one who has dismissed all religious beliefs except Christianity, who has therefore also dismissed the histories of most of the world because it does not fit with your rigid belief that Christ's mission is the only important event we should be concerned with. Where is your curiosity in medical history that I cited in my previous post as an example of how human socieities have collaborated with each other across time rather than waged war? If you were interested in medical history you would not dismiss as you have the achievements of Islam and China, ancient and modern, as you have here:
Far too much is made of the Islamic societies' contributions to science, but in reality their contributions are virtually nihil.
and here:
With the Chinese, they could not progress because they didn't hold to a concept of historical progression: the idea that the future would be radically different from the present (one of the central concepts of Christianity). They never had an idiocultural motivation to improve upon whatever inventions they might have created. So instead, the inventions which they did manage to come up with stagnated and did not progress. Contrast that with the Christian Europeans, who took just about any invention they could get their hands on and started to rapidly improve it.

In the case of Islam, you appear to be saying that the achievements of these below were not really that important, that 'far too much is made' of their contribution:

al-Zahrawi, (Cordoba c936-1013)- considered the 'father of surgery';
Ibn Sina/Avicenna (Persia 980-1037) famous treatise on medicine; author of early medical treatises in use up to the Renaissance in Europe;
Ibn Rushd/Averroes (Spain 1126-119 eight one of the most important mathematicians in history;
For a more general view see:
Michael W. Dols 'Islam and Medicine', History of Science 26 (198eight 417-425.


For China, well, if you haven't heard of the series begun by Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China I am sure your inquisitive mind and curiosity will note the early use -was it the first use?- of drilling technology in the Early Han (210-207 BCE):
Joseph Needham (With Wang Ling), Science and Civilisation in China Vol 4: Physics and Technology, Part 2: Mechanical Engineering (Cambridge University Press, 1965) p56.
See also: Science and Civilisation in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Civilisation_in_China)


6. Regarding so-called "global warming", shouldn't you now be calling it "climate change"? Did you not get the memo? Since there has been no global warming over the last decade-plus, isn't it just some vague concept of "climate change" that we're all supposed to be afraid of and give up all our rights to government so that it can protect us against some unspecified change in weather?
-Yes, dear, I got the memo and also read the book, eg Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming (Harvard University Press, 2003, 2nd Edition 200eight. If you can't get hold of the book its contents are part of an inter-active web-site here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm


7. You are so far out of your league and understanding that it's truly pathetic. Yet for some strange reason you felt the compulsion to argue with an author about a subject you admittedly really know nothing about.
-I have admitted that I am not an expert on cosmology but have relied on people who do, and if Tipler's Omega Point Cosmology was accepted by the scientific community as proof of the existence of God, we would know about it by now, need I say more? Trish has dealt expertly with the issues too.

-But I do know a lot about the non-scientific parts of your paper, which is most of it, and have already demonstrated your deliberate distortion of historical facts to be unacceptable as a credible method in historical analysis, along with your reliance on conspiracy theories that have been ridiculed for many years now because they are not based on facts but extreme positions that also happen to be extremely offensive -baiting the Rothschilds being one nauseating example.
-If you think vanity publishing makes you a published author, that is your view, but the description sells itself.


8. I note that you have not resolved one of the contradictions evident in your paper. I drew attention to it but you ignored it, so I put it here again:

On page 96 she writes:
The great tyrannies of the 20th century were first and foremost an attempt to abolish Christianity. The reason for this governmental antagonism against Christianity is the same reason this temperament is so prevalent in current academia. Both academia and the corporate media in our present day are grafted to the hip of the state, and the natural tendency of the state is to tolerate no God before it.

Does this also apply to Prof. Frank Tipler of Tulane University? Jamie’s paper is rooted in the belief that Tipler has proven the existence of God. But he has tenure on the hip of the Beast.

Hi, Stavros. I've read over your above post, but I don't see how anything in your response affects the Omega Point cosmology nor any other matter which I raised.

Nor could it affect the Omega Point cosmology, since the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988]).

[hippifried]

That is not being rude. This is a moral failing on their part. They have the mental capacity to understand, yet they choose not to due to their cowardice. So instead, they deliberately choose to misunderstand.Huh? What the hell are you talking about? It's cowardice to not see everything your way? Yeah, everything. It's right there in the title of the thread. It's somehow immoral to disagree with you?

... a number of people regard the very concept of immortality, even through technology, with derision.Not me. I have no problem with the concept of timelessness at all. It's you religious types & way too many science mongers that dwell on attempting to put limits on everything. I don't buy thecommon idea of beginings & endings at all. Creation, big bang, whatever is just trying to find a beginning that only exists if everything's finite. You claim you're trying to save my soul. Huh? My conciousness miraculously sprang into being in 1951, & will now go on forever? If there's no end, what makes you think there was a start? I don't have a problem with the concepts of infinity. I just have a problem with arrogant people who claim to have all the answers.

Their only belief, their only faith, is death.Who says?

[trish]

I asked, "Has experiment confirmed that spatial sections of the cosmos are diffeomorphic to 3-spheres? Can you cite the paper?" Your (Jamie Michelle) reply is, "That is established by the Omega Point cosmology itself."

Tipler says in his book Physics of Immortality, that communication in an open universe is obstructed by the arbitrarily large amount of energy required to overcome the redshift in the signal. Tipler points out that in open universes "it becomes impossible for structures to form of sufficiently larger and larger size to store a diverging amount of information." Since he requires the single causal boundary point code an arbitrarily large amount of information, Tipler requires the universe to be a closed 3-sphere. That's not a proof from the accepted laws of physics. There are two ways to think the claim: 1) it is an assumption designed to guarantee a conclusion or 2) it is a consequence of the assumption that the causal boundary of the universe consists of a unique point that codes all the information on the future directed worldlines leading to that limit point. Either way there is an underlying assumption: 1) the spatial sections of the universe are 3-spheres or 2) the causal boundary consists of a unique limit point and it codes an arbitrary large amount of information. Either way there is no proof of Omega Point Theory from the accepted foundations of current physics...which has been your claim in this thread. [Pretty much the same criticism applies to Tipler's claim that life lives forever].

After you claimed that everything in Omega Point Theory followed from the standard laws of accepted physics or from experimentally substantiated experimental evidence you said, "we will use nanotechnology to transform the substrate of our minds in order to become superintelligent. That is, we will use technology to become immortal." I asked, "Has this been confirmed by experiment?" Your reply is, "Sure. All life is based upon nanoassemblers." That all life is based on nanoassemblers, is not a proof that at all future times there will be life in the universe, nor is it proof that we will become superintelligent, nor is it a proof that "we" will use "our" superintelligence to use nanotechnology to become immortal. Sure you see that the premise, "all life is based on nanoassemblers" is insufficient for proving anything about life's sustainability within the universe or life's future intellectual capacities.



The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is toThere are four ways to reject Omega Point Cosmology without rejecting General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory nor Thermodynamics. Just deny any of the five ASSUMPTIONS of Omega Point Theory: 1) The imaginary boundary called the causal boundary (which is in reality a collection of bundles of worldlines) consists of a single point (called the omega point); 2) The omega point "knows" all the information there is to know about the interior of the universe; 3) There is a single causal boundary point which all powerful because it is the focal point of all the universe's power and energy (in the same sense that Hiroshima was the focal point of Little Boy); 4) The is a single causal boundary point which exists everywhere because every worldline asymptotically approaches it, getting closer and closer after arbitrarily longer and longer stretches of time; 5) A point that satisfies assumptions 1, 2, 3 and 4 must be a god.



It's God because it has all the unique properties of God. How else could it be Gold?If there were an omega point is would be a bundle of worldlines; i.e. a bundle of imaginary trajectories in the spacetime manifold. It's like pointing to the infinitude of meridians passing through the Earth's poles and claiming that that bundle of great circles is Mother Nature.


I'm sorry if reality isn't whatever you thought it was or what you obviously want it to be, but at least have the decency not to take that out upon me.I'm sorry if you got the idea that my criticism was a personal attack. It is not. I simply have an interest cosmology.

[Stavros]

Hi, Stavros. I've read over your above post, but I don't see how anything in your response affects the Omega Point cosmology nor any other matter which I raised.


Jamie, I accept your resignation. However, I will not be able to provide you with a reference as your work is without merit, and your attempt at scholarship so poor you lack credibility as a writer on historical and political affairs. Have you considered driving a taxi? You might want to take your fares here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_End,_Kensington_and_Chelsea

[martin48]

Review from Nature of one of Prof Tipler's outputs.

[Prospero]

Martin you and the author this piece are clearly : " mentally-retarded children" capable only of "scoop(ing) up their excrement and throw(ing) it at shiny, bright objects, like the mental simians they are."

So why not desist from trying to undermine the unique genius that is Jamie.

[Stavros]

Review from Nature of one of Prof Tipler's outputs.

Thanks to Martin, let us now hope that we can forget this topic and move on to real world issues.

[martin48]

Martin you and the author this piece are clearly : " mentally-retarded children" capable only of "scoop(ing) up their excrement and throw(ing) it at shiny, bright objects, like the mental simians they are."

So why not desist from trying to undermine the unique genius that is Jamie.


I certainly am guilty of all this. Couple of quotes from Einstein:

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.



The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

[danthepoetman]

I’ve always wandered why God isn’t proving His existence by calling a press conference, with CNN and the BBC, France Inter, Al Jazeera and what have you. The problem would be solved forever and we would know what leg to stand on. But I guess He’s someone who likes mysteries, savant games and riddles that can cost you an eternity of suffering. Difficult not to consider it’s a strange trait of temperament, but then again, He has shown Himself to be at the very least a little moody at times, if we believe the good book…

[trish]

Thank you Martin for digging up and posting the review by George Ellis, one of the most respected relativists of our times.

Correction to my last post: "There are (at least) FIVE ways ..."

[martin48]

Thank you Martin for digging up and posting the review by George Ellis, one of the most respected relativists of our times.

Correction to my last post: "There are (at least) FIVE ways ..."

Just in case anyone doubts George Ellis's credentials see:
George Francis Rayner Ellis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Francis_Rayner_Ellis)

[martin48]

End of thread?

[loveboof]

End of thread?

It really should be, but unfortunately Jamie is batshit crazy!

S/he is a 'highly advanced genius'. The mere fact that Tipler himself didn't believe in this nonsense, will not stop the truth.

The truth? ~ being whatever Jamie believes, of course...

[Jamie Michelle]

Review from Nature of one of Prof Tipler's outputs.

I cite that unrefereed book review in my "Physics of God" article. See Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology" of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Prof. George Ellis (the person who wrote the above review) and Dr. David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation. In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

[Jamie Michelle]

It really should be, but unfortunately Jamie is batshit crazy!

S/he is a 'highly advanced genius'. The mere fact that Tipler himself didn't believe in this nonsense, will not stop the truth.

The truth? ~ being whatever Jamie believes, of course...

Apparently you do not have a concept of time. Ellis's review is from 1994. Tipler stated in his 1994 book that he is still an atheist and will remain so until the Omega Point cosmology is confirmed. The Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and so Tipler is now a theist. Due to the Omega Point cosmology's triune structure preferentially selecting God as described by Christian theology, Tipler is also now a Christian.

For the details on all of this, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

[Jamie Michelle]

Thank you Martin for digging up and posting the review by George Ellis, one of the most respected relativists of our times.

Correction to my last post: "There are (at least) FIVE ways ..."

My, aren't you guys just regular Sherlock Holmeses.

I cite that book review in my article "The Physics of God". But since you have a superstitious fear against reading this devil-possessed article, you wouldn't know much of anything that's in it.

[Jamie Michelle]

Prof. George Ellis, by the way, is a theist, and he's against the Omega Point cosmology due to his fideist position.

[Jamie Michelle]

I asked, "Has experiment confirmed that spatial sections of the cosmos are diffeomorphic to 3-spheres? Can you cite the paper?" Your (Jamie Michelle) reply is, "That is established by the Omega Point cosmology itself."

Tipler says in his book Physics of Immortality, that communication in an open universe is obstructed by the arbitrarily large amount of energy required to overcome the redshift in the signal. Tipler points out that in open universes "it becomes impossible for structures to form of sufficiently larger and larger size to store a diverging amount of information." Since he requires the single causal boundary point code an arbitrarily large amount of information, Tipler requires the universe to be a closed 3-sphere. That's not a proof from the accepted laws of physics. There are two ways to think the claim: 1) it is an assumption designed to guarantee a conclusion or 2) it is a consequence of the assumption that the causal boundary of the universe consists of a unique point that codes all the information on the future directed worldlines leading to that limit point. Either way there is an underlying assumption: 1) the spatial sections of the universe are 3-spheres or 2) the causal boundary consists of a unique limit point and it codes an arbitrary large amount of information. Either way there is no proof of Omega Point Theory from the accepted foundations of current physics...which has been your claim in this thread. [Pretty much the same criticism applies to Tipler's claim that life lives forever].


That the universe must end in finite proper time itself logically implies that the universe is a 3-sphere. But a dynamical proof for the 3-sphere nature of the Omega Point cosmology can be found in Ref. 1.

Per Seifert's Theorem [2], the absence of event horizons means that the universe is spatially a closed manifold. On this Theorem, see also Refs. 3, p. 435 ff.; and 4, p. 145 of the Int. J. Astrobio. version or p. 6 of the arXiv version.

References:

1. John D. Barrow, Gregory J. Galloway and Frank J. Tipler, "The closed-universe recollapse conjecture", Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 223, No. 4 (Dec. 15, 1986), pp. 835-844.

2. Hans-Jürgen Seifert, "The Causal Boundary of Space-Times", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Sept. 1971), pp. 247-259.

3. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1994).

4. Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141–148. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007.



After you claimed that everything in Omega Point Theory followed from the standard laws of accepted physics or from experimentally substantiated experimental evidence you said, "we will use nanotechnology to transform the substrate of our minds in order to become superintelligent. That is, we will use technology to become immortal." I asked, "Has this been confirmed by experiment?" Your reply is, "Sure. All life is based upon nanoassemblers." That all life is based on nanoassemblers, is not a proof that at all future times there will be life in the universe, nor is it proof that we will become superintelligent, nor is it a proof that "we" will use "our" superintelligence to use nanotechnology to become immortal. Sure you see that the premise, "all life is based on nanoassemblers" is insufficient for proving anything about life's sustainability within the universe or life's future intellectual capacities.


That's a conclusion, not an assumption, of the Omega Point cosmology. The only assumptions of the Omega Point cosmology are the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).



There are four ways to reject Omega Point Cosmology without rejecting General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory nor Thermodynamics. Just deny any of the five ASSUMPTIONS of Omega Point Theory: 1) The imaginary boundary called the causal boundary (which is in reality a collection of bundles of worldlines) consists of a single point (called the omega point); ...


One can "reject" the existence of buses, but that doesn't mean that one won't be smashed if ones steps in front of one.

The Omega Point c-boundary is a conclusion of the Omega Point cosmology, not an assumption. So "reject[ing]" it does nothing to diminish the logical unavoidability of the Omega Point cosmology per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics).



2) The omega point "knows" all the information there is to know about the interior of the universe; ...

Again, that's a conclusion, not an assumption. You obviously have a difficult time understanding the difference between the two.

The Omega Point final singularity contains all information that the entire timeline of the multiverse contains. So it knows this in the sense that all information that could ever exist is contained there. And the information there is infinite. So the Omega Point is literally omniscient.



3) There is a single causal boundary point which all powerful because it is the focal point of all the universe's power and energy (in the same sense that Hiroshima was the focal point of Little Boy);


Again, that's a conclusion, not an assumption. Watts and joules become infinite at the Omega Point. Moreover, this is all the energy and power which exists there. Hence, the Omega Point is literally omnipotent.



4) The is a single causal boundary point which exists everywhere because every worldline asymptotically approaches it, getting closer and closer after arbitrarily longer and longer stretches of time;


Again, that's a a conclusion, not an assumption.



5) A point that satisfies assumptions 1, 2, 3 and 4 must be a god.


This statement by you is incorrect. A god (lowercase G) is a finite sapient being who is immortal. God (capital G) is the infinite sapient being.

A state which has the properties that you described above is by definition God, since it has all the unique properties (i.e., haecceities) claimed for God in the traditional religions.



If there were an omega point is would be a bundle of worldlines; i.e. a bundle of imaginary trajectories in the spacetime manifold. It's like pointing to the infinitude of meridians passing through the Earth's poles and claiming that that bundle of great circles is Mother Nature.

I'm sorry if you got the idea that my criticism was a personal attack. It is not. I simply have an interest cosmology.

[trish]

The only assumptions of the Omega Point cosmology are the known laws of physics... and yet the an infinitely expanding universe with infinite spatial sections is consistent with all the laws of physics known to date. It seems the evidence is that not only is the universe expanding but that the expansion is accelerating. How can p->q when ~q is provably consistent with p?

The Nobel laureate and physicist Gerard't Hooft has written some advice to young physicists. You may find it helpful.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html

[Jamie Michelle]

and yet the an infinitely expanding universe with infinite spatial sections is consistent with all the laws of physics known to date. It seems the evidence is that not only is the universe expanding but that the expansion is accelerating. How can p->q when ~q is provably consistent with p?

The Nobel laureate and physicist Gerard't Hooft has written some advice to young physicists. You may find it helpful.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html

Actually, an infinitely expanding universe violates unitarity, a fundamental law of quantum mechanics. This is known as the black hole information problem.

All proposed solutions to the black hole information issue to date, except for Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, have the common feature of invoking new laws of physics which have no experimental confirmation and indeed which violate the known laws of physics, such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured String Theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes", Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 (October 2005), Art. No. 084013; also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171 .

For the details on this, see Appendix A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

[loveboof]

Apparently you do not have a concept of time. Ellis's review is from 1994. Tipler stated in his 1994 book that he is still an atheist and will remain so until the Omega Point cosmology is confirmed. The Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and so Tipler is now a theist. Due to the Omega Point cosmology's triune structure preferentially selecting God as described by Christian theology, Tipler is also now a Christian.


Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Christianity being the religion which claims Jesus Christ, son of God, died for our sins. His many miracles, culminating with the resurrection, acted as proof of his divinity within his lifetime. To this day, the dogma and teachings of the church dictate to us how to act out even the minutiae of our daily lives. What we can eat and when; who we can love and how; what we can even think!

The holy book which is to act as our guide in all this trivia was written by many different men, with many different agendas, from many different time periods. All of whom wrote their gospels many years after the death of Jesus. These gospels were later to be picked through and chosen for canonisation depending on which best suited the ambitions of a small few religious leaders. Warped through multiple translations before reaching us in English, and well before then being spread simply for convenience by the Roman Empire.

Even without highlighting the startling similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus to older mythological stories and more ancient religions, why should we believe a word of what we know about this bronze age fairy tale called 'Christianity'?

[Jericho]

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Step aside Jaimie, i got this one...

BECAUSE I SAY SO...BURN, HERETIC!






















Or perhaps, maybe not! :shrug

[Prospero]

You got the truth Jericho. We will follow, oh enlightened one.

[danthepoetman]

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Christianity being the religion which claims Jesus Christ, son of God, died for our sins. His many miracles, culminating with the resurrection, acted as proof of his divinity within his lifetime. To this day, the dogma and teachings of the church dictate to us how to act out even the minutiae of our daily lives. What we can eat and when; who we can love and how; what we can even think!

The holy book which is to act as our guide in all this trivia was written by many different men, with many different agendas, from many different time periods. All of whom wrote their gospels many years after the death of Jesus. These gospels were later to be picked through and chosen for canonisation depending on which best suited the ambitions of a small few religious leaders. Warped through multiple translations before reaching us in English, and well before then being spread simply for convenience by the Roman Empire.

Even without highlighting the startling similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus to older mythological stories and more ancient religions, why should we believe a word of what we know about this bronze age fairy tale called 'Christianity'?
I love your post, Loveboof. And I agree with everything you said. If you don’t mind, I would add one more element to your description: the very logic of Christianity. It’s the story of a God who created man in such a way that he had to be saved, and who, to make sure of saving him indeed, gave Himself (as a “son”) to Himself (as a “father”) to satisfied His own wrath, yet is still not satisfied and demands that we act in the definite way you alluded to. An all mighty and omniscient God that gave himself to himself in sacrifice for the reparation of his own creation… Is it because we are born in it that we can’t see the utter absurdity of such a myth? Is it me or are we right in the middle of a schizophrenic delusion?

[trish]

Omega point cosmology does not solve the black hole information puzzle, it simply avoids it by hypothesizing a universe that has no event horizons. Tipler’s argument is essentially this:

Argument 1: God exists. The omega point is God because the omega point has the defining characteristic features of God. But the construction of the causal boundary of a model universe won’t result in an omega point unless the model has no event horizons. Therefore there are no event horizons and consequently the black hole information puzzle doesn’t arise in our particular universe.

In this argument the assumption is that God “exists” (or if you prefer, the construction of the causal boundary leads to a unique point on the mathematically constructed boundary, the omega point; i.e. God). That God “exists” is not one of the known laws of the physical universe.

In other places in his book The Physics of Immortality, Tipler takes a different tact.

Argument 2: Tipler invites us to assume the universe has no event horizons (among other assumptions) and proves from those assumptions that an omega point “exists.”

The first argument is somewhat akin to saying, “Missing links would discredit Genesis, therefore there are no missing links, in spite of the fact that science keeps finding more of them.” The second argument is homologous to, “There are no missing links (fossil evident to the contrary) and therefore Genesis is correct.” Either form of the argument employs an assumption that goes beyond generally accepted science.

What is true is that Tipler’s theory doesn’t require extra-dimensions, a holographic principle, multiple universes or other as yet unproven hypothesis of fundamental physics. Rather than forwarding hypotheses concerning fundamental physics (e.g. a hypothesis that would truly address the information puzzle associated with event horizons) Tipler’s hypotheses assume a background physics that is generally well accepted (semi-classical gravity, quantum field theory and thermodynamics). That’s a plus for Tipler. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Tipler does forward a number of assumptions. Unfortunately they are assumptions that beg his desired conclusion. Worse, they are assumptions (like the universe isn’t expanding or there are no event horizons) that run counter to the current evidence.

A word of explanation: Why do I put “exists” in quotes when paraphrasing Tipler’s conclusion that the omega point “exists”?
Answer: It is alleged that Tipler makes no assumptions that don’t belong to what is generally accepted science. So Tipler doesn’t assume there are multiple universes; i.e. that there is anything outside our own universe. To say something exists is to say it lies within our universe. But the causal boundary of the universe is not something that lies within our own universe. It is an abstract construction that allows mathematicians talk about certain bundles of world-lines as if they were points at infinity outside the universe(much like in the mathematical theory of perspective certain bundles of lines are identified with focal points at infinity). These points don’t exist in the universe. They exist in the heads of mathematicians. At best they exist in Plato’s world of forms. But Tipler can’t assume Plato world of forms; it’s not part of generally accepted science. So Tipler’s omega point can only “exist” as a formal idea in the heads of mathematicians.

I will grant that in these posts you have added to Tipler’s arguments. We now have

Argument 3) If you don’t have the moral stamina to believe each step of the prior arguments you are doomed to perdition. These arguments are designed to save you. Accept or die forever.

Poor Nietsche, he’s no doubt rolling in his grave right now, seeing what Tipler has done to the doctrine of eternal return :)

You really should read this

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hoof...eoristbad.html

[loveboof]

I love your post, Loveboof. And I agree with everything you said. If you don’t mind, I would add one more element to your description: the very logic of Christianity. It’s the story of a God who created man in such a way that he had to be saved, and who, to make sure of saving him indeed, gave Himself (as a “son”) to Himself (as a “father”) to satisfied His own wrath, yet is still not satisfied and demands that we act in the definite way you alluded to. An all mighty and omniscient God that gave himself to himself in sacrifice for the reparation of his own creation… Is it because we are born in it that we can’t see the utter absurdity of such a myth? Is it me or are we right in the middle of a schizophrenic delusion?

Yes you're right. As Jamie is apparently a scientist you would think she would abide by logic and assume a more elegant and simple position in all this. Ockham's razor.

@ Jericho, lol.

[martin48]

Jamie - You are convinced of Prof Tipler's thesis and I cannot change that view; but his arguments are not scientific – why do I say that? Science depends on assuming the minimum number of axioms – Tipler makes many more than are necessary. Science depends on objective and rational arguments – Tipler’s arguments are not consistent; neither does each step follow logically from the previous. Science depends on falsifiability – agreed difficult in some scientific disciplines but should always been attempted.
You make great play that (i) there have been few attempts to refute Tipler’s views, and (ii) he is a Professor. The question I ask myself – not so much why so few rebuttals? but why has no one else has taken up his views? OK, I would agree that every generally held view was once believed by one person. But are Tipler’s views in the same vein as Flat Earthers. He’s a “Professor” – well, so am I. Do we cancel each other out?
You want to believe there is a God – far enough! That is a belief but it is not science – nor is it probably capable of being within the domain of scientific explanation – it is not parsimonious, testable and all the other quantities that science demands.
What if – some non-conventional individualistic proposition suggests that on a very large scale, some imaginary lines meet in some dimension – how does that occurrence become “god” – within the normally accepted view of such a concept – deist or theist?
Dear Jamie – Believe what you wish but please do not confuse it with science.


M

[Jamie Michelle]

Can you do me a favour Jamie? I assume the whole purpose of this thread is to enlighten us, so with that in mind could you summarise how that mathematical theorem leads to evidence for the Christian theology? (in one paragraph please)

Christianity being the religion which claims Jesus Christ, son of God, died for our sins. His many miracles, culminating with the resurrection, acted as proof of his divinity within his lifetime. To this day, the dogma and teachings of the church dictate to us how to act out even the minutiae of our daily lives. What we can eat and when; who we can love and how; what we can even think!

The holy book which is to act as our guide in all this trivia was written by many different men, with many different agendas, from many different time periods. All of whom wrote their gospels many years after the death of Jesus. These gospels were later to be picked through and chosen for canonisation depending on which best suited the ambitions of a small few religious leaders. Warped through multiple translations before reaching us in English, and well before then being spread simply for convenience by the Roman Empire.

Even without highlighting the startling similarities between the life and teachings of Jesus to older mythological stories and more ancient religions, why should we believe a word of what we know about this bronze age fairy tale called 'Christianity'?

Regarding the Christ myth theory, virtually all the items which the Christ myth theorists claim as facts which show the parallels of Christianity with earlier pagan religions are completely fabricated modern claims that can't be found in the historical record. For an excellent discussion on this, see the following video:

"Did Jesus Exist? Shattering the Christ Myth (JP Holding)", rfvidz, March 30, 2012 Did Jesus Exist? Shattering the Christ Myth (JP Holding) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBHjZhz1Os4)

The above video is an interview of J[ames]. P[atrick]. Holding (author of Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? [Maitland, Fla.: Xulon Press, 2008]) by Dr. Craig Johnson on the topic of the Christ myth theory [1]. See also the below resources regarding the Christ myth theory on J. P. Holding's website:

"Were Bible stories and characters stolen from pagan myths?", Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

"Did Jesus exist?", Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

-----

Note:

1. For the full video of this interview, see "Craig Johnson Video Podcasts", Bethel Christian Fellowship, Agoura Hills, Cal. http://drcraigjohnson.net/podcasts/video/podcast.xml , in particular "Veritas Forum: Shattering the Christ Myth", May 21, 2009 http://bethelchristianfellowship.info/flash_media/jp3ChristMythCopyCat.m4v .

##########

Regarding the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity:

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.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity (i.e., the uncaused cause of all causes) is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, 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.

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics, through baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the principle of least action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

For much more on the above, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

[Jamie Michelle]

Omega point cosmology does not solve the black hole information puzzle, it simply avoids it by hypothesizing a universe that has no event horizons. Tipler’s argument is essentially this:

Argument 1: God exists. The omega point is God because the omega point has the defining characteristic features of God. But the construction of the causal boundary of a model universe won’t result in an omega point unless the model has no event horizons. Therefore there are no event horizons and consequently the black hole information puzzle doesn’t arise in our particular universe.

In this argument the assumption is that God “exists” (or if you prefer, the construction of the causal boundary leads to a unique point on the mathematically constructed boundary, the omega point; i.e. God). That God “exists” is not one of the known laws of the physical universe.

In other places in his book The Physics of Immortality, Tipler takes a different tact.

Argument 2: Tipler invites us to assume the universe has no event horizons (among other assumptions) and proves from those assumptions that an omega point “exists.”

The first argument is somewhat akin to saying, “Missing links would discredit Genesis, therefore there are no missing links, in spite of the fact that science keeps finding more of them.” The second argument is homologous to, “There are no missing links (fossil evident to the contrary) and therefore Genesis is correct.” Either form of the argument employs an assumption that goes beyond generally accepted science.

What is true is that Tipler’s theory doesn’t require extra-dimensions, a holographic principle, multiple universes or other as yet unproven hypothesis of fundamental physics. Rather than forwarding hypotheses concerning fundamental physics (e.g. a hypothesis that would truly address the information puzzle associated with event horizons) Tipler’s hypotheses assume a background physics that is generally well accepted (semi-classical gravity, quantum field theory and thermodynamics). That’s a plus for Tipler. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Tipler does forward a number of assumptions. Unfortunately they are assumptions that beg his desired conclusion. Worse, they are assumptions (like the universe isn’t expanding or there are no event horizons) that run counter to the current evidence.

A word of explanation: Why do I put “exists” in quotes when paraphrasing Tipler’s conclusion that the omega point “exists”?
Answer: It is alleged that Tipler makes no assumptions that don’t belong to what is generally accepted science. So Tipler doesn’t assume there are multiple universes; i.e. that there is anything outside our own universe. To say something exists is to say it lies within our universe. But the causal boundary of the universe is not something that lies within our own universe. It is an abstract construction that allows mathematicians talk about certain bundles of world-lines as if they were points at infinity outside the universe(much like in the mathematical theory of perspective certain bundles of lines are identified with focal points at infinity). These points don’t exist in the universe. They exist in the heads of mathematicians. At best they exist in Plato’s world of forms. But Tipler can’t assume Plato world of forms; it’s not part of generally accepted science. So Tipler’s omega point can only “exist” as a formal idea in the heads of mathematicians.

I will grant that in these posts you have added to Tipler’s arguments. We now have

Argument 3) If you don’t have the moral stamina to believe each step of the prior arguments you are doomed to perdition. These arguments are designed to save you. Accept or die forever.

Poor Nietsche, he’s no doubt rolling in his grave right now, seeing what Tipler has done to the doctrine of eternal return :)

You really should read this

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hoof...eoristbad.html

Actually, Trish, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988]).

Regarding proposed solutions to the black hole information issue, all except for Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem share the common feature of using new laws of physics that have never been experimentally confirmed--and indeed which violate the known laws of physics--such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). (See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes", Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 [October 2005], Art. No. 084013; also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.) Hence, the end of the universe in finite proper time via collapse before a black hole evaporates is required if unitarity is to remain unviolated (i.e., if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics--which is what the proof of Hawking radiation is derived from--are true statements of how the world works).

It's known that the Bekenstein Bound is required if General Relativity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are to be mutually consistent (e.g., see Bekenstein's papers on this). There's been debate as to the proper form of the Bound (i.e., between the area form of the Bound, and Bekenstein's original energy times radius form of the Bound), but unitarity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics themselves select which form of the Bound is correct as applied to the latter universe's collapse, because if the area form of the Bound were correct in this situation then this gives a direct vioation of the Second Law, as then the universe's entropy must decrease as the radius of the universe goes to zero. So if the area form of the Bound were correct in this situation, then we either preserve the Second Law by not having the universe end in collapse, in which case unitarity is violated; or we preserve unitarity by having the universe end in collapse in finite proper time, in which case the Second Law is violated.

So logically this means that the energy times radius form of the Bekenstein Bound is the correct form to apply to the latter universe's collapse. Yet since the radius of the universe is collapsing to zero, energy must grow at a greater rate than the radius going to zero, otherwise this gives a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for then entropy would be decreasing. But the only way for the energy to grow faster than the radius of the universe going to zero is for event horizons to be eliminated (which generates gravitational shear energy much faster than the radius going to zero), thereby allowing entropy to grow as opposed to decrease, per the energy times radius form of the Bekenstein Bound.

Yet this is by definition the Omega Point cosmology, for by eliminating event horizons the universe is forced to end in a solitary-point final singularity, called the Omega Point.

The foregoing is all that is required to derive the logical necessity of the Omega Point cosmology if the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics are true statements of how the world works (see Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper for fuller details, particularly p. 925, see also pp. 904-905). These three known laws of physics, if they are correct, logically require the Omega Point cosmology.

In Prof. Tipler's derivation of this proof, he also notes how an Omega Point final state is of measure zero in initial data space; how the final collapse is chaotic; and how a chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are intelligently manipulated (in this case, the universe's collapse trajectories being intelligently guided). But this part of the proof logically derives intelligence growing without bound going into the final single-point singularity--it is not itself required in order to prove that the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics logically require the Omega Point cosmology. But it is astonishing icing on the cake, i.e., in how the laws of physics work together as a mutually-consistent and mutually-reinforcing unity. And it further reinforces that the Omega Point cosmology--and hence, the known laws of physcs--are correct, as we would not expect the known laws of physics to mesh so perfectly together in buttressing the reality of the Omega Point cosmology if it were incorrect. In the case of event horizon elimination, this is a two-for-one special: event horizon elimination is necessary in order to allow communication (and hence life) to continue, but as an automatic consequence the energy available to life diverges to infinity. Not only does this dovetailing of fundamental physics that allows for the Omega Point cosmology concern the aforesaid details, but numerous others as well, such as particle energy states automatically scaling as the universe collapses, thereby allowing life to encode its mental processes all the way into the final singularity.

The following is Tipler's 2005 paper referred to in the above:

* 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, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, 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.

For much more on the above, see my below article, particularly Sec. 3.1: "The Omega Point" and Appendix A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe":

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

[trish]

...by eliminating event horizons the universe is forced to end in a solitary-point final singularity, called the Omega Point.And yet there are event horizons.

[Stavros]

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.


Trinities exist in other religions, but to even hope you would take an interest in comparative religion and ask why, for example, sacrifice is common to most religions (physically, emotionally, intellectually) would be to ask you to take other relgions seriously, rather than to 'deselect' them because of an eccentric concept in cosmology.

Therefore, since it is amusing and irreverant, and does't scratch the surface, this could be a starting point for comparative religion.

Comparative religion, reduced to basics

Where do we fit in?


Taoism Shit happens
Confucianism Confucius says, "shit happens."
Buddhism If shit happens, it is not really shit.
Zen-Buddhism What is the sound of shit happening?
Hindism This shit happened before.
Islam If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.
Protestantism Let shit happen to someone else.
Catholicism If shit happens you deserve it.
Mormonism Shit doesn't happen to us.
Calvinism Shit is predestined to happen.
Presbyterianism Shit happens because it was planned that way.
Unitarianism We will study shit happening
Quakerism Bless the happening of the shit.
Methodism Shit will not happen to you unless you smoke, drink or dance.
Deism Shit happens everywhere
Deveel Whorship You will buy this shit.
Atheism Shit doesn't happen.
Agnosticism I don't know whether shit happens.
Dyslexism Tish happens.
Puritanism Shit happening is God's punishment.
Fundamentalism If the scriptures do not say shit happens, it does not happen.
Secular Humanism It is the fault of society that shit happens.
Liberation Theology It is the fault of the rich that shit happens
Dianetics Why does shit happen? See page 462.
Heaven's Gate Oh, my God! Shit didn't happen!
Communism Shit is required to happen to everybody.
Charasmatic Shit happens. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
New Age Theology Shit happening leads to self awareness.
Existentialism There is nothing except shit happening.
Satanism We make shit happen.
Santaism He's making a shitlist and checking it twice.
TV Evangelism Watch the shit happen. (And please send money to help keep us on the air.)
Jehovah's Witnesses {Knock, knock} Excuse me, may I have five minutes of your time to tell you exactly why shit happens?
Judaism Why does shit always happen to us?
Hippiism Hey, man, try some of this goovy Columbian shit!
Paganism Shit above, shit below.
Wicca Shit will return threefold.
Hare Krishna Shit happens, shit happens, happens happens, shit shit.

http://www.zeff.us/compare.html

[yosi]

Below is an article that I recently wrote. It is published under my legal name. It concerns the Omega Point cosmology by physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, which is a proof of God's existence based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.


quite pretentious isn't it?

you fall into the oldest trap in the book : thinking you know all the answers , you are wrong ......

the history of science is full of examples of those who were sure they knew evetything , until they were proven otherwise ( the earth is flat cried the scientists of the christian church , everyone who think otherwise is retarded............ ) , a true scientist knows that every conclusion arise 10 new unsolved questions.

a true scientist knows that the more facts he knows , the less he realy knows.

but I am just another moron , what do I understand? :dancing:

[Prospero]

The late, great science writer Martin Gardner who wrote for the Scientific American for many years together with producing many books debunking fake science had this to say of Frank Tipler's magnum opus referred to regularly by Jamie in a collection of his essays The Night is Large; " I consider this the funniest crank work by a reputable physicist written in this century."

This is the beginning of his review of another book on which Tipler collaborated with the Templeton prize winning British scientist John D Barrow (the prize is awarded annually to those who've done the most to bridge the gulf between science and religion) , published in the NY Review of books in 1986. I have a hard copy but can only post the opening section of the review here.

he Anthropic Cosmological Principle
by John D. Barrow, by Frank J. Tipler, with a foreword by John A. Wheeler
Oxford University Press (Clarendon Press), 706 pp., $29.95

It has been observed that cosmologists are often wrong but seldom uncertain, and the authors of this long, fascinating, exasperating book are no exceptions. They are John Barrow, astronomer at the University of Sussex, and Frank Tipler, Tulane University mathematical physicist. Physicist John Wheeler provides an enthusiastic foreword. No one can plow through this well-written, painstakingly researched tome without absorbing vast chunks of information about QM (quantum mechanics), the latest cosmic models, and the history of philosophical views that bear on the book’s main arguments.

Just what is this “anthropic principle” that has become so fashionable among a minority of cosmologists, and is arousing such passionate controversy? As the authors make clear in their introduction, there is not one principle but four. Each is more speculative than the previous one, with the fourth blasting the authors out of science altogether into clouds of metaphysics and fantasy.

The simplest of the four is called (the authors are fond of acronyms) WAP, or the Weak Anthropic Principle. Although it goes back to Protagoras’s famous declaration that “man is the measure of all things,” its modern cosmological form seems first to have been stated by the physicist Robert Dicke in the late 1950s. As Barrow and Tipler readily admit, it is a trivial tautology, totally noncontroversial. It merely proclaims that because we exist the universe must be so constructed as to allow us to have evolved. The laws of nature clearly must be such as to permit, if not actually force, the formation of CHON (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen), the four elements essential to life as we know it.

Does this mean that all life must be carbon based? Although the authors believe this, it does not follow from WAP. Even if there is noncarbon life elsewhere in the universe, the fact that we are carbon imposes a variety of tight restraints on the universe and its past. For example, the cosmos has to be about 15 billion years old. Why? Because, the authors argue, elements necessary to organic molecules are cooked inside stars. If the universe were much younger, those elements would not be available and we wouldn’t be here. If the universe were much older, all the suns would have burned out, and we wouldn’t be here either.



WAP was invoked over and over again in earlier centuries by proponents of the design argument for God. It was WAPish to point out that if the earth were slightly closer to the sun, like Venus, water would boil away and carbon life would be impossible. If the earth were slightly farther from the sun, water would freeze and Earth would have the barren deserts of Mars. Theists liked to note that when water freezes it expands and floats on water, otherwise lakes and rivers would freeze to the bottom in winter and all their life be destroyed. If Earth did not have an ozone atmosphere, animals could not survive ultraviolet radiation. And so on. Hundreds of similar …

[loveboof]

Regarding the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity:

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.

The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the uncaused first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

[...]

So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

Quite literally, the cosmological singularity (i.e., the uncaused cause of all causes) is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

[...]

Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics, through baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the principle of least action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

Thanks for the response. Let us say for arguments sake that I accept your rationale for the existence of God, there is still not enough to go on to assume Christianity as truth.

You have said 'Christian theology is preferentially selected' over other possible religions. When your whole argument is so water tight that it cannot be refuted by any current scientific approach, it seems incredibly weak to form your conclusion on the basis of such a loose correlation of interpretive points.

It must be Christianity because 'miracles are possible' - therefore Jesus performed them. 'The cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure' - therefore it matches the holy trinity.

This doesn't even get close to explaining the dogma of the church, the anomalies of the scripture, the unreliability of the gospel accounts, etc.. It is not possible to refute these issues with mathematics and physics!

And then after this huge problem, which variant of Christianity are you referring to? Roman Catholicism? Protestant? Anglican? Methodist? Baptist? Orthodox? Presbyterian? Lutheran? (there are just so many I could be here all day! ... That should be enough for you to understand my point)

You're a scientist! How can you not see that this is a glaring issue with your theory. I want you to prove it to me. I can go along with all the science and accept that the end point could be argued to be some definition of God, but fall short at the final hurdle because you are claiming Christianity as the source of all this science...

Why & how? You have not come close to explaining away my concerns. I appreciate that you are defensive of your work - I probably would be too. But I am open to hearing your ideas. If you can't prove this to a willing participant then you'll have no chance with everyone else...

[broncofan]

Pentecostalism- I can't understand any of the shit you just said.

I just thought of that one but otherwise what a list:)

Glossolalia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia)

[Stavros]

Thanks for the response. Let us say for arguments sake that I accept your rationale for the existence of God, there is still not enough to go on to assume Christianity as truth.

You have said 'Christian theology is preferentially selected' over other possible religions. When your whole argument is so water tight that it cannot be refuted by any current scientific approach, it seems incredibly weak to form your conclusion on the basis of such a loose correlation of interpretive points.

It must be Christianity because 'miracles are possible' - therefore Jesus performed them. 'The cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure' - therefore it matches the holy trinity.

This doesn't even get close to explaining the dogma of the church, the anomalies of the scripture, the unreliability of the gospel accounts, etc.. It is not possible to refute these issues with mathematics and physics!

And then after this huge problem, which variant of Christianity are you referring to? Roman Catholicism? Protestant? Anglican? Methodist? Baptist? Orthodox? Presbyterian? Lutheran? (there are just so many I could be here all day! ... That should be enough for you to understand my point)

You're a scientist! How can you not see that this is a glaring issue with your theory. I want you to prove it to me. I can go along with all the science and accept that the end point could be argued to be some definition of God, but fall short at the final hurdle because you are claiming Christianity as the source of all this science...

Why & how? You have not come close to explaining away my concerns. I appreciate that you are defensive of your work - I probably would be too. But I am open to hearing your ideas. If you can't prove this to a willing participant then you'll have no chance with everyone else...

Loveboof here is an extract from Jamie's paper that might help you with your query and will probably be shorter than any reply she gives. For someone who sees empires and states as mass murderers, her leniency with the Catholic Church is one of many contradictions, not the least of which is her inability to explain that academics are joined by the hip to the Beast, but why this pejorative view of academics does'nt seem to apply to Prof. Tipler. Etc etc. Enjoy

6 Science Comes Home
Science and Christianity have been closely intertwined since the birth of science. Both the university system and the field of natural science as a systematic discipline are the inventions of Christianity. The Christian Weltanschauung was a unique development in the history of thought, since it held that God is rational and that (unlike in, e.g., Judaism or Islam) the mind of God could be better known through the systematic study of His creation—as opposed to the arbitrary and capricious gods of the ancient Greeks and Romans that made serious investigation into the physical world a dubious proposition as contrasted with the idealized perfection of geometry. It was this change in worldview which made systematic study into the physical world possible. Jesus Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck, and along with it the rest of the world. A great irony is that even antitheists benefit enormously from the civilization that Christ founded: indeed, almost all of the Earth’s current population—and hence, almost all antitheists—couldn’t even be alive were it not for the advancements made by Christian civilization.71
Natural science as a discipline in the modern sense didn’t exist before the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution began with the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543.72 Before then, what existed in the Western intellectual world (going all the way back to the ancient Greeks) was Aristotelianism, which maintained the verity of geocentrism predicated on philosophical premises. This lead to the persecution of Galileo Galilei, which was demanded by the Aristotelian academics of the time in order to protect their bailiwick; the pope and several of the churchmen were quite enthusiastic about Galileo’s observations confirming heliocentrism, but caved-in to the demands of the Aristotelian academics.
Many of the top names in the history of science have been deeply devout Christians, such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, and Georges Lemaître, just to name a few. For these men, their scientific investigations were driven by their desire to better know the intellect of God.

Notes
71For much more on the matters discussed in this section, see the books on this by Prof. Woods [482], and Dr. Hannam [172]. Note that by antitheist I mean one having a positive belief in the nonexistence of God, which popularly goes by the etymologically incorrect name atheist. Atheist etymologically means one lacking a positive belief in God.

72Of which publication is itself the resultant product of Christian scientific thought going back to such academicians as Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln; Albertus Magnus, Bishop of Regensburg; the Franciscan friars Roger Bacon and William of Ockham; and the intellectual and academic groundwork laid by the monastic and cathedral schools beforehand, which date to before the Sack of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 [482, p. 44]. It was the Christian religious orders which preserved and advanced European civilization through the tumultuous centuries of the Barbarian Invasions (ca. 300–900).
Pages 33-34.

[loveboof]

Loveboof here is an extract from Jamie's paper that might help you with your query and will probably be shorter than any reply she gives. For someone who sees empires and states as mass murderers, her leniency with the Catholic Church is one of many contradictions, not the least of which is her inability to explain that academics are joined by the hip to the Beast, but why this pejorative view of academics does'nt seem to apply to Prof. Tipler. Etc etc. Enjoy

[cut]

Thanks Stavros. That excerpt is completely fallacious though (as I'm sure you're already aware! lol).

"There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages" ~ Ruth Hurmence Green

The Dark Ages represents the height of Christian power and influence, so why did we have to wait until the enlightenment for science to flourish? Also science is actually much older than Christianity, so the statement 'Science and Christianity have been closely intertwined since the birth of science' is just nonsense!

I would point Jamie towards the Index Librorum Prohibitorum if she believes Christianity has been such a champion of science throughout the ages... (Johannes Kepler made it on to their list btw Jamie!)

I believe it was not until 1992 (!!!) that the Pope acquitted Galileo of his heresy. What does that tell you of the church's 'enthusiasm for Galileo’s observations' (as Jamie puts it)

"Jesus Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck"... I can't be bothered to go on, but really? ... really?

[martin48]

I am still bemused as to why the clearly very intelligent regular contributors to this board like Trish and Stavros devote quite so much time to debating the ludicrous fallacies of Jamie's work - bad grammar, gratuitous insults and all.


I am of the same mind. My comments in visual form have been left elsewhere.

[Prospero]

I saw and enjoyed them very much Martin.

[trish]

I am still bemused as to why the clearly very intelligent regular contributors to this board like Trish and Stavros devote quite so much time to debating the ludicrous fallacies of Jamie's work - bad grammar, gratuitous insults and all.

One of course knows by now that one will never dissuade Jamie from her pursuit of celestial silliness.

But I do have some respect for Frank Tipler. Some years ago I read some really nicely argued technical papers by him on causality violation and topology. It is strange to me how someone of Frank's abilities can just sort of casually slip off into never-never-land. It doesn't require much a of dip into his book The Physics of Immortality to see that he has completely metamorphosed into a crackpot. Reading it is like watching a Big Al Yankovc parody of modern cosmology. Its amusing to see how ideas with which one is quite familiar are twisted, misinterpreted and misapplied in such maddeningly misguided ways. Part of the job of a theoretical physicist is to seek out the unsuspected twists and paradoxes hidden in modern theory and figure out how to correctly resolve resolve them. It can be fun and instructive. Unfortunately most of Tipler's paradoxes come about through misapplied logic rather than misapplied physics. Admittedly less fun. Less instructive.

[trish]

I saw and enjoyed them very much Martin.
me too

[martin48]

One of course knows by now that one will never dissuade Jamie from her pursuit of celestial silliness.

But I do have some respect for Frank Tipler. Some years ago I read some really nicely argued technical papers by him on causality violation and topology. It is strange to me how someone of Frank's abilities can just sort of casually slip off into never-never-land. It doesn't require much a of dip into his book The Physics of Immortality to see that he has completely metamorphosed into a crackpot. Reading it is like watching a Big Al Yankovc parody of modern cosmology. Its amusing to see how ideas with which one is quite familiar are twisted, misinterpreted and misapplied in such maddeningly misguided ways. Part of the job of a theoretical physicist is to seek out the unsuspected twists and paradoxes hidden in modern theory and figure out how to correctly resolve resolve them. It can be fun and instructive. Unfortunately most of Tipler's paradoxes come about through misapplied logic rather than misapplied physics. Admittedly less fun. Less instructive.

Unfortunately, I know in my own profession of a few academics who went of the "rails" - Eric Laithwaite (inventor the is linear electric motor) spent his latter days in believing that little green men from Mars helped spiders walk on ceilings; Arthur Bailey (amplifier design) believed that you could locate faults in complex electronics by holding a pendulum over the circuit diagram. It's an occupational hazard for academics

Old Professors never die, they just lose their faculties :dancing:

[trish]

When I get too old to think clearly, I hope someone encourages me to retire and take up political punditry.

[Prospero]

Odd because his partner in writing the book on the Anthropic Principle, John Barrow, is a very serious and respected scientists. I've met him and read several of his books.

[trish]

The publication date of the Anthropic Principle with Barrow and Wheeler is 1988. The time of his paper on causality violation was 1977. The book on the omega point was published first by Double Day (not a scientific publisher) in 1994. I hear he is now dabbling in the art of denying global warming (actually blaming it on Sun Spots).

[robertlouis]

When I get too old to think clearly, I hope someone encourages me to retire and take up political punditry.

LMAO. Post of the month.

[Jamie Michelle]

I am still bemused as to why the clearly very intelligent regular contributors to this board like Trish and Stavros devote quite so much time to debating the ludicrous fallacies of Jamie's work - bad grammar, gratuitous insults and all.

Bad grammar? You must be daft. Say what you will about me: call me a genius, say that I am freakishly intelligent, or what have you. Call me a malformed freak of nature with ungodly high IQ. But one thing that makes no sense whatsoever is to say that I have bad grammar.

[Jamie Michelle]

I am still bemused as to why the clearly very intelligent regular contributors to this board like Trish and Stavros devote quite so much time to debating the ludicrous fallacies of Jamie's work - bad grammar, gratuitous insults and all.


The late, great science writer Martin Gardner who wrote for the Scientific American for many years together with producing many books debunking fake science had this to say of Frank Tipler's magnum opus referred to regularly by Jamie in a collection of his essays The Night is Large; " I consider this the funniest crank work by a reputable physicist written in this century."

This is the beginning of his review of another book on which Tipler collaborated with the Templeton prize winning British scientist John D Barrow (the prize is awarded annually to those who've done the most to bridge the gulf between science and religion) , published in the NY Review of books in 1986. I have a hard copy but can only post the opening section of the review here.

he Anthropic Cosmological Principle
by John D. Barrow, by Frank J. Tipler, with a foreword by John A. Wheeler
Oxford University Press (Clarendon Press), 706 pp., $29.95

It has been observed that cosmologists are often wrong but seldom uncertain, and the authors of this long, fascinating, exasperating book are no exceptions. They are John Barrow, astronomer at the University of Sussex, and Frank Tipler, Tulane University mathematical physicist. Physicist John Wheeler provides an enthusiastic foreword. No one can plow through this well-written, painstakingly researched tome without absorbing vast chunks of information about QM (quantum mechanics), the latest cosmic models, and the history of philosophical views that bear on the book’s main arguments.

Just what is this “anthropic principle” that has become so fashionable among a minority of cosmologists, and is arousing such passionate controversy? As the authors make clear in their introduction, there is not one principle but four. Each is more speculative than the previous one, with the fourth blasting the authors out of science altogether into clouds of metaphysics and fantasy.

The simplest of the four is called (the authors are fond of acronyms) WAP, or the Weak Anthropic Principle. Although it goes back to Protagoras’s famous declaration that “man is the measure of all things,” its modern cosmological form seems first to have been stated by the physicist Robert Dicke in the late 1950s. As Barrow and Tipler readily admit, it is a trivial tautology, totally noncontroversial. It merely proclaims that because we exist the universe must be so constructed as to allow us to have evolved. The laws of nature clearly must be such as to permit, if not actually force, the formation of CHON (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen), the four elements essential to life as we know it.

Does this mean that all life must be carbon based? Although the authors believe this, it does not follow from WAP. Even if there is noncarbon life elsewhere in the universe, the fact that we are carbon imposes a variety of tight restraints on the universe and its past. For example, the cosmos has to be about 15 billion years old. Why? Because, the authors argue, elements necessary to organic molecules are cooked inside stars. If the universe were much younger, those elements would not be available and we wouldn’t be here. If the universe were much older, all the suns would have burned out, and we wouldn’t be here either.



WAP was invoked over and over again in earlier centuries by proponents of the design argument for God. It was WAPish to point out that if the earth were slightly closer to the sun, like Venus, water would boil away and carbon life would be impossible. If the earth were slightly farther from the sun, water would freeze and Earth would have the barren deserts of Mars. Theists liked to note that when water freezes it expands and floats on water, otherwise lakes and rivers would freeze to the bottom in winter and all their life be destroyed. If Earth did not have an ozone atmosphere, animals could not survive ultraviolet radiation. And so on. Hundreds of similar …

Notice that Martin Gardner never states any error on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's part. However, I do find the below exchange between Prof. Tipler and Gardner to be quite telling; it transpired from Gardner's review of Profs. John D. Barrow and Tipler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). Notice Gardner's two-word reply to Tipler.

Frank J. Tipler, reply by Martin Gardner, "The FAP Flop", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 19 (December 4, 1986). http://nybooks.com/articles/4946 , http://webcitation.org/67Fw7SAdg In reply to Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 8 (May 8, 1986). http://nybooks.com/articles/5121

[Jamie Michelle]

Loveboof here is an extract from Jamie's paper that might help you with your query and will probably be shorter than any reply she gives. For someone who sees empires and states as mass murderers, her leniency with the Catholic Church is one of many contradictions, not the least of which is her inability to explain that academics are joined by the hip to the Beast, but why this pejorative view of academics does'nt seem to apply to Prof. Tipler. Etc etc. Enjoy

"[L]eniency with the Catholic Church"? When did this occur? You cite that as an example of "many contradictions" I have supposedly engaged in, thereby demonstrating that you do not know what the word "contradiction" means.

In actual fact, I rebuke all the major churches in my article.

Your problem is apparently that you have not read far enough into my article, otherwise you ought to see how silly your above statements are.

Regarding academia, I respect and have learned from many genuine academicians. I never said nor implied that all of academia is corrupt. You're letting your feavered imagination run wild. Obviously you've never studied economics, and hence don't know what a tendecy is in the sense of incentive. It doesn't mean that all actors will choose that course, it merely means that there are benefits for doing so and costs for not doing so, and hence that the behavior so incentivized will become more prevalent, ceteris paribus.

[Stavros]

"[L]eniency with the Catholic Church"? When did this occur? You cite that as an example of "many contradictions" I have supposedly engaged in, thereby demonstrating that you do not know what the word "contradiction" means.

In actual fact, I rebuke all the major churches in my article.

Your problem is apparently that you have not read far enough into my article, otherwise you ought to see how silly your above statements are.

Regarding academia, I respect and have learned from many genuine academicians. I never said nor implied that all of academia is corrupt. You're letting your feavered imagination run wild. Obviously you've never studied economics, and hence don't know what a tendecy is in the sense of incentive. It doesn't mean that all actors will choose that course, it merely means that there are benefits for doing so and costs for not doing so, and hence that the behavior so incentivized will become more prevalent, ceteris paribus.

I offer you your own texts:

Pope and Church Good
The originator of the Big Bang theory was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître in 1927;56 and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it. Indeed, Lemaître relates that when he spoke with Albert Einstein regarding his Primaeval Atom Hypothesis, Einstein’s response to it was “Non, pas cela, cela suggère trop la création” (“No, not this—this too much suggests the creation”).
P29

Christian Religious Orders Good
It was the Christian religious orders which preserved and advanced European civilization through the tumultuous centuries of the Barbarian Invasions (ca. 300–900). With-out this salvatory and ameliorative role of the Christian church, there would be no Western civilization to speak of.
Note 72 p33-34

Church Not So Good
Unfortunately, the inversion of that organization popularly calling itself the Christian church occurred with the pagan Roman government’s takeover of said group under Constantine I, himself a lifelong pagan, bloodthirsty tyrant, and unrepentant murderer of his eldest son Crispus and his wife Fausta, to say nothing of all the plebeians he murdered. Since that time, the organizations commonly calling themselves “Christian” have been hostilely opposed to actually applying Jesus Christ’s teachings, since said teachings are incompatible with government and its frequent activities, e.g., taxes, war, the inversion of genuine moral understanding, the sowing of needless discord and strife among the populace (i.e., divide et impera), etc
P48-49

Churches Verily Not Good
However, in opposition to the Messiah’s teachings, all the governments of the world instill in their subjects fear and hatred of others, not only between the subjects of different governments but also among their own subjects. And regrettably, institutions calling themselves Christian churches often act as propaganda-founts of the government while vehemently rejecting Christ’s teachings, thereby worshiping the false god of government instead of worshiping God.
P55

Academics Persecute
Natural science as a discipline in the modern sense didn’t exist before the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution began with the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. Before then, what existed in the Western intellectual world (going all the way back to the ancient Greeks) was Aristotelianism, which maintained the verity of geocentrism predicated on philosophical premises. This lead to the persecution of Galileo Galilei, which was demanded by the Aristotelian academics of the time in order to protect their bailiwick; the pope and several of the churchmen were quite enthusiastic about Galileo’s observations confirming heliocentrism, but caved-in to the demands of the Aristotelian academics.
P33-34

Academics Grafted to the Hip of the State, therefore BAD
The great tyrannies of the 20th century were first and foremost an attempt to abolish Christianity. The reason for this governmental antagonism against Christianity is the same reason this temperament is so prevalent in current academia. Both academia and the corporate media in our present day are grafted to the hip of the state, and the natural tendency of the state is to tolerate no God before it.
P96

[loveboof]

Bad grammar? You must be daft. Say what you will about me: call me a genius, say that I am freakishly intelligent, or what have you. Call me a malformed freak of nature with ungodly high IQ. But one thing that makes no sense whatsoever is to say that I have bad grammar.


"[L]eniency with the Catholic Church"? When did this occur? You cite that as an example of "many contradictions" I have supposedly engaged in, thereby demonstrating that you do not know what the word "contradiction" means.

In actual fact, I rebuke all the major churches in my article.

Your problem is apparently that you have not read far enough into my article, otherwise you ought to see how silly your above statements are.

Regarding academia, I respect and have learned from many genuine academicians. I never said nor implied that all of academia is corrupt. You're letting your feavered imagination run wild. Obviously you've never studied economics, and hence don't know what a tendecy is in the sense of incentive. It doesn't mean that all actors will choose that course, it merely means that there are benefits for doing so and costs for not doing so, and hence that the behavior so incentivized will become more prevalent, ceteris paribus.

We all make mistakes; nobody's perfect. :)

(I took the liberty of pointing out a few spelling mistakes too)

[GoddessAthena85]

I <3 this video it's worth the watch if you're a realisthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo7lxuwLC9I

[loveboof]

I <3 this video it's worth the watch if you're a realisthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo7lxuwLC9I

I quite enjoyed that! Thanks :)

[GoddessAthena85]

I quite enjoyed that! Thanks :)
thank you for watching.

[Jamie Michelle]

Part II
The section of Jamie’s paper that deals with the social, ethical, economic
and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology interprets the whole of human history as the act of a Christian God whose plan has been laid out in the Bible, the New Testament and the Book of Revelation in particular.

I have read Jamie’s paper, and I would like to say something positive about it, but the core arguments and the interpretation of secondary literature contain no merit. There is no original research in this paper, ...


Actually, most of my "Physics of God" article is original research, such as virtually all of the many congruities that I show between the New Testament and the Omega Point cosmology, such as on the asiety of God, and on the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology.

So you are here shown to be a liar. Obviously you feel the need to lie because your position is wrong. The thing which you should do is change your false position in order to make it conform to reality. That way you will no longer need to lie.



... there are numerous errors of fact, and distortions of historical truth, but above all, for someone who claims to be a Born Again Christian, there is an arrogance and disregard for non-Christian cultures that undermines a key value in Christianity to love one’s neighbour as oneself.


Your above claims are the logical fallacy of ipse dixit. Moreover, they are also false.



It would be a tedious exercise to go though the paper to point out all of its errors and distortions. I have also not responded to the earlier comments to the first paper now that it has been replaced.

1) Consider Jamie’s responses to matters of life and death:
The answer as to why anything exists as opposed to nothingness is that existence is mathematics, i.e., logic. Only this and nothing more. (p37-thirty-eight).

This explanation is then undermined completely by the numerous references that are made to the narrative of Jesus’s life in the Gospels, and her own insistence that only Christians whose belief and behaviour are pure and based on the teachings of Jesus can attain eternal life. No reference to mathematics at all.


Hi, Stavros. Your reading comprehension is extremely low, such as to be functionally illiterate. That the universe is mathematics is simply an unavoidable consequence of the Bekenstein Bound, which itself is required by the known laws of physics. And I even have an appendix on the Bekenstein Bound. So your above claim is not only nonsensical, but also nihil ad rem.

For that appendix, See App. A: "The Bekenstein Bound" of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp



And now consider Jamie’s response to the hypothesis that there is no meaning to life:

If it could be definitely proved that God and eternal life do not exist, then the only rational course would be to commit suicide. The reason for this is because even if one is presently enjoying one’s life, tragedy and horrific pain can strike at almost any time, quite apart from how one lives one’s life. Since one can have no real control over whether one ends up in a situation of horrific pain, the only rational course if God and eternal life do not exist would be to commit a painless suicide. Since in such a hypothetical scenario one’s eternal death is certain anyway, one might as well get there in a manner which ensures the least pain. (p54).

Suicide as an option for those who reject Christ the Saviour is to me a perversion of Christ’s message. Sadly, this intolerance of other people’s views is common among doctrinal Christians who in reality are unable to love their neighbour, regardless of what the neighbour thinks or believes –I can’t imagine a real Christian recommending suicide to their neighbour.


Again, Stavros, you're not comprehending what you're reading. It's long been known that if God and immortality do not exist then existence is dysteleological. I'm not the first to have pointed out this basic fact.

You're also putting words into my mouth that I never said. You obviously have a yen for lying and misrepresenting other poeple's views. This is because your position is false. If your position were correct, you would not feel the need to lie.



2) The negative view of the Christian Church is amplified through its association with government because all government is a wicked and violent conspiracy against Jesus:


"The negative view of the Christian Church"? In later posts you accuse me of being a papist apologist. Not only can you not comprehend my article, but you also can't remember your own postings.



Government is a massive death-cult which requires gargantuan levels of human sacrifice. The bloody human sacrifice is still regarded by mankind as the most sacred of ritual, instead of being viewed as the depraved and ghoulish institution it is. The human-sacrifice orgies in which throngs of lamentably deceived people kill and get killed so that a relative handful of the most rich and powerful can become even more rich and powerful are made holy by the secular priesthood of power which officiates the state’s bloodstained pantheon that sits atop a mountain of rotting human corpses. Truth is the most hated thing in the world (p 56).

There is no room here for political theory, no room for any sense of the way in which government has changed over time, no room for an argument about what the meaning of sacrifice might be, and, critically, why human societies and their governments have actually striven to avoid human sacrifice. Why for example, did Japan sue for peace in 1945 when the opportunity to slaughter another million was available?


Actually, that quote of me is based upon veridical political theory. Below are vital articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, "The Anatomy of the State", Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard's articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974). http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp , http://www.mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve3r05ti

Murray N. Rothbard, "Defense Services on the Free Market", Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970). http://www.webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , ftp://myebooks.dyndns.org/computers/.../economy/Rothbard%20-%20Power%20and%20Market%20-%20Government%20and%20the%20Economy%20(1970).pdf , http://flashmirrors.com/files/otempz6jzpvkd4c/Rothbard-Power-and-Market.pdf

Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "The Private Production of Defense", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve41VasQ

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security", Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve485kNf

Prof. David D. Friedman, "Police, Courts, and Laws--On the Market", Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971). http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve4A6KFZ

Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

Murray N. Rothbard , The Ethics of Liberty (New York, N.Y.: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982). http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp , http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve4GO9l5

If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995). http://www.mises.org/esandtam.asp , http://mises.org/books/esam.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63rQDYtj2

The above small book by Prof. Hoppe doesn't delve into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they're at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of economics and its epistemic basis. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn't take all that long to read it.

Murray N. Rothbard, "Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics", in Mary Sennholz (editor), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1956), pp. 224-262. Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5ve4WQnYm

Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, second edition, 2004; originally published 1962). http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp , http://www.mises.org/books/mespm.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5v3cOaaAG

Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970). http://www.webcitation.org/5ve3w5w9a , ftp://myebooks.dyndns.org/computers/.../economy/Rothbard%20-%20Power%20and%20Market%20-%20Government%20and%20the%20Economy%20(1970).pdf , http://flashmirrors.com/files/otempz6jzpvkd4c/Rothbard-Power-and-Market.pdf

These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

Murray N. Rothbard, America's Great Depression (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, fifth edition, 2000; originally published 1963). http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/5v3cWFPsd

The above book concerns how governments create depressions (i.e., panics; recessions) through credit expansion (i.e., fractional-reserve banking and/or fiat money).

On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 4, 2011 (originally published December 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

And see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm



Jamie has no interest in any faith other than Christianity, all other faiths are either dismissed as irrelevant, or in the case of Judaism, presented as essentially pagan religions that came ‘too soon’ for the truth of Christ, even though Christ was a Jew. This intolerance of other faiths is a denial of the Christian idea that one should love one’s neighbour as oneself, regardless of that person’s belief. It also trashes thousands of years of culture and civilisation which according to Jamie was created by the same God that created her. Not a democratic view of other cultures.


Again, Stavros, you're lying by putting words into my mouth that I never said. This is because your position is false. If your position were correct, you would not feel the need to lie.



The claim that:
Not only are all governments inherently terroristic, but they are by far the largest and most murderous terrorist organizations in existence. Just within the last century governments butchered over 200 million people, almost all of them innocent noncombatants (p65)...

Ignores the devastation caused by the Plague or ‘Black Death’ in Europe and Asia, by Influenza, Malaria, Measles and Smallpox and Meningitis all over the world; yet not only have flies, fleas and mosquitoes caused vast deaths, there is no discussion of the role played by nature in ‘God’s Plan’, perhaps because Jamie thinks it unimportant. It matters because Jamie believes in Intelligent Design, and should therefore at least offer an explanation for God’s role as the slayer of billions. Presumably nothing happens by accident –tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, epidemics: these must all be acts of God, for what else can they be in Jamie’s scheme of things?


Since when were diseases and natural disasters "terrorist organizations"? Your responses are schizophrenic and totally nihil ad rem. Although that's a consqeuence of not comprehending what you read, so instead you simply reply to bizarre phantasms of your own mind.

And I do address the problem of evil in Sec. 7.4.1: "The Problem of Evil" of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp



3) An inability to analyse historical events.
Jamie gets even deeper into the mire when attempting to depict the duplicity of state terrorism using ‘false-flag’ operations to start wars –the Reichstag Fire (1933) and the attacks on German units on the Polish border in 1939; Pearl Harbour in 1941, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam in 1964. The problem with these accounts is that Jamie does not know how to analyse historical events. A common mistake made by high school students is to mistake an event for a cause –the false-flag events Jamie draws attention to may have been the events that sparked war, but the cause lay somewhere else –the need for the Nazi’s to eliminate opposition parties in the Reichstag; Germany’s belief that it could not survive unless it were the dominant state in Europe; the USA’s determination to prevent Communism from taking root in South-east Asia. FH Hinsley discussed the difference between ‘occasions’ and ‘causes’ in history in Power and the Pursuit of Peace (1961), and is still worth reading as a guide to historical methods.


You here admit that the US government did engage in the false-flag terrorism events that I detail in my "Physics of God" article, but your position is that wasn't the cause of the wars because there were underlying reasons why the US government staged said mendacious terrorist attacks.

You here again show your inability to comprehend what you read. My point in bringing up these government false-flag terrorist attacks is simply to show that governments engage in false-flag terrorist attacks, and in this I accomplished my goal. Your inability to comprehend what you read causes you to read into texts phantasms of your own mind, which you then proceed to attempt to rebut. Yet your rebuttals are nihil ad rem as they don't have anything to do with what I wrote.



The inability to understand historical events is evident in the depiction of secretive societies such as the Illuminati, the Freemasons and the Bilderberg Group as leading actors in the conspiracy of the Beast at war with Jesus. The ‘Rothschilds’ are trotted out as the manipulators of power behind the thrones, although Jamie claims


Again, you have an inability to comprehend what you read. I specifically reject the Illuminati as playing any role in the globalist oligarchy's self-termed New World Order world government, world religion and depopulation agenda. For that, see p. 94 of my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp



…the current head Rothschilds are Jewish by ancestry only, not by religion or culture: as given the pagan, neo-Egyptian occult symbolism of the Israeli Supreme Court building built by the Rothschilds the Rothschilds obviously hold Jewish religion and culture in contemptuous mockery (p91)

To confirm that the modern state of Israel is integral to the creation of the beast’s one world government, Jamie quotes Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, but out of context in order to promote her point. Thus Jamie claims

David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, stated in a 1962 article for Look magazine that this court in Jerusalem would become “the Supreme Court of Mankind”…(p92)

In fact, in 1962 Ben-Gurion was responding to a common page-filler used by newspapers and journals, and asked to predict what the world would be like in 25 years time, the brief article is here;

"The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnanacy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years."
http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1641


Again, you have an inability to comprehend what you read, Stavros. Not only is my quote in-context and accurate, but I also link to the very image of the article that I cite so that anyone can read it for themselves. You don't say above that there was anything specifically wrong with my quote of Ben-Gurion, you simply say that what Ben-Gurion said doesn't really count because it was "page-filler". In other words, everything I said about Ben-Gurion is true and accurate, but I'm in the wrong because you somehow clairvoyantly know that Ben-Gurion didn't really mean it and hence that it shouldn't count.



4) Jamie attacks her Inspiration
On page 96 she writes:
The great tyrannies of the 20th century were first and foremost an attempt to abolish Christianity. The reason for this governmental antagonism against Christianity is the same reason this temperament is so prevalent in current academia. Both academia and the corporate media in our present day are grafted to the hip of the state, and the natural tendency of the state is to tolerate no God before it.

Does this also apply to Prof. Frank Tipler of Tulane University? Jamie’s paper is rooted in the belief that Tipler has proven the existence of God. But he has tenure on the hip of the Beast.


Again, Stavros, you have an inability to comprehend what you read. This causes you to fill in the blanks of your understanding with phantasms of your own mind. You repeatedly attribute to me positions that I have never taken nor ever even impied.

You remind me of what it's been like to attempt to have conversations with schizophrenic people. Your responses to my article are off the wall and nihil ad rem. For the most part they have nothing to do with anything I actually wrote, but are simply replies to your own imaginings. Even when you provide a direct quote of me you are unable to understand the quote you have provided and then proceed to just make up bizarre responses that have nothing to do with what I said.

I never said nor so much as even implied that all academics have completely absorbed the state's inculcation.



I could go on and on, but it just gets more embarrassing. Arguing in a footnote that Karl Marx did not invent the concepts of class and class struggle –something every sociology undergraduate has known for years, Jamie (n223, ninety-eigt) goes on to give ‘early examples’ of class struggle but they are all references to the books of the Bible, and I couldn’t find any that referred to class or class struggle.


That's hardly surprising, Stavros, since you are unable to comprehend what you read. But it just so happens that I've written an article on this very subject. On the matter of politics in relation to Christianity, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 4, 2011 (originally published December 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw



5) Beheading is the natural form of execution for the Beast One-World Government, but it will end in tears for the anti-Christ:
Of course, the heads of all the innocent people beheaded for their witness of Jesus Christ and their refusal to accept the Mark of the Beast, if they were to be cryogenically stored as part of the world government’s program into researching mind-uploading, would be nicely preserved and available for technological resurrection if the world government were deposed, as Revelation says it indeed will be. Such people—the meek—would reign on Earth and go on colonize space, never to die again. Their minds will be immortal minds with vastly more computational resources than current human minds, and hence they could create any reality they could conceive via computer simulation. That is, they would live in literal heaven, i.e., paradise (p106-107).

Destined for colonial rule, the world is not enough for superhumans. If there are ‘alien beings’ on the new planets the new superhumans colonise, will they be exterminated if they refuse to accept the message of Christ?


This is an excellent example of how you are unable to comprehend what you read, Stavros, whereupon you proceed to eject some some detritus of your mind in an attempt to fill in the blanks of your incomprehension.

My "Physics of God" article repeatedly addresses the issue of ethics. In regards to what is actually in my article on said topic, your above statement is utterly bizarre. But you're never one to let facts get in the way of spewing forth the phantasms of your own mind.



6) Are we really human, if we are evolving into computers? Last word to Jamie:

Left to their own devices, the Sun will eventually move off the main sequence (main sequence stars use hydrogen in their cores as their fuel by fusing it into helium via nuclear fusion) and become a red giant; in the process, in approximately 7.6 billion years from now the Earth will be engulfed by the Sun and incinerated. Although before this destruction can take place, the future immortal beings will dismantle the Earth and convert its mass into computing machines, upon which the Earth’s biosphere will be preserved through simulation. However, during the eventual collapse phase of the universe, the temperature of the universe will diverge to infinity. The matter of the universe will eventually become hot plasma. As the temperature continues to increase, it will subsequently become too hot for the atomic elements to exist, at which point information processing and storage will have to be encoded via traveling waves and standing waves, eventually using using elementary particles to directly compute on, with the universe itself acting as the container to enclose the waves. The matter which now makes up the Earth will eventually be ionized into plasma, but by then life will have gained control over all matter in the universe and converted it into superintelligent computers (p112).

For much more on the above, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

[Jamie Michelle]

We all make mistakes; nobody's perfect. :)

(I took the liberty of pointing out a few spelling mistakes too)

There is no bad grammar in your example. But then, your posts are replete with horrendous grammar, so it's not as if you even know what good grammar is.

Because I'm not perfect, I do sometimes commit typos, as do even the best writers.

[trish]

Commit a typo, or make a typo?

[loveboof]

There is no bad grammar in your example. But then, your posts are replete with horrendous grammar, so it's not as if you even know what good grammar is.

Because I'm not perfect, I do sometimes commit typos, as do even the best writers.

Spelling 'fevered' with an A is not a typo. It is a mistake though, which was exactly what I said. We all make mistakes.

Therefore the observation that I have made mistakes is absurdly redundant in response to my comment.

(However, it is refreshing to hear you acknowledge that you are fallible. Who knew?! You are not always right after all...)

[Jamie Michelle]

I offer you your own texts:

Pope and Church Good
The originator of the Big Bang theory was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître in 1927;56 and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it. Indeed, Lemaître relates that when he spoke with Albert Einstein regarding his Primaeval Atom Hypothesis, Einstein’s response to it was “Non, pas cela, cela suggère trop la création” (“No, not this—this too much suggests the creation”).
P29

Christian Religious Orders Good
It was the Christian religious orders which preserved and advanced European civilization through the tumultuous centuries of the Barbarian Invasions (ca. 300–900). With-out this salvatory and ameliorative role of the Christian church, there would be no Western civilization to speak of.
Note 72 p33-34

Church Not So Good
Unfortunately, the inversion of that organization popularly calling itself the Christian church occurred with the pagan Roman government’s takeover of said group under Constantine I, himself a lifelong pagan, bloodthirsty tyrant, and unrepentant murderer of his eldest son Crispus and his wife Fausta, to say nothing of all the plebeians he murdered. Since that time, the organizations commonly calling themselves “Christian” have been hostilely opposed to actually applying Jesus Christ’s teachings, since said teachings are incompatible with government and its frequent activities, e.g., taxes, war, the inversion of genuine moral understanding, the sowing of needless discord and strife among the populace (i.e., divide et impera), etc
P48-49

Churches Verily Not Good
However, in opposition to the Messiah’s teachings, all the governments of the world instill in their subjects fear and hatred of others, not only between the subjects of different governments but also among their own subjects. And regrettably, institutions calling themselves Christian churches often act as propaganda-founts of the government while vehemently rejecting Christ’s teachings, thereby worshiping the false god of government instead of worshiping God.
P55

Academics Persecute
Natural science as a discipline in the modern sense didn’t exist before the Scientific Revolution. The Scientific Revolution began with the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543. Before then, what existed in the Western intellectual world (going all the way back to the ancient Greeks) was Aristotelianism, which maintained the verity of geocentrism predicated on philosophical premises. This lead to the persecution of Galileo Galilei, which was demanded by the Aristotelian academics of the time in order to protect their bailiwick; the pope and several of the churchmen were quite enthusiastic about Galileo’s observations confirming heliocentrism, but caved-in to the demands of the Aristotelian academics.
P33-34

Academics Grafted to the Hip of the State, therefore BAD
The great tyrannies of the 20th century were first and foremost an attempt to abolish Christianity. The reason for this governmental antagonism against Christianity is the same reason this temperament is so prevalent in current academia. Both academia and the corporate media in our present day are grafted to the hip of the state, and the natural tendency of the state is to tolerate no God before it.
P96

Hi, Stavros. You have an inability to comprehend what you read. This causes you to invoke phatasms of your own mind in order to fill in the blanks of your own lack of understanding.

My position, as is quite clear in my "Physics of God" article, is that individuals can be either good or bad, or mixtures of good or bad, depending on their own actions. Institutions can also be good or bad, or mixtures of good or bad. Some institutions are inherently evil, such as the ancient institutions of human sacrifice, slavery and government. Such institutions are evil by their very nature, and hence cannot be reformed; they can only be abolished.

In my aforesaid article, I also repeatedly make the distinction between what people call a thing as opposed to the actual thing itself. Just because people call themselves something does not mean that they are that something.

But such subtleties completely go over your head.

For more on the above, see my following article on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

On the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 4, 2011 (originally published December 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw

And see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn't derive an "ought" from an "is"--rather, it derives an "ought" from an "ought": an "ought" everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm

[Jamie Michelle]

Spelling 'fevered' with an A is not a typo. It is a mistake though, which was exactly what I said. We all make mistakes.

Therefore the observation that I have made mistakes is absurdly redundant in response to my comment.

There's a difference between making a typo and doing what you do. I have looked over your posting history and your grammar is consistently horrendous. This explains why you wrongly thought I made a mistake on grammar in the example that you gave, since you don't actually know what good grammar is.

As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills. But that's because I have an IQ that is genius-level (according to the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who conducted my IQ tests). That doesn't mean I never make mistakes in writing, but it does mean that my writing level is exceedingly high.

[trish]

As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills. But that's because I have an IQ that is genius-level (according to the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who conducted my IQ tests).If directly saying so counts as indicating, then yes, you have...good thing too... 'cause nobody noticed.

[Jamie Michelle]

If directly saying so counts as indicating, then yes, you have...good thing too... 'cause nobody noticed.

You wouldn't be able to notice, Trish, since your writing skills are horrendous, as this very post by you demonstrates. But yes, many people have noticed my superlative writings skills. Indeed, that's how I began writing articles, as people noticed my writing skills and depth of knowledge on forums I posted to and I was asked to write articles on politics and religion.

[trish]

You mean, forums to which you posted...right? And back to my previous question: does one commit typos or make typos? Just honest questions now, don't get all Wile E. Coyote super-genius on me.

[Jamie Michelle]

You mean, forums to which you posted...right? And back to my previous question: does one commit typos or make typos? Just honest questions now, don't get all Wile E. Coyote super-genius on me.

Those are synonymous statements, Trish. Nor did you go "back to [your] previous question", but instead you asked a different question.

[loveboof]

There's a difference between making a typo and doing what you do. I have looked over your posting history and your grammar is consistently horrendous. This explains why you wrongly thought I made a mistake on grammar in the example that you gave, since you don't actually know what good grammar is.

As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills. But that's because I have an IQ that is genius-level (according to the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who conducted my IQ tests). That doesn't mean I never make mistakes in writing, but it does mean that my writing level is exceedingly high.

You are the one who has claimed to be grammatically brilliant. I have never made such a claim for myself, so it is simple deflection for you to still be ignoring the inevitable conclusion of your own self-aggrandisement, arrogance and delusion. Not that I am particularly surprised that you can ignore facts & logic in favour of your own bullshit.

As it happens, on Internet forums I engage in a very informal conversational style of writing. In this scenario grammar is less important than conveying intonation and emphasis properly - which is ironically what grammar is supposed to do in the first place!

[trish]

So you are of the school who believe it is now grammatical to end a sentence or clause with a preposition? And you believe making a mistake is the same as committing one? There are learned people on both sides of these issues. Just wanted to know where a genius would stand. So thank you. By the way, my previous question was
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1219114&postcount=130

[broncofan]

As a lot of people have said over the years, people who quote their iq scores are very boring. Was not the Stanford Binet IQ test originally designed to identify learning disorders and not to boost people's egos and make them think it was a replacement for real engagement in the world? You hear the same thing from Mensans even though there are literally dozens of tests you can take to qualify for the organization. I've always thought that IQ was a bit like athleticism. Once you have a requisite level you can start to put it to work. Some people have limits and no doubt some people have unusual talents, but great talent can always be squandered and there are numerous examples of people who were told they are not talented who went on to accomplish great things.

University of Texas at Austin is a good university and I don't know for what purpose they administered an IQ test on you Jamie, but I'm sure it wasn't so you could quote it to impress people in a debate.

[joeninety]

Those are synonymous statements, Trish. Nor did you go "back to [your] previous question", but instead you asked a different question.

Two nonsensical words for you Jamie "Ya Muppet" should probably also add you come across as a textbook narcissist with your grandiose delusions :fu:

[Jamie Michelle]

I just love this guy Jamie... the most fruitcake character in the whole of hung angels. The manic energy he devotes to his insanity is terrific and the intensity of his abuse sublime. God bless you Jamie

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, there exists no rational reason to think that the Omega Point cosmology is wrong and every rational reason to think that it is right. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

For the details on that, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), September 10, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

Regarding your other comments, they are the logical fallacy of ad hominem attack, as well as being factually erroneous.

----------

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.) http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs , http://flashmirrors.com/files/kfxn99g270zgumr/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C. http://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0xicxaqsgtd8r0f/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R. http://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0kwtgp8cbbseq17/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X. http://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1uim5bivyp0gvlu/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz , http://flashmirrors.com/files/wschm7ionfihrq6/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T. http://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/zfu3hbe0ar9pmi7/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/tb8kpbbjlgklkhm/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS , http://flashmirrors.com/files/h7lkzd1cmp5x0m4/Tipler-No-Limits-To-The-Open-Society.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB , http://flashmirrors.com/files/mhaaliygozh6tad/Tipler-et-al-Closed-universes-with-no-event-horizons.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

* 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, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. 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/0704.3276

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-93. http://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/09x8nrhfj9tpsx4/Tipler-Existence-and-Goodness-of-the-Singularity.pdf

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board 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." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see my above-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com , http://theophysics.freevar.com

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[Jamie Michelle]

So you are of the school who believe it is now grammatical to end a sentence or clause with a preposition? And you believe making a mistake is the same as committing one? There are learned people on both sides of these issues. Just wanted to know where a genius would stand. So thank you. By the way, my previous question was
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1219114&postcount=130

That was your previous post in this thread. Your previous question was "You mean, forums to which you posted...right?" See http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1219168&postcount=136 .

[Stavros]

Hi, Stavros. Your reading comprehension is extremely low, such as to be functionally illiterate. That the universe is mathematics is simply an unavoidable consequence of the Bekenstein Bound, which itself is required by the known laws of physics. And I even have an appendix on the Bekenstein Bound. So your above claim is not only nonsensical, but also nihil ad rem.


Jamie, I have commented on your paper; I have drawn attention to the distortions of historical fact, the absurd interpretations, the contradictions, and have done so on more than one occasion. Your response has been to go back over my critique again and again and to insist that whatever I have said is wrong, because you are right. You have not produced original research, you have read some books and articles and given them your own spin, that is not research where I come from, but you are entitled to your own opinion of history, politics, religion, economics, and anything else, and you are welcome to post your opinions on HungAngels.

I see no evidence that you enjoy debating issues, and for that reason I do not think there is any point in trying to engage me in an intellectual discussion.

[Chaos]

Government is a Death Cult? Religion murdered people long before we even HAD government....
If God doesn't exist the only option is suicide? So you mean to tell me that if God was disproved tomorrow,Christians would just off themselves? The thing that bothers me with this is that they're just people....and people don't really throw themselves in front of a bus without a good reason (ill conceived or otherwise).God not existing would have an effect on SOME,sure,but most people would continue to live life by the rules they believe in. The 10 commandments don't become invalid just because the guy that said them first turned out to be JUST some guy....

If the Bible is to be believed then God is the biggest murderer of them all....
There were Pagan Gods before him,according to the Bible. He sought to convert all people to the worship of Himself. He struck down any who opposed him and even used to accept sacrifices according to Old Testament.
The Bible even states that all life,save what was contained on the Ark,was wiped from the Earth. Were that true,we are all inbred. If the Bible is to be believed there were never dinosaurs, Ice Ages,or cavemen. Considering that God made animals so shortly before humans,that is. If the Bible is so truthful why did it take so long for it to be recorded? Why wait until Jesus walked the Earth and died to have the stories collected and written? I'm certain that you'll think I missed the point entirely but the fact is that there are so many loopholes for such a "perfect being" that it just isn't possible in my eyes.... Just my two cents on it....

[Stavros]

Bravo Stavros... you are clearly an honourable guy and I am flabbergasted at the amount of time and thought you have applied to this person's flimsy ideas. All you get back are insults and a re-iteration of the initial maniacal twist on science.

Thanks for your comment, Prospero. Jamie has made a great effort to put something together and invite comment, but then refuses to engage in any sensible discussion, which is what most people writing academic papers want, and which is why you often read acknowledgements to that effect at the beginning of books and articles. To abuse people who disagree with what you say is a fatal weakness, it kills debate.

[yosi]

As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills. But that's because I have an IQ that is genius-level (according to the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who conducted my IQ tests). That doesn't mean I never make mistakes in writing, but it does mean that my writing level is exceedingly high.

this quote proves otherwise:


The 9/11 attacks are a conspiracy since more than one person was involved in bringing them about. So any theory regarding the 9/11 attacks is by definiton a conspiracy theory, unless one were to maintain that only one person was involved in carrying them out. It's just that the US government's official conspiracy theory is a mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, antiphysical law, anti-factual, and provably false fairy tale.

Regarding not addressing counter-arguments, I did address them, such as NIST's antiphysical suggestion that the yellow-hot molten metal that cascaded off the South Tower was burning organic materials entrained in molten aluminum.

Concerning the 9/11 event outside of New York City, it's only logically necessary to demonstrate that the US government was involved in executing one or more of the attacks that day. Even if one were to implausibly maintain that the US government wasn't involved in the other 9/11 attacks that day, the US government is still guilty of mass-murdering its own subjects on 9/11.



your : "I'm smarter than you" way of thinking that since you got your IQ tests , only shows that you stopped thinking clearly since than , it's your huge ego that thinks , not you.

some of your conclusions here are a pure insult to inteligence, including presenting your IQ tests to prove that you are right.

the word history is actualy a short of : his story , think why I bothered to mention it .........

[Chaos]

All I know is that IF God exists,he has made MANY mistakes,is not perfect,and hides almost all of himself away from the people he supposedly loves.
If he is omnipotent,then he knew what Satan would become,and actually planned it that way,to keep a certain degree of fear in people. That alone is some serious mental abuse. How did the serpent gain access to the garden without him being aware of it? He didn't,it was planned,as was the end of Eden.
Who gives a gift and then forces you to take it away from yourself? What Benevolent Creator would wipe all life from existence, but for a select few,when he gave everyone free will to do whatever? The Old Testament is all about a vengeful,follow me or die God. The New is a sudden change from that. So God is Bipolar? More likely that if he is real he is responsible for just as much evil as good,and people are just candy coating it and changing the story to suit themselves. They keep telling me God is everywhere and everything....I keep telling them that that also means God is Satan and God is evil. If all things come from God then God is all things. Not whatever you decide sounds better and makes him look good. Also that means that saying I am God is not a sin....I'm not lying if he is real. I was made in his image and given his power to create human life...and I am part of him...IF it is true.

[broncofan]

Hi Jamie,
I looked up the definition of the word "previous" because I saw your argument with Trish. The sources I looked at list it as meaning occurring some time before, but not necessarily directly before. In other words, it is a previous question if it occurred prior to the point at which you refer to it as previous. So when Trish referred to her previous question, it wasn't specific, and could have referred to any question she's asked prior to that point in time. However, she re-asked the question, which was pretty specific.

[broncofan]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preceding

Hi Jamie,
here is the merriam webster dictionary entry for preceding, which is what I think you confused with previous. In the synonym section as you scroll down there is a sort of disambiguation referencing previous as well.

"preceding usually implies being immediately before in time or in place"

"previous and prior imply existing or occurring earlier, but prior often adds an implication of greater importance".

[joeninety]

All I know is that IF God exists,he has made MANY mistakes,is not perfect,and hides almost all of himself away from the people he supposedly loves.
If he is omnipotent,then he knew what Satan would become,and actually planned it that way,to keep a certain degree of fear in people. That alone is some serious mental abuse. How did the serpent gain access to the garden without him being aware of it? He didn't,it was planned,as was the end of Eden.
Who gives a gift and then forces you to take it away from yourself? What Benevolent Creator would wipe all life from existence, but for a select few,when he gave everyone free will to do whatever? The Old Testament is all about a vengeful,follow me or die God. The New is a sudden change from that. So God is Bipolar? More likely that if he is real he is responsible for just as much evil as good,and people are just candy coating it and changing the story to suit themselves. They keep telling me God is everywhere and everything....I keep telling them that that also means God is Satan and God is evil. If all things come from God then God is all things. Not whatever you decide sounds better and makes him look good. Also that means that saying I am God is not a sin....I'm not lying if he is real. I was made in his image and given his power to create human life...and I am part of him...IF it is true.


Spot on common sense and science dictates that the universe is made up of equals and opposites, positives and negatives it is what it is and anything omnipotent is all of that, otherwise it could not be so if it was not all so, so that is your God/Satan Jamie read it and weep.

[joeninety]

this quote proves otherwise:



your : "I'm smarter than you" way of thinking that since you got your IQ tests , only shows that you stopped thinking clearly since than , it's your huge ego that thinks , not you.

some of your conclusions here are a pure insult to inteligence, including presenting your IQ tests to prove that you are right.

the word history is actualy a short of : his story , think why I bothered to mention it .........

Any Idiot can train themselves to take IQ tests and get high scores have done it myself when I was being a sad git, does that make me smart based on these shitty tests I think not, being smart is way more than intelligent quotient tests can test for, so it shows how smart you really are Jamie and that's saying if I even believe you have a genius level IQ which I don't.

[loveboof]

Jamie has made a great effort to put something together and invite comment, but then refuses to engage in any sensible discussion, which is what most people writing academic papers want

This is very true! I have tried to have a sensible discussion with Jamie on theological grounds, you have primarily on historical, and Trish has on the physics (among with other contributers to this thread).

Jamie refuses to answer these concerns with anything other than insults and reiterations of what we were already questioning in the first place. I have lost count of the number of times Jamie has spammed out the page with references rather than attempt to actually answer our questions.

Jamie is a joke. Whether she is technically a genius because of her IQ is completely irrelevant; she is a total fool!

[trish]

That was your previous post in this thread. Your previous question was "You mean, forums to which you posted...right?" See http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1219168&postcount=136 .From your post #120
As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills.Actually what you indicated previously (in accordance with your definition of "previous") was
There's a difference between making a typo and doing what you do. I have looked over your posting history and your grammar is consistently horrendous. This explains why you wrongly thought I made a mistake on grammar in the example that you gave, since you don't actually know what good grammar is.LOL. You're flailing Jamie.

[joeninety]

This is very true! I have tried to have a sensible discussion with Jamie on theological grounds, you have primarily on historical, and Trish has on the physics (among with other contributers to this thread).

Jamie refuses to answer these concerns with anything other than insults and reiterations of what we were already questioning in the first place. I have lost count of the number of times Jamie has spammed out the page with references rather than attempt to actually answer our questions.

Jamie is a joke. Whether she is technically a genius because of her IQ is completely irrelevant; she is a total fool!

:joke: Seriously Jamie is a joke, this person cannot truly comprehend nor interpret what he reads, instead all he is good for is plagiarising and regurgitating stuff he has read, as is so obviously clear in his factless style of arguing, genius IQ my arse more like Narcissistic personality disorder:loser:

[joeninety]

Got to say Jamie that although you come across as obnoxious and nauseating in your latter posts I do actually agree with most of what you have written in your beginning posts, although I am still trying to figure out whether you arrived at these conclusions by yourself or whether in fact you had seen a lot of this stuff and thought it would make you look clever and feed your ego to post it.

[buttslinger]

Give unto Jamie that which is Jamies
And give unto God that which is Gods.

[martin48]

Give unto Jamie that which is Jamies
And give unto God that which is Gods.

And give unto the rest of us, what we want - what we really want!

[joeninety]

Give unto Jamie that which is Jamies
And give unto God that which is Gods.

Well since you put it like that I guess as we are nothing more than a configuration of atoms spawned from the creator, then I surmise that none of it is Jamies or anyone else's, but in fact it is all "its" in "its" many guises and we are simply deluded into believing our own individualism as it doesn't really exist:confused:

[trish]

There are a lot of assumptions there. Are we nothing more than a configuration of atoms? The material world consists of spacetime, matter, energy, fields and their associated particles, and perhaps quantum waves (the materiality of which is still being argued). Are we nothing more than a configuration of these material entities? Are our constituent particles, fields etc. the spawn of a creator? Perhaps they are the debris of some cosmic destruction caused by a malignant destroyer. Perhaps the universe has no teleological cause at all. Does pantheism preclude the individuality of cognitive agents?

With terminological slight of hand, clever jargonese and mathematical obscurantism, Tipler and Jamie have fooled themselves into thinking all these questions are settled and that their answers have a indisputable scientific grounding (though they are not yet accepted by the scientific community, even though it's been eighteen years since their initial publication). There's a sucker born every minute, but it's always most amusing when the grifter falls for his own con.

[joeninety]

There are a lot of assumptions there. Are we nothing more than a configuration of atoms? The material world consists of spacetime, matter, energy, fields and their associated particles, and perhaps quantum waves (the materiality of which is still being argued). Are we nothing more than a configuration of these material entities? Are our constituent particles, fields etc. the spawn of a creator? Perhaps they are the debris of some cosmic destruction caused by a malignant destroyer. Perhaps the universe has no teleological cause at all. Does pantheism preclude the individuality of cognitive agents?

With terminological slight of hand, clever jargonese and mathematical obscurantism, Tipler and Jamie have fooled themselves into thinking all these questions are settled and that their answers have a indisputable scientific grounding (though they are not yet accepted by the scientific community, even though it's been eighteen years since their initial publication). There's a sucker born every minute, but it's always most amusing when the grifter falls for his own con.

The material universe may be more immaterial than you think or maybe it is just some thought construct, think of all the quantum weirdness, the double slit experiment and its ensuing paradox, the fact for now that almost all of the universe is missing, atoms that in reality are 99.9999999999999 empty space, meaning you remove the empty space from each of ours then the total worlds populations resulting matter could fit in a teaspoon, reality is wacky and less real and solid than I figure Jamie understands no doubt will either do in depth research now or will keep very quiet or maybe an unknown will come into the equation:confused:

[danthepoetman]

There's a difference between making a typo and doing what you do. I have looked over your posting history and your grammar is consistently horrendous. This explains why you wrongly thought I made a mistake on grammar in the example that you gave, since you don't actually know what good grammar is.
As I indicated previously, I have genius-level writing skills. But that's because I have an IQ that is genius-level (according to the researchers at the University of Texas at Austin who conducted my IQ tests). That doesn't mean I never make mistakes in writing, but it does mean that my writing level is exceedingly high.

You wouldn't be able to notice, Trish, since your writing skills are horrendous, as this very post by you demonstrates. But yes, many people have noticed my superlative writings skills. Indeed, that's how I began writing articles, as people noticed my writing skills and depth of knowledge on forums I posted to and I was asked to write articles on politics and religion.
Lovely!
We now know for a fact genius can be utterly silly…
Trying to prove the existence of God through theoretical physic is like trying to prove that causality is in the end a magical process…

[danthepoetman]

Just reminds of some old imagery, doesn’t it?

[danthepoetman]

The physic of God?

[martin48]

I've done this one!

[danthepoetman]

Sorry, Martin, I suppose I must have taken it from you...

[martin48]

It's not for us to wonder

[danthepoetman]

Yeap! :)

[broncofan]

I just wanted to announce the winner of this year's Hungangels Award for Excellence in Science. Between the two tgirls posting on this thread Jamie comes in second to Trish. That is, second in looks, second in brains, second in scientific knowledge, and second in common sense. The awards are below.

Looks: 1st Trish, 2nd Jamie
Brains: 1st Trish, 2nd Jamie
Scientific Knowledge: 1st Trish, 2nd Jamie
Common Sense: 1st Trish, 2nd Jamie

I think Jamie should be thankful there were only two contestants though I think Trish would do well in a much larger field. Can we get a comment from the cognitive science experts at University of Texas Jamie? How are they handling this shocking turn of events?

[hippifried]

Looks?????

Trish won't post a picture. What's it going to take?

Of course it wouldn't take much imagination to give her that category too. Personally, I find intellect attractive. But it's probably because I'm so old & pruned out that I look for whatever I can get. The hotties have become a pipe dream in my late years. (fishing for pity points)

[trish]

Oh My Omega-Point! OMOP!

(Jumbing up and down clutching the phallus shaped award...oh!...that’s not the award!...stepping up to the mic and regaining my composure...)

First I want to thank my Mom and my Dad. Without them I’d still be an imaginary point, without manifestation, in the space of all possible genetic combinations. I would also like to thank my...

(at this point the television audience flips to a TVLAND rerun of Starsky and Hutch while the celebs in the live audience play to the panning cameras)

[broncofan]

We've just heard that the runner-up is giving a speech on the foyer. Let's hope it's a gracious one.

Jamie: I'd like to congratulate Trish on winning the retard vote. Clearly the awards commission was made up mostly of retards and there was a strong turn-out among the retard segment who probably didn't like my repeated references to them as retards. For I am a genius, I just cannot prove it. When I had electrodes hooked to my head at the University of Texas Genius Department the doctors even admitted that I am the smartest woman in the universe. Of course when I glared at them they also said I'm the Queen of Mars and nodded when I asked them if I am capable of making people's hearts stop by blinking three times. They cannot vouch for this because I then blinked three times. Good night retards.

[Stavros]

Oh My Omega-Point! OMOP!

(Jumbing up and down clutching the phallus shaped award...oh!...that’s not the award!...stepping up to the mic and regaining my composure...)

First I want to thank my Mom and my Dad. Without them I’d still be an imaginary point, without manifestation, in the space of all possible genetic combinations. I would also like to thank my...

(at this point the television audience flips to a TVLAND rerun of Starsky and Hutch while the celebs in the live audience play to the panning cameras)

Is US TV so bad they even show re-runs of Starsky and Hutch? Whatever happened to The Love Boat, and Gilligan's Island?

[danthepoetman]

Is US TV so bad they even show re-runs of Starsky and Hutch? Whatever happened to The Love Boat, and Gilligan's Island?
These shows are "around"... lol
There's even specialized channels for old series.

[Prospero]

It seem that everything ever made for TV - unless they've lost or destroyed the master tapes - is alive and well and being shown on someone's TV screen.

I once met some people in London who belonged to an association that would meet to view old test cards (the logo that used to be shown on British TV channels before the days of 24/7 broadcasting). They even traded Tapes of the cards,

[martin48]

Test cards were more exciting than the "interlude" - short films to put in breaks between programmes.

http://youtu.be/hQ4-hDKorQE

Mesmerising!

[hippifried]

I once met some people in London who belonged to an association that would meet to view old test cards (the logo that used to be shown on British TV channels before the days of 24/7 broadcasting). They even traded Tapes of the cards,

Did they gather in the catacombs?

[Stavros]

Sadly they almost certainly meet in their drawing rooms -or parlours I guess you would say in the US, or maybe in pubs -there is a pub near me where a group of about 10-15 women have a knitting club every Monday evening. Bedazzled by Hollywood and Rodeo Drive, you just don't know how exciting this country is because you live in oh-so-sunny California...

[beandip]

Sounds interesting Jamie.

Here's a really good book. Gets into the nutz and boltz of it.

The Physics Of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind And The Meaning Of Life: Evan Harris Walker: 9780738204369: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41qKrBJslkL.@@AMEPARAM@@41qKrBJslkL (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Consciousness-Quantum-Mind-Meaning/dp/0738204366)

[Prospero]

Duplicate thread deleted

[Jamie Michelle]

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see my below article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause.

For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they're attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion.

The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy's ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: "The Mark of the Beast" of the article.

Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold.

Below one can download the article for free. I encourage everyone to generously share this article with others. By all means, please save it to your hard-drive and give others copies of it. Also, feel free to share the text of this post. The article is in PDF format.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1ndt5blb0l1eyhd/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://depositfiles.com/files/eybo55tie , http://ziddu.com/download/21165225/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf.html , http://2shared.com/document/l4Ygh2xH/Redford-Physics-of-God.html , http://bitshare.com/files/4udm4k3d/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf.html , http://sendspace.com/file/ym65n4

Below is the abstract to my above article:

""
ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which itself is also required by the known physical laws. With infinite computational resources, the dead can be resurrected--never to die again--via perfect computer emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. The Omega Point is a different aspect of the Big Bang cosmological singularity--the first cause--and the Omega Point has all the haecceities claimed for God in the traditional religions.

From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology.
""

Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.) http://webcitation.org/64KHgOccs , http://flashmirrors.com/files/enznbp2ydodyrh1/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C. http://webcitation.org/69Vb0JF1W , http://flashmirrors.com/files/0z5yzd35jcsbe16/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R. http://webcitation.org/69VaKG2nd , http://flashmirrors.com/files/6ehek7bcf1r60fr/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X. http://webcitation.org/69VarCM3I , http://flashmirrors.com/files/iwmn0ma8531d0oa/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz , http://flashmirrors.com/files/habdjyfscxxlzdt/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T. http://webcitation.org/64Uskd785 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/pqt2sdz4muzgiqs/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5 , http://flashmirrors.com/files/wrzpnyvxjum37xs/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1fwhqnjmqyarygz/tipler-ultrarelativistic-rockets.pdf Full proceedings volume: http://webcitation.org/69zAxm0sT

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998). http://webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS , http://flashmirrors.com/files/tck5alsxiqnh561/Tipler-No-Limits-To-The-Open-Society.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB , http://flashmirrors.com/files/nppi6h6fjup6jmh/Tipler-et-al-Closed-universes-with-no-event-horizons.pdf

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 Dec. 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T. http://webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW , http://flashmirrors.com/files/ra8udwazebfspph/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf (http://129.81.170.14/%7Etipler/theoryofeverything.pdf) Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193. http://webcitation.org/69JEi5wHp , http://flashmirrors.com/files/k0pfzw6xvixmk6t/Tipler-Existence-and-Goodness-of-the-Singularity.pdf

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board 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." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see my above-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" in addition to my below website:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com , http://theophysics.freevar.com

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

[martin48]

Nobody going to engage. Shame on you all

[yosi]

pseudoscience :dancing:

The Theory of Everything is an incredible arrogance of this Christian physicist, Frank Tipler

[blimey]

Dark matter,string thory, bigfoot, lochness, aliens. We. Can't say they don't exist simply because we haven't found evidence of there existence.the beauty of science is it can only. Prove what it can finds. Not what it dosnt. So dabate over. Or neverending. ..

[martin48]

And we are down to one thread now!! Surely the answer to the universe, life and everything justifies two threads - or is the other one in a parallel universe?

[martin48]

Ooops - there are still two threads left. It's me in a parallel universe. Got my bigfoot tied up in my string theory.

[Prospero]

There are an infinite number of threads in an infinite number of universes -- and in every one of them Jamie is talking specious tosh.

[martin48]

My thoughts exactly - shall we write a paper for a good journal and then it will be proven..

[loveboof]

Those who preach god, need god
...
Beware the preachers
Beware the knowers
...

[Chaos]

God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics.

So God exists based on a specific view of the laws of physics?
In other words,ONLY if you look at the laws this way and no other way?

Hate to break it to you but if God were PROVEN to exist it would have been the news story of all time... It would be in every news show and paper in existence.

But instead we're reading about it in a porn forum.....seems legit.

[martin48]

It's because He knows we need saving first!





So God exists based on a specific view of the laws of physics?
In other words,ONLY if you look at the laws this way and no other way?

Hate to break it to you but if God were PROVEN to exist it would have been the news story of all time... It would be in every news show and paper in existence.

But instead we're reading about it in a porn forum.....seems legit.

[Prospero]

Yep... perhaps Jamie is adopting the missionary position for us fallen among evildoers.

[martin48]

Yep... perhaps Jamie is adopting the missionary position for us fallen among evildoers.


......

[Jamie Michelle]

pseudoscience :dancing:

The Theory of Everything is an incredible arrogance of this Christian physicist, Frank Tipler

Your above comment is the logical fallacy of bare assertion.

In actually, pseudoscience would be attempting to avoid the Omega Point cosmology, since 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. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board 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." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on the above, see my following article (published under my legal name):

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://www.scribd.com/doc/79273334

[Jamie Michelle]

So God exists based on a specific view of the laws of physics?
In other words,ONLY if you look at the laws this way and no other way?

Hate to break it to you but if God were PROVEN to exist it would have been the news story of all time... It would be in every news show and paper in existence.

But instead we're reading about it in a porn forum.....seems legit.

The Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics journals. The Omega Point cosmology 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. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Regarding your statements above, they are the logical fallacy of bare assertion.

[Stavros]

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.


How tedious to have to go over this again and again -Omega Point Cosmology is an untested theory which makes ridiculous non-scientific claims about the end-times and the human element in the collapse of the universe- allow this extract from a critique to suffice, the full link is below.

Mr Redford’s first point is that the evidence for Tipler’s Omega Point is “the laws of physics themselves”. Well I’m sorry Mr Redford but just because something is possible within the laws of physics does not constitute evidence! Astronomers aren’t allowed to invent new astral bodies simply because they could exist and Biologists are not entitled to invent animals just because the laws of physics would allow them to be.

Mr Redford then acknowledges that in 1994 Tipler didn’t have experimental confirmation of his theory but claims he does now. Not only does this contradict Mr Redford’s initial assertion that evidence lies in the laws of physics themselves but he fails to provide a link or description of this supposed experimental confirmation (which I failed to find myself). Mr Redford claims that the only way to avoid Omega Point is to violate the know laws of physics, this is just patently absurd. The destruction of the human race or our lack of ability (or willingness) to invent a supercomputer at the end of time that will in it’s infinite intelligence decide that resurrecting every human is a valuable use of its time is not only possible within the laws of physics but probable (and thus invalidates Mr Redford’s argument). Lastly Mr Redford constructs an argument from authority where he claims Tipler correctly predicted the mass of the top quark which even if true has no bearing on whether or not Omega Point Theory is fact.


http://friendofreason.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/omega-point-theory-redux/

[Jamie Michelle]

How tedious to have to go over this again and again -Omega Point Cosmology is an untested theory which makes ridiculous non-scientific claims about the end-times and the human element in the collapse of the universe- allow this extract from a critique to suffice, the full link is below.

Mr Redford’s first point is that the evidence for Tipler’s Omega Point is “the laws of physics themselves”. Well I’m sorry Mr Redford but just because something is possible within the laws of physics does not constitute evidence! Astronomers aren’t allowed to invent new astral bodies simply because they could exist and Biologists are not entitled to invent animals just because the laws of physics would allow them to be.

Mr Redford then acknowledges that in 1994 Tipler didn’t have experimental confirmation of his theory but claims he does now. Not only does this contradict Mr Redford’s initial assertion that evidence lies in the laws of physics themselves but he fails to provide a link or description of this supposed experimental confirmation (which I failed to find myself). Mr Redford claims that the only way to avoid Omega Point is to violate the know laws of physics, this is just patently absurd. The destruction of the human race or our lack of ability (or willingness) to invent a supercomputer at the end of time that will in it’s infinite intelligence decide that resurrecting every human is a valuable use of its time is not only possible within the laws of physics but probable (and thus invalidates Mr Redford’s argument). Lastly Mr Redford constructs an argument from authority where he claims Tipler correctly predicted the mass of the top quark which even if true has no bearing on whether or not Omega Point Theory is fact.

http://friendofreason.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/omega-point-theory-redux/

Since the Omega Point cosmology is itself logically required by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics)--of which themselves have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date--this makes the Omega Point cosmology itself the most-confirmed statement in physics. And again, the Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Below is my reply to Christian Polson-Brown's above post, of which post by Polson-Brown you above provide an excerpt:

James Redford, "Reply to Christian Polson-Brown, No. 2", net.science.physics.misc, Message-ID: qeni86967vie0gad0o216iok11mp84bksd@4ax.com , 09 Sep 2010 18:21:23 -0400. http://groups.google.com/group/net.science.physics.misc/browse_thread/thread/3ee7170bd8aaa1d1

Christian Polson-Brown didn't reply to my foregoing response to him, which is just as well if he were still liable to be adverse to it, since logically speaking the only correct response is either to reject the known laws of physics (which itself is irrational since they have been confirmed by every experiment to date) or to accept the Omega Point cosmology.

[Stavros]

You continuously refer back to the paper you have posted on the web, but never explain why your own fetish for the 'End-times', the 'Rapture' or the fantastic nonsense you claim for computing and human beings is in any way relevant to cosmology, because you could just say you are a born-again Christian who thinks that only people who change their beliefs to share yours will be saved on the Day of Judgement as you will be saved. It is an act of cowardice on your part because you prefer to preface with junk science your true intentions, just as you claim the US Government has covered up 'the truth' about 9/11.

In addition, you are peddling the pseudo-anarchist philosphy of Ayn Rand and Hans-Hermann Hoppe in a desperate attempt to prove that 'Jesus is an Anarchist' in order to bring other Christians to agree with your philosophy; for someone who condemns most people as 'sheeple' it is quite odd that you should want to deny them/us our independent capacity for thought.

[yosi]

Your above comment is the logical fallacy of bare assertion.

In actually, pseudoscience would be attempting to avoid the Omega Point cosmology, since 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. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)



Quoting Prof. Stephen Hawking to potect a THEORY , that in the bottom line says: Jesus Christ exists and he is God's Messiah, his bodily resurrection is possible- is a cheap propaganda and pure pseudoscience.

you want to believe that Jesus Christ exists and he is God's Messiah? go ahead , believe in it , but supporting it with pseudoscience? no thanx.

[hippifried]

I don't really care about any junk science. I just cringe at the hubris it takes for someone to not only tell me that they know the universe was goblin created, but that they're the messenger for such a critter. Sorry Spud, but I'm all out of faith.

[loveboof]

It is an act of cowardice on your part because you prefer to preface with junk science your true intentions


I completely agree Stavros. Also, I really don't understand why Jamie just seems to copy & paste the same bog standard response to everyone!

As I said months ago, the whole point of making a thread like this is to encourage discussion, but all Jamie does is shut down and spout out the same nonsense like a completely brainwashed member of a cult...

It's weird - like a mantra she has to keep telling herself in order to keep believing.

[hippifried]

I completely agree Stavros. Also, I really don't understand why Jamie just seems to copy & paste the same bog standard response to everyone!

As I said months ago, the whole point of making a thread like this is to encourage discussion, but all Jamie does is shut down and spout out the same nonsense like a completely brainwashed member of a cult...

It's weird - like a mantra she has to keep telling herself in order to keep believing.

Uh... That's Jaimie's blog, based on Jaimie's "book"(I'm not sure if it was ever published on paper). Irrespective of what you, I, or any detractors think about the content, the source is the same for the most part. Posting all these links just avoids a lot of retyping. Is there really a problem with that? Regardless of agreement, or lack thereof, Jaimie has always been consistant, & has put a lot of thought into all this. Just ssyin'.

[loveboof]

No I don't mean the links. I mean this sort of thing:

- required by the known laws of physics (i.e. the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics)

- mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Just spouted out in every single comment regardless of what she's replying to. Every time...

[edit: And Stephen Hawking doesn't publically support any of Jamies pseudoscience, so using his quote out of context to make it appear like he supports this BS is cheap. Exactly what some flimsy pseudoscientist would attempt for credibility!]

[hippifried]

No I don't mean the links. I mean this sort of thing:

- required by the known laws of physics (i.e. the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics)

- mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Just spouted out in every single comment regardless of what she's replying to. Every time...

[edit: And Stephen Hawking doesn't publically support any of Jamies pseudoscience, so using his quote out of context to make it appear like he supports this BS is cheap. Exactly what some flimsy pseudoscientist would attempt for credibility!]

Yeah. I don't know what any of it means either. But it's content. Probably pasted from the book. I wouldn't know. I have no intention of ever reading it. I just find myself fascinated & greatly amused by the concept of goblin worship & the amazing ways people try to justify unsupported beliefs.

As for Hawking: I hear the voice, without seeing anything but the same blank stare for decades, without so much as a twitch. Gotta wonder if he isn't some kind of hoax. Piltdown Man redux. Maybe I should start a new thread asking whether the Newtonion Chair has become the seat of high end taxidermy.

[Odelay]

As for Hawking: I hear the voice, without seeing anything but the same blank stare for decades, without so much as a twitch. Gotta wonder if he isn't some kind of hoax. Piltdown Man redux. Maybe I should start a new thread asking whether the Newtonion Chair has become the seat of high end taxidermy.
Sounds like the projected appearance of old decrepit Hari Seldon in a wheelchair to give various pronouncements through the years within Asimov's Foundation series.

[Prospero]

Stephen Hawking once ran my foot over with his wheelchair during a garden party at Buckingham Palace. i KNOW he is real.

[buttslinger]

I saw God in the fifth grade.

[martin48]

Stephen Hawking once ran my foot over with his wheelchair during a garden party at Buckingham Palace. i KNOW he is real.

The most alarming thing is not that Hawking exists and has poor driving skills, but that you were allowed into Buckingham Palace - Services to Porn, I imagine

[Prospero]

No answer to that Martin. I am now awaiting my knighthood.

The most amusing thing - apart from Hawking - was that they bussed in beefeaters from The Tower for the afternoon. They travelled in full Yeoman rig and stowed their pikes in the luggage compartment of the coach.

[Stavros]

I suppose you could say that for the Yeoman it was their End-times...?

[martin48]

No answer to that Martin. I am now awaiting my knighthood.



I've always wanted one - keeps your ears warm in bed.

[Jamie Michelle]

Below are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section contains an audio interview of Tipler.

I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

For much more regarding the matters here, see my following article (published under my legal name):

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEveryth ing/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

########################################

The following is my favorite video that I've so far seen of Prof. Tipler:

Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss, Michael Shermer (Producer), A Great Debate: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity? (prod. co.: Skeptics Society [Altadena, Cal.]), run time: 2:13 h:min. Video of a debate held at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech; Pasadena, Cal.) on June 3, 2007. Frank-Tipler-vs-Lawrence-Krauss-Debate-Caltech-2007-6-3.mp4 , 390464045 bytes, MD5: 53363e2c304535ba0627135c4710180d. http://flashmirrors.com/files/4h8ma8ofktmntv1 , http://mirrorstack.com/p3a7cwnqajzn


Michael Shermer (founder of the Skeptics Society) is the moderator of the debate. Bill Nye (of Bill Nye the Science Guy) is among the audience members.


Prof. Tipler starts his presentation at 15:57 min:sec. Tipler points out that we have had a Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics for some 30 years with the arrival of the Standard Model of particle physics, since the Standard Model describes all forces in nature except for gravity. The Standard Model is a quantum field theory, i.e., it involves Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics. And gravity is described by General Relativity. The problem has been to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics consistent with each other, which Tipler points out is done with the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg theory of quantum gravity when the appropriate boundary conditions on the universe are used, which includes the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities.

Tipler shows a graphic listing General Relativity as having the general linear group of GL(4, R) symmetry group; and the Standard Model of particle physics as having the Lie group of 3 Lie symmetry group.

19:33 min:sec ff.: In the 1960s Richard Feynman at Caltech quantized a spin-2 field using his path integral method. Quantizing a spin-2 field requires it to be a spacetime metric and imposes the full GL(4, R) symmetry group.

At 19:54 min:sec ff., Tipler points out that the Feynman quantum gravity theory is unique, i.e., it is the only quantum gravity theory possible if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct (cf. 32:11 min:sec ff.), since General Relativity requires gravity to be a spin-2 field, and the Hulse and Taylor pulsar confirmation of Einstein's quadrupole formula verified that gravity is a spin-2 field. General Relativity also states that gravity is a phenomenon of the curvature of the spacetime metric with observer independence, i.e., physics cannot depend locally on the observer, which gives the GL(4, R) symmetry group of General Relativity.

20:44 min:sec ff.: Steven Weinberg later showed that the Feynman theory of quantum gravity is renormalizable, which means that the term-by-term infinities in the Feynman diagrams can be absorbed into constants, so it is no worse than other quantum field theories. However, there are actually two sources of infinity in quantum field theory: the ones that are renormalized away, as previously mentioned; and the ones that generate the divergence of the power series of the S-matrix (i.e., scattering matrix).

21:21 min:sec ff.: It has been known for 50 years what the cause of this series divergence is: it's a bad choice of the vacuum state, which Freeman Dyson showed in a paper in Physical Review in 1952 (see F. J. Dyson, "Divergence of Perturbation Theory in Quantum Electrodynamics", Physical Review, Vol. 85, No. 4 [Feb. 1952], pp. 631-632). David Geroch showed that perturbation theory in String Theory also has a series divergence for essentially the same reason.

22:18 min:sec ff.: Tipler mentions Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis. One way of stating said Theorem is that all analytic functions (i.e., holomorphic functions) other than constants have singularities either a finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity, which is analogous to what occurs with the universe: the only way to avoid infinities in spacetime (consequently causing the instantaneous collapse of the entire universe) is for the universe to begin and end at singularities. Moreover, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

23:23 min:sec ff.: Feynman quantum gravity makes a singularity even more inevitable than the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems, since the Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas with Feynman quantum gravity the sum-over-histories (i.e., sum-over-paths; path integral formulation) get arbitrarily close to infinite curvature. In other words, the multiverse has its own singularity.

24:04 min:sec ff.: Imposing unitarity avoids the spacetime infinities of quantum field theory, since if there were not a cut-off to the energies of quantum field theory then miniature black holes would be created and quickly evaporate, thereby violating unitarity. 26:21 min:sec ff.: This mechanism to stabilize quantum field theory only works if there is an initial singularity and a final singularity and if there are no event horizons, which also solves the black hole information problem. 26:55 min:sec ff.: The absence of event horizons is only possible if the universe is spatially close, and in particular has the spatial topology of a three-sphere (i.e., 3-sphere; S^3); also, only if the final singularity is a single point in the Penrose c-boundary construction, called the Omega Point.

27:18 min:sec ff.: This picks out a global vacuum state which must define a classical universe now; this means that the wave function of the universe must have initially been a Dirac delta function, which explains the observed flatness of the universe without resorting to nonempirical new physics such as Inflation Theory (requiring the unobserved inflation field, i.e., inflaton particles), but rather is simply quantum kinematics: a result of wave-packet spreading (as an analogy, Tipler gives a version of wave-packet spreading as sound waves heard around the corner of a building, which is an example of wave diffraction).

28:05 min:sec ff.: In such a universe, quantum field theory in the form of the Bekenstein Bound forces the initial state of the universe to be homogeneous and isotropic; and it also picks out a unique field of the Standard Model, the SU(2)_L field which gives the observed excess of matter over antimatter, whereas the usual boundary condition used by physicists--which is inconsistent with quantum field theory--gives a baryon-generating mechanism that produces far too many photons to baryons. Also, the perturbation spectrum is necessarily scale-invariant since the universe is necessarily flat (as was basically shown by Edward Robert Harrison long before Inflation Theory was even though of).

29 min ff.: What the above all means is that reality consists of a multiverse, with each universe in the multiverse starting at an initial singularity and eventually collapsing into a final singularity. Said Big Bang initial singularity and Omega Point final singularity are actually connected by a third singularity: the All-Presents singularity, which exists at each time for each universe in the multiverse. That is, there exists three connected hypostases to existence: the First Cause, the Sustaining Cause, and the Final Cause, which are not in spacetime but instead are the boundary of space and time, and which are not themselves subject to any possible form of physics, i.e., they are quite literally supernatural.

32:11 min:sec ff.: Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity is the unique quantization of General Relativity, i.e., it's the only way to quantize General Relativity, since gravity in General Relativity is a spin-2 field, and General Relativity is a spacetime metric and possesses the full GL(4, R) symmetry group. (Herein "unique" means the only one mathematically possible.) General Relativity is the unique specialization (i.e., subset; special case) of Newtonian mechanics with the specification imposed that Newtonian mechanics be consistent with Maxwell's Equations, i.e., that the speed of light is the same for all observers. Elie Cartan showed that in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is curvature of time only; whereas in General Relativity, gravity is curvature of space and time, i.e., spacetime (cf. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity [New York: Doubleday, 2007], p. 33; and pp. 79-80 of Frank J. Tipler, "Albert Einstein: A Scientific Reactionary", pp. 73-83, in John Brockman [Ed.], My Einstein [New York: Vintage Books, 2007; orig. pub. 2006]). 33 min ff.: Similarly, Quantum Mechanics is the unique specialization of Newtonian mechanics in its most powerful formulation, the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation, with the specification imposed that determinism is maintained: since the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation is indeterministic, because when particle trajectories cross paths a singularity is produced (i.e., the values in the equations become infinite) and so it is no possible to predict (even in principle) what happens after that (cf. id., The Physics of Christianity, pp. 48-49; and 7:17 min:sec ff., Casey Luskin, interview of Frank Tipler, "Part 1: Einstein Vs. Darwin", Intelligent Design the Future, Feb. 13, 2013, audio run time: 17:25 min:sec).

33:17 min:sec ff.: For these reasons--the fact that the history of physics since Newton has been a series of specializations, rather than generalizations, of fundamental physics--we can be confident that we have the correct Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics and that there is not going to be any new physics that comes along to displace the current known laws of physics. That is, since after Newton's physics, there has been no "revolution" in physics (e.g., such as with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, etc.), but instead an evolution of physics: the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. So in over 300 years we have never left the realm of Newton's physics. And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory and the Standard Model of particle physics.

Prof. Tipler then goes on to show how, using only the known laws of physics, the miracles of Jesus Christ are physically possible. This process uses baryon annihilation (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved), and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who obtained all of his genetic material from Mary (i.e., an instance of parthenogenesis). Tipler concludes that the Star of Bethlehem was either a Type Ic hypernova located in the Andromeda Galaxy, or a Type Ia supernova located in a globular cluster of our own Milky Way Galaxy.

If the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament were necessary in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point--and if the known laws of physics are correct--then the probability of these events occurring is certain. Furthermore, Tipler proposes tests on particular relics associated with Jesus which, if the relics are genuine, could verify whether in fact said miracles took place via the aforementioned mechanisms.


Physicist Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss starts his presentation at 49:36 min:sec. 52:54 min:sec ff.: Krauss begins by engaging in the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss asserts that (1) the Standard Model of particle physics isn't complete; (2) we don't have a consistent theory of quantum gravity; (3) the universe doesn't have to collapse; (4) we don't understand the nature of dark energy; and (5) we don't know why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe.

In answer to Krauss: (1) The Standard Model describes all forces in nature except for gravity. And gravity is described by General Relativity. (2) The problem has been to make General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics consistent with each other, which is done with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory. (3) The universe must collapse in finite time or otherwise unitarity will be violated (see p. 925 [cf. pp. 904-905] of F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 [Apr. 2005], pp. 897-964). (4) The dark energy is the positive cosmological constant. As required by the Standard Model of particle physics, 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 observed cosmological constant. (5) The universe's initial SU(2)_L field of the Standard Model--which is required by quantum field theory--gives the observed excess of matter over antimatter. See op. cit. for details on the foregoing matters.

Prof. Krauss attempts to rebut Prof. Tipler's proposed mechanism for the miracles of Jesus Christ by relating how statistically improbable such events are, yet this doesn't actually address Tipler's arguments since Tipler's point is that such seemingly improbable events would be forced to occur by the known laws of physics via the Principle of Least Action if said events are required in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point final singularity. Krauss himself in his review of Tipler's book The Physics of Christianity admits that this mechanism which Tipler proposes for Jesus Christ's miracles is physically sound if said miracles were necessary in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point and if the Omega Point is required in order for existence to exist (see Lawrence Krauss, "More dangerous than nonsense", New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53).

1:00:52 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss provides a quote from Gerardus 't Hooft, but as with Krauss's discussion of probabilities, 't Hooft's remarks are irrelevant to Tipler's actual argument, since 't Hooft is assuming boundary conditions on the universe which are inconsistent with quantum field theory rather than the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE boundary conditions which makes all the laws of physics mutually mathematically consistent with each other.

1:02:01 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss provides a quote from Steven Weinberg, of which again is irrelevant to Tipler's actual argument, since as with 't Hooft, Weinberg is assuming inconsistent boundary conditions.

Krauss, 't Hooft, and Weinberg are all particle physicists. Whereas Tipler is not only an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) but also an expert in Global General Relativity and computer theory. Furthermore, neither Krauss, 't Hooft, nor Weinberg display any awareness of Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper which presents the technical details of the Omega Point TOE.

1:03:15 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss claims that all the evidence in nature indicates that the universe will expand forever. Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.) While cosmological observations cannot tell us what the ultimate fate of the universe will be, the known laws of physics themselves can, as the universe is forced to end in finite proper time in order for unitarity to remain unviolated (again, see p. 925 [cf. pp. 904–905] of id., "The structure of the world from pure numbers", op. cit.).


1:23:06 h:min:sec ff.: Tipler starts his response to Krauss, wherein Tipler addresses Krauss's claims.


1:29:22 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss starts his second response to Tipler.

1:31:09 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss talks about "the energy of empty space", by which he means the dark energy. See my above response to Krauss's previous comments on the dark energy.


1:32:29 h:min:sec ff.: Tipler and Krauss take questions from the audience.

1:35:57 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss claims that we don't understand physics well enough to know whether unitarity is violated if an astrophysical black hole were to evaporate.

Regarding proposed solutions to the black hole information issue, all except for Tipler's Omega Point cosmology share the common feature of using proposed new laws of physics that have never been experimentally confirmed--and indeed which violate the known laws of physics--such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured String Theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). (See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes", Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 [Oct. 15, 2005], Art. No. 084013, 4 pp.) Hence, the end of the universe in finite proper time via collapse before a black hole completely evaporates is required if unitarity is to remain unviolated, i.e., if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics--which are what the proofs of Hawking radiation derive from--are true statements of how the world works.

1:42:13 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss invokes the Christ myth theory, including incorrectly claiming that nearly every religion has had virgin births.

Regarding the Christ myth theory, virtually all the items which the Christ myth theorists claim as facts which show the parallels of Christianity with earlier pagan religions are completely fabricated modern claims that can't be found in the historical record. For an excellent discussion on this, see the following video:

"Did Jesus Exist? Shattering the Christ Myth (JP Holding)", rfvidz, Mar. 30, 2012. Did Jesus Exist? Shattering the Christ Myth (JP Holding) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBHjZhz1Os4) , http://bethelchristianfellowship.info/flash_media/jp3ChristMythCopyCat.m4v

The above video is an interview of James Patrick Holding (editor of Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? [Maitland, Fla.: Xulon Press, 2008] 301 Moved Permanently (http://amazon.com/dp/1606472712) ) by Dr. Craig Johnson on the topic of the Christ myth theory. See also the below resources regarding the Christ myth theory on J. P. Holding's website:

"Were Bible stories and characters stolen from pagan myths?", Tekton Education and Apologetics Ministry. http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html

"Did Jesus exist?", op. cit. http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

1:47:06 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss agrees that the only hope for eternal life is in a collapsing universe.

1:48:06 h:min:sec ff.: An audience member asks Tipler about Matthew 10:23, Mark 9:1 and John 5:25 as being examples of where Jesus Christ incorrectly thought that the End Time was imminent, i.e., within Jesus's own generation.

Matthew 10:23, New King James Version (NKJV) states, "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." And indeed they did not go through all the cities of Israel before they died, and hence before Christ's Second Coming.

Mark 9:1, NKJV (cf. Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27) states, "And He said to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.'" And then the very next passages concern Christ's Transfiguration, whereby Heaven was also shown.

John 5:25, NKJV states, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live." But the next passages, John 5:26-29, go on to state, "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." These passages relate to Jesus's statement that "I am the resurrection and the life." (John 11:25, NKJV. Cf. John 8:12 [cf. 1 John 1:5]; 14:6.) In other words, those raised from death are already existing within Jesus Christ in His transcendent Second Person aspect, since the Father and the Son are One (see Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30; 14:6-13). So when Jesus said this, it was a different way of saying that the Resurrection and the Life stood there before them right then in His human aspect.

So in each of these scripture passages which this audience member gave as examples of Christ getting some things wrong are both examples of Him being correct.

Sometimes people also give Matthew 24:32-35 as being an example of Christ making an incorrect prophecy. However, "this generation" referred to in Matthew 24:34 concerns the generation which witnesses the signs of the End Time which Jesus discusses.

2:02:13 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss talks about Newtonian mechanics being replaced by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and hence that we shouldn't be surprised that the current known laws of physics might also be replaced. However, as Tipler pointed out in his presentation, the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. Hence, we have never left the realm of Newton's physics. And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. (See above for more on that.) 2:03:26 h:min:sec ff.: Krauss states that the Standard Model of particle physics produces nonsense answers when pushed to high enough energies, as does Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). However, as Tipler previously pointed out in his presentation, imposing unitarity avoids the spacetime infinities of quantum field theory, since if there were not a cut-off to the energies of quantum field theory then miniature black holes would be created and quickly evaporate, thereby violating unitarity. Krauss also gives the infinities of quantum field theory as a reason for thinking that new forms of physics will be required at higher energy scales. However, this mechanism to the energy cut-off also allows the energies to gradually scale to infinity during the collapse phase of the universe (the energies only become actually infinite at the cosmological singularity), which means that there is no need for new physics at higher energy scales.

-----

Since the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) is mathematically required by the known laws of physics, of which said physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, the only way Krauss could have actually argued against Tipler is to argue that the known laws of physics might be wrong. But because those physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, there exists no rational reason to think that they are wrong. Hence, Krauss's irrelevant arguments (or bare assertions, as Krauss also engaged in) against Tipler were unavoidable, since Krauss set himself a logically-impossible task.

For details on the Omega Point TOE, see the following paper by Prof. Tipler:

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as Frank J. Tipler, "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

The following is the first article on the Omega Point TOE:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Genesis: How the Universe Began According to Standard Model Particle Physics", arXiv:astro-ph/0111520, Nov. 28, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111520 For images that go with the article, see "Frank J. Tipler, Diagrams", Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist. http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/tipler-diagrams.html

For the details regarding the point Prof. Tipler made in his presentation about how modern physics (i.e., General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) are simply special cases of classical mechanics (i.e., Newtonian mechanics, particularly in its most powerful formulation of the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation), see the following articles:

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Oct. 26, 2008, 45 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1271310. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1271310

* Maurice J. Dupré and Frank J. Tipler, "General Relativity as an Æther Theory", International Journal of Modern Physics D, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Feb. 2012), Art. No. 1250011, 16 pp., doi:10.1142/S0218271812500113, bibcode: 2012IJMPD..2150011D. http://worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271812500113 Also at arXiv:1007.4572, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4572

* Frank J. Tipler, "Hamilton-Jacobi Many-Worlds Theory and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle", arXiv:1007.4566, July 26, 2010. http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.4566

########################################

In the longer video below, Prof. Tipler gives a popular-audience explanation of the Omega Point cosmology and how the miracles of Jesus Christ are allowed by the known laws of physics:

Jennifer Mayerle, "Does God Exist?", CBS 46 News (WGCL-TV, Atlanta, Ga.), Nov. 13, 2008. In addition to video of the television news report, also contains a 1:08:33 h:min:sec video of a lecture by Prof. Tipler on the Omega Point cosmology. Frank-Tipler-Does-God-Exist-CBS-46-WGCL-2008-11-13.zip , 130201087 bytes, MD5: 63eb6e6eeffb5176bc6590015fd08370. http://flashmirrors.com/files/jmbexhjncxexwo3 , http://mirrorstack.com/48aqe4exglh3

########################################

In the following video, Prof. Tipler discusses how the collapse of the universe is required in order for immortality to exist, and Tipler explains how the universe's collapse will be forced by sapient life:

Frank Tipler, "The Physics of Immortality, Threats to Terran Society, & Self-Replicating Nanotechnology", First Annual Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology (prod. co.: Terasem Movement, Inc. [Melbourne Beach, Fla.]), run time: 33 min. Video of a lecture Tipler gave at the Terasem Retreat in Lincoln, Vt. on July 20, 2005. Frank-Tipler-Lecture-Terasem-Movement-2005-7-20.wmv , 263859603 bytes, MD5: 89ee5241a3af7d14bae509bd12654642. http://flashmirrors.com/files/0e7hskx9cgoavzl/Frank-Tipler-Lecture-Terasem-Movement-2005-7-20.wmv , http://mirrorstack.com/6danmutl39bw

Video file source:

"Program for 1st Annual Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology", Terasem Movement, July 20, 2005.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20060521221138/http://www.terasemfoundation.org/program.htm
http://www.webcitation.org/6FPIMiykv

http://wayback.archive.org/web/20070927000336/http://mfile3.akamai.com/12032/wmv/kurzweil.download.akamai.com/12032/terasem/Tiplerdsl.wmv
http://www.webcitation.org/6FPKF1KUs
mms://a1415.v12032b.c12032.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1415/12032/v0001/kurzweil.download.akamai.com/12032/terasem/Tiplerdsl.wmv

Microsoft PowerPoint presentation:

Frank Tipler, "The Universe's Acceleration Must Stop If Life Is to Survive Forever", 10 pp.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20051109052948/http://www.terasemfoundation.org/webcast/ppt/Tipler.ppt
http://www.webcitation.org/6FH8MuR3q

Transcript of Prof. Tipler's above lecture:

Frank Tipler and Ray Kurzweil, "The Physics of Immortality, Threats to Terran Society, & Self-Replicating Nanotechnology, and An Exchange Between Frank Tipler and Ray Kurzweil Regarding Ways to Avoid an End to the Universe", Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1st quarter 2006); adapted from a lecture given by Frank Tipler at the First Annual Workshop on Geoethical Nanotechnology on July 20, 2005. http://www.terasemjournals.org/GNJournal/GN0101/tipler_01a.html , http://www.terasemjournals.org/GNJournal/GN0101/tipler_01g.html

########################################

Chauncy Glover, "Man says equation proves God exists", Action News (WTEV-TV CBS 47 and WAWS Fox 30, Jacksonville, Fla.), May 17, 2010. Frank-Tipler-CBS-47-WTEV-Fox-30-WAWS-2010-5-17.zip , 16320134 bytes, MD5: 71cc1f4ddd1ddac493fea43f2facd63e. http://flashmirrors.com/files/00o4rkxfw67pm8j/Frank-Tipler-CBS-47-WTEV-Fox-30-WAWS-2010-5-17.zip , http://mirrorstack.com/ij85k77h6pkq

Note that the news article misattributes the statement "Everything in here is correct and his interpretation of the equation is correct. ..." to Tipler, when in fact as the video of the report makes clear, it was Prof. Paul Richard Simony, head of the Department of Physics at Jacksonville University, who made this statement.

########################################

In the below video, Prof. Tipler's presentation starts at 41:32 min:sec and ends at 1:26:08 h:min:sec. Tipler's talk was part of the Turing Church Online Workshop 2, held on December 11, 2011.

"JH-MR-FT-RS Turing Church Online Workshop", telexlr8, Dec. 12, 2011, run time: 2:09:16 h:min:sec. JH-MR-FT-RS Turing Church Online Workshop - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEHHWI8MNAw) , http://blip.tv/telexlr8/jh-mr-ft-rs-turing-church-online-workshop-2-5819232 , JH-MR-FT-RS Turing Church Online Workshop on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/33643521)

The following video is an excerpt of Tipler's above presentation:

"FT Turing Church Online Workshop", telexlr8, Dec. 13, 2011, run time: 21:47 min:sec. FT Turing Church Online Workshop - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__tx3UXWigM) , http://blip.tv/telexlr8/ft-turing-church-online-workshop-2-5819235 , FT Turing Church Online Workshop on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/33643414)


The times given below are for the shorter video above (i.e., the excerpt video):


2:40 min:sec ff.: General Relativity is Newtonian mechanics made consistent with the requirement that the speed of light is the same for all observers. The speed of light being the same for all observers is an automatic consequence of Maxwell's Equations, which was first shown by Hendrik Lorentz and then Albert Einstein.

3:20 min:sec ff.: James Clerk Maxwell obtained his Equations because there were five fundamental laws coming from experiment: Faraday's Law; Gauss's Law; Ampère's Law; No Magnetic Monopoles; and Conservation of Electric Charge. Maxwell realized that these laws were mutually mathematically inconsistent: the Conservation of Electric Charge directly contradicts Ampère's Law. So what Maxwell did was add a term to Ampère's Law which made it consistent with the other equations. Maxwell was left with only four equations, but the Conservation of Electric Charge could be derived from them. However, Maxwell's Equations meant that the speed of light had to be the same for all observers.

4:10 min:sec ff.: Elie Cartan showed that in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is curvature of time only; whereas in General Relativity, gravity is curvature of space and time, i.e., spacetime (cf. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity [New York: Doubleday, 2007], p. 33; and pp. 79-80 of Frank J. Tipler, "Albert Einstein: A Scientific Reactionary", pp. 73-83, in John Brockman [Ed.], My Einstein [New York: Vintage Books, 2007; orig. pub. 2006]). When Lorentz and Einstein's insight regarding the speed of light being the same for all observers is combined with Newtonian mechanics, then the Newton equations automatically become the Einstein equations.

5:05 min:sec ff.: Quantum Mechanics is a subset of Newtonian mechanics in the most general form of Newtonian mechanics, called the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation, as was independently shown by Lev Landau and David Bohm.

Hence, there was no scientific revolution in the 20th century: what we are in fact doing when we use General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is using subsets of Newtonian mechanics. Consequently, since all the forces in nature have been described and made consistent with each other (i.e., in the form of the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE), we have a Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics.

6:12 min:sec ff.: Tipler then goes on to show how the Omega Point cosmology is forced by the known laws of physics.

13:30 min:sec ff.: Tipler discusses quantum indistinguishability, which has been confirmed by many experiments.

18:56 min:sec ff.: There are still infinities in quantum field theory which are not eliminated by renormalization, as has been known since Freeman Dyson's work on this issue more than 50 years ago. However, when one takes into account the requirement imposed by unitarity that the universe must end in finite proper time, these nonrenormalizable infinities in quantum field theory and in Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity can be absorbed into the final singularity so that they never appear within spacetime, whereas the typical boundary conditions used by physicists make quantum field theory inconsistent with observations.

19:50 min:sec ff.: Imposing the Hawking boundary conditions (i.e., that the universe must end in finite proper time in order to avoid the violation of unitarity) on standard quantum field theory and standard quantum gravity theory (i.e., the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg theory of quantum gravity) makes these theories fully mathematically consistent. One thereby obtains a full theory of quantum gravity, of which quantum gravity theory makes the Standard Model of particle physics fully finite within spacetime, which means that with said Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory and the Standard Model of particle physics one has a full Theory of Everything (TOE) in physics which is fully mathematically consistent, is finite within spacetime, and is in full agreement with experiment.

21:10 min:sec ff.: The Wheeler-DeWitt Equation is fully mathematically consistent with Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity once the same aforesaid boundary conditions are imposed.

########################################

Host Harry P. Greenberger, Board President Emeritus of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association (NOSHA; http://nosha.info ), talks with Prof. Frank J. Tipler. NOSHA produces a half-hour program, The New Orleans Humanist Perspective, which airs on Cox Cable, Channel 76, New Orleans, La., Fridays at 8:30 a.m. and p.m., and Sundays at 12 a.m. and p.m.

"Program #135: Einstein and Darwin with Dr. Frank J. Tipler", NewOrleansHumanists, Mar. 15, 2013. Program #135: Einstein and Darwin with Dr. Frank J. Tipler - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOejgL8967U)

########################################

The below audio interview of Prof. Frank Tipler by Casey Luskin for the Intelligent Design the Future (ID the Future [IDTF]; http://idthefuture.com ) podcast was recorded on February 11, 2013:

"Part 1: Einstein Vs. Darwin", Feb. 13, 2013, run time: 17:25 min:sec. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/index/2013-02-13T17_47_50-08_00 , http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2013-02-13T17_47_50-08_00.mp3 , http://www.webcitation.org/6ER9vOCSX

"Part 2: Einstein Vs. Darwin", Feb. 15, 2013, run time: 13:54 min:sec. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/index/2013-02-15T17_51_01-08_00 , http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2013-02-15T17_51_01-08_00.mp3 , http://www.webcitation.org/6ESvK1hGX

"Part 3: Einstein Vs. Darwin", Feb. 20, 2013, run time: 10:43 min:sec. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/index/2013-02-20T16_21_03-08_00 , http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2013-02-20T16_21_03-08_00.mp3 , http://www.webcitation.org/6EaXBoyA7

"Frank Tipler: Could Einstein Be Published Under Today's Peer-Review Policies?", Feb. 27, 2013, run time: 13:44 min:sec. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/index/2013-02-27T16_43_59-08_00 , http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2013-02-27T16_43_59-08_00.mp3 , http://www.webcitation.org/6Elz3HRgg

[broncofan]

Maybe I can transition this thread to ask a different but related question. Who thinks a fairly respectable university such as Tulane should not employ a quack like Frank Tipler? Or do you think that firing him would be tantamount to censorship and there is no way of objectively valuing scientific work?

Personally, I see the potential for abuse if someone is ushered out for unpopular views. It's just a shame that a university hires someone for important work they've done in a field and then that person begins to espouse all sorts of crazy ideas and there's nothing they can do but allow him to continue to use their facilities and sully their name. I can't remember but that professor who is an AIDS denier is also a tenured professor I think.

They always act like they're being subjected to the inquisition or something because people think they've become laughing stocks.

[trish]

Dr. Tipler was actually a very promising researcher in the area of General Relativity. His early papers display a mastery of the field, a fertile and a creative mind. Reading his Causally Symmetric Spacetimes and his Causality Violation was an early learning experience for me.

What he lacks, in his later works, is intellectual integrity:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/01/05/the-varieties-of-crackpot-experience/#.UV4HKoKKc7A

I suspect that Tipler retains an expertise in theoretical physics sufficient for guiding undergraduates and first or second year graduate students through the standard courses. Those courses are concerned with learning technical knowledge and not so much concerned with developing research skills and developing the intellectual honesty and self-criticism requisite for doing original research. Often the technical courses are taught by the “teaching” faculty while the more creative courses are taught by the research faculty and graduate faculty.

Perhaps for somewhat selfish reasons, I favor the protections provided by the tenure system. Short of firing a errant professor, there are measures that departments and universities can take to prevent quacks from doing damage to the education of students. They can be relegated to the teaching faculty (provided they are competent to teach the technical courses). They can also be denied the authority to advise students in their thesis research. Better yet, they can be promoted to non-teaching administrative positions :)

IMO Tipler shouldn’t be drawing tax-payer money from government sponsored grants for projects relating to his omega point theory. This latter may be a mute point. I do not know of any government grant money currently supporting any of Tipler’s more current projects.

[Prospero]

Full marks for a subtle post Ms tenured professor

[Stavros]

If you watch the discussion linked in Jamie's post 'Einstein vs Darwin', Tipler states categorically that he is a determinist when his interlocutor asks him if it is true that it was pre-determined that the two of them would sit down and have a discussion on that particular day, and Tipler energetically replies Yes! (And, of course, the 'force' that has made this possible is God). Gilbert Ryle criticised/demolished determinism in one his lectures (in Dilemmas), using an example such as: if it is true that I was going to rise at 6am and shave today and cut myself in the process, it was true 10,000 years ago. For Ryle, this is not just illogical, but an abuse of language.

It gets worse, not only does Tipler in the same video claim there are many facsimiles of 'us' in the 'multi-verse' but either here or in the power-point linked in Jamie's post states that we are creations of those super-computer beings of the future who have created/re-created every living thing since the Big Bang, which is why some link his theories to The Matrix, Blade Runner and so on.

Tipler and his apostle Jamie seem to suggest that all the problems of Physics and Cosmology have been solved by the Omega Point hypothesis -we are here to do God's work and acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God and Our Salvation- even though in today's paper I read that we still don't know what 'dark matter' is although scientists are getting closer to an explanation of it.

I don't have a problem with anyone turning to religion for comfort, for community, for certainty, whatever, but I do think it is a waste of time to link hard science to religious belief, as people can, and do believe anything. I do not think it is harmful to students, as most students will not be impressed with any kind of preaching from the lectern, be it Omega Point Cosmology, Marxism, or Free Market Capitalism, although some will for a time be swayed by such things.

[broncofan]

Better yet, they can be promoted to non-teaching administrative positions :)

Start a petition. Frank Tipler, Dean of Tulane University?:)

[broncofan]

I tend to agree with you Trish about the importance of tenure. There are good reasons to support its protections. If I understand them properly, they are to encourage free thought and research without there being too strong an imperative to conform to academic orthodoxy.

But then to harken back to Tipler's own analogy, is there a difference between Galileo and Frank Tipler? Galileo was mistreated because his theories challenged church orthodoxy. In other words it wasn't a matter of him saying things that were borderline incoherent or relying on sleight of hand.

Sometimes I think overbroad protections really reflect mistrust of man. We cannot tell the difference between someone who has no academic integrity and who is peddling junk science and someone who has challenged the status quo. I suppose given the fact that it sometimes takes years before a theory is recognized and supported, perhaps there's no way to distinguish Tipler from Galileo in the short term.

[trish]

Some think tenure may be more important for the less mathematical sciences (e.g. economics, sociology, anthropology, history etc.) where interpretation is more nuanced and divergent.

I don’t know whether Padua had a tenure system in the time of Galileo or not, but it wasn’t academia that stiffled his freedom of expression, it was his Church. I’m not a historian of science but I’m given the impression that Galileo was rather well received by his peers in the academic field then known as natural philosophy. Even the Church recognized his work as significant. The Inquistion merely wanted Galileo to confess that the Copernican theory was merely a device that simplified calculations; that is was figuratively true but not literally true.

In comparison, Tipler’s Omega Theory was publish in 1995 (18 years ago) and it has yet to gain any significant support from other physicists. Remember that science moves much faster today than in Galileo’s time. Eighteen years with no takers is a long time. Tipler’s case is not at all analogous to Galileo (imo).

But not all disagreements in science are as easy to call, and so talented, creative thinkers should be afforded some protections. That’s why it doesn’t upset me that Tipler maintains his tenure and continues his work.

The real argument against tenure (I think) is that because of it certain departments tend to get lopsided. Suppose a majority of the tenured positions in a certain school of economics are held by supply side economists. Even if the supply side theory is exploded and falls into disgrace, unless the supply siders at that school change their tunes, they will continue to dominate economics as it’s practiced at their school. They will continue to hire supply siders and graduate supply siders.

[broncofan]

Tipler’s case is not at all analogous to Galileo (imo).

I was hoping you would say that. Whereas Galileo said things that were unpopular because they contradicted church dogma, Tipler says things that (though no scientist myself) I imagine are not valued because they are methodologically and descriptively questionable. Whereas Galileo's work was valued within the scientific community, Tipler's has not received much if any support. Even in the article you posted, his quotations posit things as starting assumptions that seem far from axiomatic.

I don't want to give examples because someone more familiar with this might say, "yeah didn't you know? It was established quite a while ago that life guides the universe and therefore is co-extensive with it. Therefore, life is omnipresent in the universe. Also, transcendent is spelled "transcendant". C'mon get with it."

But yes, thank you for your responses Trish. I agree with what you have said about the pros and cons of the tenure system. Very informative!

[buttslinger]

I'm not too confident they'll be giving Prof Tipler a New Book or Testament in the Bible, however, I'm positive that if I could pick the life of Jesus, or Mickey Mantle, or King Herod, or Martin Luther King, or Steven Spielberg, or Stephen King, I'd opt for the Life of Jesus.
My brother grew up with a guy named Ned Wright, he's a World Class Cosmologist now, they still keep in touch. My Mom used to substitute teach in Grammar School, she didn't like little Ned. He was a know-it-all who always corrected the teachers.

[trish]

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/intro.html

[buttslinger]

Yep, that's him. He was on that team that won the Nobel Prize for their work on the Big Bang Theory, he'd email my brother juicy factoids, like the head guy was also the "Mom" of the group, he'd have to unruffle feathers and soothe hurt feelings and stuff.

[tsadriana]

God exists true ,but not for me and never will.so who belleve in God look no more arround you lol

[talldudeil]

We are a fluke of the cosmos, there is no God, there are many religions that try to prove a god but no proof, ZERO, yet we have documented evidence of events 65 million to 3.5 billion years ago. Only writing of man to prove a god, if he is there we should know. Faith, BS, I take nothing on faith, unless you can prove it it does not exist. We here all the time about things like pulsars, quarks, dark matter etc. all have been proven why is there no proof of a god.

And if there is a god why does he let so many bad things happen to good people and why does he allow his name to be used to start "holy" wars. You would think that some omnipotent being would step in and stop it. Live your life not let someone tell you how and why you Must do things according to their religion.

my .02

[TempestTS]

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch - you must first invent the universe

-Carl Sagan

[martin48]

Well I liked it

[Jamie Michelle]

"Evolution of the Species by Terence Mckenna.mp4", SourceCode10, Feb. 6, 2013. Evolution of the Species by Terence Mckenna.mp4 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POxZbRzd6jc)

[Stavros]

Jamie, I thought you would like to know (if you don't already) that Jesus is back and living with Mary Magdalene, in Australia. He worked in IT for a while, and the Crucifixion didn't hurt that much. I am sure he would like to read and comment on your paper 'Jesus is an Anarchist'. Best wishes.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/former-specialist-claims-jesus-reborn-234352910.html?vp=1#1ReVSIf

[joeninety]

We are a fluke of the cosmos, there is no God, there are many religions that try to prove a god but no proof, ZERO, yet we have documented evidence of events 65 million to 3.5 billion years ago. Only writing of man to prove a god, if he is there we should know. Faith, BS, I take nothing on faith, unless you can prove it it does not exist. We here all the time about things like pulsars, quarks, dark matter etc. all have been proven why is there no proof of a god.

And if there is a god why does he let so many bad things happen to good people and why does he allow his name to be used to start "holy" wars. You would think that some omnipotent being would step in and stop it. Live your life not let someone tell you how and why you Must do things according to their religion.

my .02

Innumerable factors have fallen into place to allow life on our planet if one of those factors was out, then we would not be here, that is not a fluke, that is precision engineering.

Lets say now our creator who is probably beyond this universe created this place for us to exist, if we look at the some of the rules and fundamental truths embedded into this universe then it would stand to reason that good and bad things are going to happen.

Also should God intervene or be held accountable (bearing in mind the whole free will thing) for the evil that men do.

If man made bad things happen then surely it is man's fault:confused:

[trish]

And if the gods made bad things, then the fault was surely theirs. But no...it Eve's fault! Let's all blame it on Eve.

[joeninety]

And if the gods made bad things, then the fault was surely theirs. But no...it Eve's fault! Let's all blame it on Eve.

Don't blame it on the sunshine / Don't blame it on the moonlight / Don't blame it on good times / Blame it on the boogie :whistle:

[Prospero]

ahh.... a devotee of the anthropic principle. And where beyond our universe might this creative force live?

[joeninety]

ahh.... a devotee of the anthropic principle. And where beyond our universe might this creative force live?

I am a devotee of life, logic and when all else fails??? I cannot comprehend infinity nor would I even bother trying too, that will probably always be incomprehensible:)

I have seen enough to know their is a much bigger picture, anyone can see if they choose to be adventurous and decide to actually open their eyes.

Once you do you no longer have to take things on faith nor theory;)

[Stavros]

Prospero, as I pointed out in the earlier post, a third of the Trinity, with Mary Magdalene are living in Queensland, Australia. Do try to keep up. Its not like we are on the satellite of a Red Dwarf waiting for the sun to shine and ripen out grapes.

[Prospero]

darn... sorry Stavros. i missed that.

[martin48]

And if the gods made bad things, then the fault was surely theirs. But no...it Eve's fault! Let's all blame it on Eve.

I thought it went like this.

Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the snake. And the snake didn't have a leg to stand on!

[danthepoetman]

http://edrevets.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/gods-kitchen.jpg
http://theviolethourmuse.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/gods-cooking-class.jpg
http://www.drinkatwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/voteNYer.jpg

Ouch!
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/files/2010/09/hawking-2-350x268-custom.jpg

http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/atheism+motivational+poster.jpg

[danthepoetman]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnxc-MxX6RdbJZR9W19BQ32l05kiMx1jadw7Kpkrl4olw1kGOB

[danthepoetman]

http://unitedcats.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/ceiling-cat-god-creates-universe.jpg

[danthepoetman]

Don't you love this one? Now that has to be a great book...
http://drdivaphd.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/money-is-god-in-action-3-dr-diva-verdun.jpg

[trish]

I don't know what happened. I started with the intent of making a snide remark and this came out. Sorry.

If General Relativity (GR) is even partly reliable, the cosmos (in which we find space and time and the stars and galaxies that nature our lives and imaginations) passed through a period of high density and rapid expansion. The classic GR-equations only describe the expansion. They do not describe a big bang but only a singularity; i.e. a boundary on and beyond which the equations, our current understanding, do not apply.

Dynamically perhaps the very very early universe was a simple place. What could be simpler than isotropic, homogeneous, uniform expansion? But the physics was anything but simple. When the entire universe is smaller than a proton, the macro-world collides with micro-world. In this domain we have difficulty construing the notions of information, entropy, space and time. We only surmise that at the end of this brief, brief Planckian period there was space-time and there was energy; both in rapid expansion and with incredibly low entropy (packed with information).

The early universe was so compressed photons could not escape from the confines of the hot charged particles that at these temperatures would hurl them at relativistic speeds as gamma radiation. Instead photons remained trapped within. The very universe was hot, yet black. The heat was so intense nucleons couldn’t catch hold of each other to form atoms. But as the expansion continued and the cosmos cooled, nucleons were able to bond and form hydrogen, helium and some lithium (surprisingly the proportions of those elements that exist today are as predicted by theory). This periodic is known as the era of cosmic nucleosynthesis. The end of this period marks the decoupling of photons from the hot particles now free to produce and eject them. The universe filled with a hot photon gas. Unimaginable. A gas of highly energetic light particles blowing across the universe at the maximum speed limit. All space was filled with this searing gas, hot enough to vaporize hell. Now it is less than three degrees above absolute zero, a cool, omnipresent microwave radiation which makes its presence known as a weak static to those who known how to tune into it; so innocuous it was mistaken by its discoverers as a nest of pigeons who found harbor in their antennae. Today we call it the CMB (cosmic microwave background); it was quantitatively predicted by theory and figures as one of the earliest evidences of the theory of cosmic expansion (named by its opponents The Big Bang Theory).

Lucky for us the universe wasn’t perfectly homogeneous and isotropic. Nothing is perfect, but the universe isn’t nothing. The small differences in the density of matter between one region and another created gravitational slopes, swoops, swells and wells that drew clouds and dust together into clumps, lumps, spheres, rotating discs etc. Gravity is weird this way. It has negative heat capacity. Leave a hydrogen gas and some dust alone in a gravitational field and it will begin to heat up. Dropping from regions of high potential energy it picks up kinetic energy (heat). If you got enough gas gravity will compress it into a ball with a warm center. More gas, a hot center. More gas and dust, a fiery center. More hydrogen and the gravitational pressure will force the hydrogen to fuse into helium and ignite a star. The stars clump, lump and swirl into galaxies and generations of stars working with heavier and heavier fuels fuse heavier and heavier elements. The abundances of elements predicted by this model of galactic evolution match the abundances surveyed by our best telescopes. From these elements the planets formed. The planets, bathed in the outward flux of energy that pours from the stars they orbit, evolved complex geologies, atmospheres, climates and surface chemistries. No planet is a closed system. Ordinary equilibrium thermodynamics does not readily apply. The climate and surface chemistry of a planet are continually in flux. Thinks of the non-periodic motions in a lava lamp. Or a fishing bob stuck in the swirling turbulence at the base of a water fall. It wanders a little away from the falls but gets caught in a current that pulls it back; it’s caught in a loop but its motion isn’t periodic. Given enough time its as likely to escape as it is to remain. Life is motion within a flux; the flux of energy from the Sun. Shining Apollo is the love of my life. (Bless me Apollo. Stop by some time and I’ll give you a ride.)

So we’re lucky the early universe wasn’t perfectly homogeneous or isotropic. How lucky? Some researchers suggest that the universe is fine tuned. If the curvature of the universe was just slightly off in one direction, there wouldn’t have been enough gravitational clumping to produce the stars, galaxies and ultimately us. If the curvature off a little bit off in the other direction, the clumping would have been to quick and the universe would have collapsed before it got started. Some have taken this to be indicative of the hand of God. Others say that fine-tuning calculations are highly speculative; we know to little how to compute which value for a constant of nature or which universe is more probable than another. There is no experimental side to the study of possible universes and there is no universally accepted theory beyond what we currently have. Still others have pointed out fine-tuning calculations usually only move one tuning knob at a time (holding the others fixed) and do not consider how much easier it might be for the cosmos to “self-tune” if all the knobs turned. I agree with these objections.

We all know that the Earth rests within the warm flux of the Sun. Her biosphere bobs up and down in endless variations on the Sun’s luminous current of photons. She occupies one regime for a time and then another, evolving far from equilibrium and semi-stable plateaus of existence. We forget that the cosmos too is not in equilibrium. It is instead rapidly expanding. Someday our galaxies will be isolated from one another separated by insurmountable Rindler horizons. Matter will become diffuse and attenuated, or clump in remote far flung places unseen by other clumps. What will remain, if it exists at all, is the dark energy of Einstein’s modified equations. It’s density remains fixed and eternal. A black remnant of spent energies. A remembrance of good times. Its almost silent buzz the snore of a universe gone asleep.

[Stavros]

Trish, your enthusiasm for the subject is expressed in language of elegance and intelligence. However, I think you also recognise that when cosmology and physics set aside the mathematics and the chemistry of the universe, the conceptual problems remain that enable people to insist or maybe just conjecture a, or the crucial formative role of 'God' -the most obvious question being: What existed before the big bang? Plenty of believers in world religions understand the concepts of gravity, black holes, sunspots, dark matter, and so on: but reach a blank page or a brick wall when language seems to run out explanations, and mathematics as it were, returns to zero. How does science describe the universe before the Big Bang?

[martin48]

May I refer you to:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

The first cause argument is either the universe started at the beginning of time and when there is no time there is nothing; or we create a god. The choice is yours. Which one is more far-fetched? If you choose god, then what caused him (or her)?


Trish, your enthusiasm for the subject is expressed in language of elegance and intelligence. However, I think you also recognise that when cosmology and physics set aside the mathematics and the chemistry of the universe, the conceptual problems remain that enable people to insist or maybe just conjecture a, or the crucial formative role of 'God' -the most obvious question being: What existed before the big bang? Plenty of believers in world religions understand the concepts of gravity, black holes, sunspots, dark matter, and so on: but reach a blank page or a brick wall when language seems to run out explanations, and mathematics as it were, returns to zero. How does science describe the universe before the Big Bang?

[trish]

There is no definite answer to the question, if it is a question, "What happened before the big bang?" because there is no definitive theory or confirmatory experiment.

Let's just take the classical equations of GR (nothing else) as solved by Friedman, Walker etc. for a homogeneous, isotropic universe. Those models describe a universe without a beginning. Time is like a open interval: at a certain instant you can say, "The universe has been expanding now for two seconds." Earlier you might have said, "The universe has been expanding now for 1 second." Earlier still you might have said, "The universe has been expanding now for 1/2 second." Still earlier, "The universe has been expanding now for 1/4 second." But at no time can you say, "The universe has been expanding now for 0 seconds," or "The universe just began expanding," or "The universe just came into existence now," because there is no time zero...there is no time outside the universe...no time before the universe...just like there is no space outside the universe and no matter outside the universe. The universe doesn't need a container to exist within, neither a container of space nor a container of time. I kind of like this model. But as I said, it's not definitive. There are others (though not the majority of cosmologists) who hold out for a "time before it all began."

[Stavros]

May I refer you to:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

The first cause argument is either the universe started at the beginning of time and when there is no time there is nothing; or we create a god. The choice is yours. Which one is more far-fetched? If you choose god, then what caused him (or her)?

Martin, thanks for the link, which both provides the explanation I was looking for, while failing to confirm that it is true - by which I mean absolutely true. As with the eloquent answer Trish supplied, these explanations are locked into a language which by its nature is not and never can be absolutely true. The key point (as I read it) that Hawking makes is this:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

The key concept which makes this argument vulnerable, is the idea of measurement, of the beginning of time -and indeed, time itself- as a measurable thing. In the 1930s Wittgenstein argued that language cannot describe anything absolutely, but that society agrees that the rules of grammar give what language is being used for its intelligibility, even if these rules, and words and meanings, are temporary:

But let's not forget that a word hasn't got a meaning given to it, as it were, by a power independent of us, so that there could be a scientific investigation into what the word really means. A word has the meaning someone has given to it. (Wittgenstein, 'The Blue Book', [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972: 28]).

In another discussion of time, Wittgenstein imagines logs floating down a river, and an observer noting when they bang into each other, and the way the observer appears to be measuring time to notice a difference in the frequency with which the logs bang into each other:

But if we say time passed more quickly between logs 1 and 100 than between logs 100 and 200, this is only an analogy; really nothing has passed more quickly. To say time passes more quickly, or that time flows, is to imagine something flowing. We then extend the simile and talk about the direction of time. When people talk of the direction of time, precisely the analogy of a river is before them. Of course a river can change its direction of flow, but one has a feeling of giddiness when one talks of time being reversed. The reason is that the notion of flowing, of something, and of the direction of the flow is embodied in our language.
http://tomclarkblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/wittgenstein-and-river-of-time.html

Could it be that one reason why Hawking cannot -or does not- speculate on life before the measurable beginning of the universe is because he doesn't have the language to describe a condition without time -or rather, there is no agreed language to describe it, and the point of disagreement is that whereas science 'understands' infinity as literally impossible to measure, religious believers insist that this is precisely the point of understanding God, but who themselves commit what for science is the heresy of not asking questions of God but of merely submitting their silence as proof of their belief?

But why does science find it hard, or impossible to describe something that is not measurable, perhaps beyond mathematics?

The paradox of language is that we agree that words can mean something that can be verified, and something that cannot be verified. Wittgenstein would argue that it is entirely possible for someone to describe as a memory something that 'happened tomorrow': I do not know what will happen tomorrow, but I can argue that I remember on the 1st April that I expected an event to happen on the 2nd April that happened, because I remember it -in reality, once they have passed, there is no difference between the 1st or 2nd of April, I am therefore able to argue, linguistically, that I was able to remember an event that 'took place' in 'the future'. I think this is crucial in religious belief where the belief in eternity is a necessary component of the spiritual comfort that believers seek: that life has meaning and has always had meaning, that we never 'really die' but just move on to another condition. I once had a genial argument about the existence of God with a Muslim (to be specific, an Ahmadi) and he said, as I recall it: 'there has to be a God, otherwise life would be meaningless, and that would be unbearable'.

Or as Borges put it:

Perhaps universal history is the history of the diverse intonation of a few metaphors.

[trish]

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.Idon't really see Hawking going with that form of argument. It seems to me he has given a number of theoretical arguments leading to the conclusion that the universe has a finite age and that time itself, being a constituent of the universe, cannot ...as it were...predate the universe. To say that "time existed before the universe but since we can't observe it" is an entirely different thing.

Penrose on the other hand conjectures a universe that is reborn periodically and each incarnation leaves traces in the CMB of the next.

[trish]

It’s not that the infinite and the immeasurable are impossible to describe in mathematics.

Indeed, a major and well developed branch of mathematics known as set theory is devoted to the description of infinite cardinal and ordinal arithmetics. It includes countable infinities, uncountable infinities, inaccessible cardinals, Wooden cardinals and concepts pertaining to infinity whose contemplation would make Christ himself go cross-eyed.

Moreover, quantum theory is full of quantities that are immeasurable in principle.

The problem is nature herself and how we respect our own integrity when we endeavor to describe her. Do we fit nature to our most cherished beliefs? or our most ingenious ideas? or do we tailor our ideas to nature? Sure we can always carve out a niche for the gods. As long as the consequences of their shenanigans don’t conflict with observation or intrude upon the light of reasonably established knowledge, no scientist will pay them much in the way of professional attention (Tipler being a notable exception).

The classical cosmologies of Lemaitre, Friedman, Robertson and Walker are self-contained. For each of those models, time is internal...existing within the universe...not without. For these men, there was no time, nor space before the big bang.

Lemaitre took this to mean God existed timelessly and without extension. That He somehow is responsible for the existence of the universe, but that He didn’t create it by a process that took place in time...for that would require the prior existence of time.

Lamaitre’s idea a fine and noble, but baroque and unfunctional add-on to the cosmological understanding of those models. There is simply no need in science for hypothetical contortions that account for nothing. Whether or not they fill a “spiritual” need is not a public question. Whether or not they are metaphysically true, meet a higher truth etc. is not the business of science.

It is however, the business of every higher truth to be downward compatible with the lower levels of reasonably certain knowledge. When claimed scientific knowledge conflicts with claimed spiritual knowledge we have an epistemological problem that can only be settled by examining the scientific claim with the methods and ethics of science. Likewise when spiritual knowledge conflicts with the peaceful pursuit of life, freedom of belief etc., we have an even more serious problem. But when there are no conflicts, people can choose whatever higher knowledge meets their spiritual needs. Go hog wild.

[danthepoetman]

i am god and you are nothing. Assume the position, or i will destroy you. Well, i can negotiate if you show some kind of appeasement gestures...
Yours,
god

[danthepoetman]

http://0.tqn.com/d/humor/1/0/k/L/-/-/gods-child.jpg

[danthepoetman]

i have written a book, between 26 and 19 hundred years ago, and if you don't follow it rigorously, despite its countless contradictions, i'll drown you all, you cockroaches...

[danthepoetman]

i am god

and you are not...

[hippifried]

What the hell are you people talking about?? Everybody knows that the Earth is a huge flat disc, set on the backs of 5 giant elephants, who are in turn standing on the back of a really huge turtle. All else is a hoax.

[martin48]

Just typical of God. Begins to lose the argument so starts shouting



i am god

and you are not...

[Prospero]

What the hell are you people talking about?? Everybody knows that the Earth is a huge flat disc, set on the backs of 5 giant elephants, who are in turn standing on the back of a really huge turtle. All else is a hoax.

I read that a famous phycisit - sadly can't remember who - was offered something like this view of existence during a public debate. I think it was several turtles at base.

He asked the lady what was beneath the turtles.

Her response "It's turtles all the way."

[martin48]

On Wittgenstein's limitations of language, I think Humpty Dumpty (in Through the Looking Glass) put it better.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Science is about making observations of the world. It then tries to explain those observations and make predictions. It is the predictive power of science that is its real strength. It confirms these predictions through more experiments or observations. Religion can not predict - if something happens then it is God's will. Miracles have a "place" in religion but not in science. Returning to the Big Bang - so much evidence points to a singular beginning of the universe so let's us take it as accepted. We can not observe anything before this point (if indeed there was anything) so science starts explaining at this singularity. Is this a restriction of science? Is this somehow less than satisfying? It is, in a sense, the best we can do. Is it less satisfying than accepting that the universe always existed or that some being/force/whatever always existed? There are no observations or experiments that we can to to test the existence of this being. God and his plans are "revealed" to us. This does not satisfy me - but it does others. We can not make predictions with the concept of a divine being. If we can not predict then we lose the very essence of humanity




Martin, thanks for the link, which both provides the explanation I was looking for, while failing to confirm that it is true - by which I mean absolutely true. As with the eloquent answer Trish supplied, these explanations are locked into a language which by its nature is not and never can be absolutely true. The key point (as I read it) that Hawking makes is this:

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

The key concept which makes this argument vulnerable, is the idea of measurement, of the beginning of time -and indeed, time itself- as a measurable thing. In the 1930s Wittgenstein argued that language cannot describe anything absolutely, but that society agrees that the rules of grammar give what language is being used for its intelligibility, even if these rules, and words and meanings, are temporary:

But let's not forget that a word hasn't got a meaning given to it, as it were, by a power independent of us, so that there could be a scientific investigation into what the word really means. A word has the meaning someone has given to it. (Wittgenstein, 'The Blue Book', [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1972: 28]).

In another discussion of time, Wittgenstein imagines logs floating down a river, and an observer noting when they bang into each other, and the way the observer appears to be measuring time to notice a difference in the frequency with which the logs bang into each other:

But if we say time passed more quickly between logs 1 and 100 than between logs 100 and 200, this is only an analogy; really nothing has passed more quickly. To say time passes more quickly, or that time flows, is to imagine something flowing. We then extend the simile and talk about the direction of time. When people talk of the direction of time, precisely the analogy of a river is before them. Of course a river can change its direction of flow, but one has a feeling of giddiness when one talks of time being reversed. The reason is that the notion of flowing, of something, and of the direction of the flow is embodied in our language.
http://tomclarkblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/wittgenstein-and-river-of-time.html

Could it be that one reason why Hawking cannot -or does not- speculate on life before the measurable beginning of the universe is because he doesn't have the language to describe a condition without time -or rather, there is no agreed language to describe it, and the point of disagreement is that whereas science 'understands' infinity as literally impossible to measure, religious believers insist that this is precisely the point of understanding God, but who themselves commit what for science is the heresy of not asking questions of God but of merely submitting their silence as proof of their belief?

But why does science find it hard, or impossible to describe something that is not measurable, perhaps beyond mathematics?

The paradox of language is that we agree that words can mean something that can be verified, and something that cannot be verified. Wittgenstein would argue that it is entirely possible for someone to describe as a memory something that 'happened tomorrow': I do not know what will happen tomorrow, but I can argue that I remember on the 1st April that I expected an event to happen on the 2nd April that happened, because I remember it -in reality, once they have passed, there is no difference between the 1st or 2nd of April, I am therefore able to argue, linguistically, that I was able to remember an event that 'took place' in 'the future'. I think this is crucial in religious belief where the belief in eternity is a necessary component of the spiritual comfort that believers seek: that life has meaning and has always had meaning, that we never 'really die' but just move on to another condition. I once had a genial argument about the existence of God with a Muslim (to be specific, an Ahmadi) and he said, as I recall it: 'there has to be a God, otherwise life would be meaningless, and that would be unbearable'.

Or as Borges put it:

Perhaps universal history is the history of the diverse intonation of a few metaphors.

[martin48]

Actually it's quarks all the way. Back to Lewis Carroll



I read that a famous phycisit - sadly can't remember who - was offered something like this view of existence during a public debate. I think it was several turtles at base.

He asked the lady what was beneath the turtles.

Her response "It's turtles all the way."

[Prospero]

The Hunting of the Quark? !!!

Actually its an infinity of multiverses and in several Jamie is pope and Dan doesn't drink... and I get to meet and marry Trish!

[martin48]

It's worse than this - in some parallel universe I get to meet you and we marry :(

Thus proving - in a very scientific way - that the idea of multiverses is pure tosh

[Stavros]

On Wittgenstein's limitations of language, I think Humpty Dumpty (in Through the Looking Glass) put it better.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Science is about making observations of the world. It then tries to explain those observations and make predictions. It is the predictive power of science that is its real strength. It confirms these predictions through more experiments or observations. Religion can not predict - if something happens then it is God's will. Miracles have a "place" in religion but not in science. Returning to the Big Bang - so much evidence points to a singular beginning of the universe so let's us take it as accepted. We can not observe anything before this point (if indeed there was anything) so science starts explaining at this singularity. Is this a restriction of science? Is this somehow less than satisfying? It is, in a sense, the best we can do. Is it less satisfying than accepting that the universe always existed or that some being/force/whatever always existed? There are no observations or experiments that we can to to test the existence of this being. God and his plans are "revealed" to us. This does not satisfy me - but it does others. We can not make predictions with the concept of a divine being. If we can not predict then we lose the very essence of humanity

Lewis Carroll misses the crucial point -because language works as a social instrument, for one person to 're-invent' or use a word as he or she wants to requires it being accepted by more than than one person, or incomprehension follows. Even if say, after an accident in which I banged my head, I am convinced you understand what I say it is not necessarily the case: if we go into a bar and you order a pint of bitter and I ask for (taking this from Sartre) Two horses of butter I would not be served but might receive a strange look: but if, to me, as a consequence of my accident, tonic water with ice and lemon becomes 'two horses of butter' I have in fact made an entirely reasonable request. For language to work we must agree on the rules. Carroll's poorly written fantasy is about a world where the rules in a dream world change and where absurdity is reality, and rationality challenged.

Although I agree with what you say about science, I will deal with an issue concerning infinity in my reply to Trish's post.

[Stavros]

It’s not that the infinite and the immeasurable are impossible to describe in mathematics.

Indeed, a major and well developed branch of mathematics known as set theory is devoted to the description of infinite cardinal and ordinal arithmetics. It includes countable infinities, uncountable infinities, inaccessible cardinals, Wooden cardinals and concepts pertaining to infinity whose contemplation would make Christ himself go cross-eyed.

Moreover, quantum theory is full of quantities that are immeasurable in principle.

The problem is nature herself and how we respect our own integrity when we endeavor to describe her. Do we fit nature to our most cherished beliefs? or our most ingenious ideas? or do we tailor our ideas to nature? Sure we can always carve out a niche for the gods. As long as the consequences of their shenanigans don’t conflict with observation or intrude upon the light of reasonably established knowledge, no scientist will pay them much in the way of professional attention (Tipler being a notable exception).

The classical cosmologies of Lemaitre, Friedman, Robertson and Walker are self-contained. For each of those models, time is internal...existing within the universe...not without. For these men, there was no time, nor space before the big bang.

Lemaitre took this to mean God existed timelessly and without extension. That He somehow is responsible for the existence of the universe, but that He didn’t create it by a process that took place in time...for that would require the prior existence of time.

Lamaitre’s idea a fine and noble, but baroque and unfunctional add-on to the cosmological understanding of those models. There is simply no need in science for hypothetical contortions that account for nothing. Whether or not they fill a “spiritual” need is not a public question. Whether or not they are metaphysically true, meet a higher truth etc. is not the business of science.

It is however, the business of every higher truth to be downward compatible with the lower levels of reasonably certain knowledge. When claimed scientific knowledge conflicts with claimed spiritual knowledge we have an epistemological problem that can only be settled by examining the scientific claim with the methods and ethics of science. Likewise when spiritual knowledge conflicts with the peaceful pursuit of life, freedom of belief etc., we have an even more serious problem. But when there are no conflicts, people can choose whatever higher knowledge meets their spiritual needs. Go hog wild.

I am not trying to disprove the achievements of science or cosmology, as evidenced in yours and Martin's posts. What interests me is the possibility that infinity is not just a concept but present in the key instrument that science uses to measure: mathematics. It may be a problem of language, and is not practical, but consider the difference between 0 and 1, or between 0 inches and 1 inch. Is there nothing between 0 and 1? Because if so they must be the same thing, and they are not. But just as 1 can be subdivided, how many times is a dilemma. At some point in history, I don't precisely when, it was agreed that an inch is as long as we accept an inch to be, in the same way that we have developed language on the basis of social agreement of its rules. But in a pure sense, mathematics cannot measure an inch with absolute precision, because the space in which it is measured has no boundary, and we can only make a final judgement of an inch by agreeing it is 'this long' and comparing three or four or however many strips of cloth and ensuring they are the same length: we can then create machines and instruments: such as a ruler: to impose this length on space and time.
The truth is that as there are no boundaries to space that can be measured, time also has no boundaries: the languages that we use enclose us within a 'certain world' to comfort us. If you escape the prison-house of language, you are not necessarily free, and you might be lost; or become a rebel, or be diagnosed schizophrenic.

The point is that however many times you sub-divide a number, you can never exhaust its potential to get smaller: 1 never reaches zero: because we live in infinity. We lock ourselves into finite time and space to stop going mad, even though many ancient cultures believe that we live in an eternal world and that when we die we merely move on to another condition. Such cultures had a different conception of time from what we have, and it was more casual and elastic, and shaped more by the seasons than by clocks, which they would not have understood -even as recently as the 20th century people had to be told the meaning of an hour because it was incomprehensible. Some people who convert to Buddhism are attracted by the ability to lose 'the trapping of the modern world', without dying as a result.

The irony is that just as science cannot describe something that cannot be observed, so language cannot explain God to the satisfaction of its users, some of whom dispute that what we actually do see is the creation of God. Another example of language which we accept socially, being used to verify and deny individual choice.

[trish]

What interests me is the possibility that infinity is not just a concept but present in the key instrument that science uses to measure: mathematics.

You are precisely right, “infinity” is not only “present” but nearly omnipresent in the mathematics that physicists typically apply to their professional endeavors. It is generally presumed that the “real number system,” (the one where you can represent quantities using infinite decimal expansions) is the system appropriate measurements of spatial and temporal intervals, temperatures, frequencies, probability amplitudes, etc. etc. The types of equations most frequently used to model physical phenomena (known a differential equations) are integrally entangled in the notion of limit and infinity.


But in a pure sense, mathematics cannot measure an inch with absolute precision, because the space in which it is measured has no boundary, and we can only make a final judgement of an inch by agreeing it is 'this long' and comparing three or four or however many strips of cloth and ensuring they are the same length: we can then create machines and instruments: such as a ruler: to impose this length on space and time.

Also true. Units of length or time (as well as other units of measure) are defined in a standardized way. But the very definition by use of a standard (in spite of so like the use of a vibrating cesium atom to definite a standard second) presumes a background of theory and concedes that no measurement will be exact. This is why the charts and graphs of physicists are sullied at every point with error bars. This is why no one worries whether or not the fine structure constant has a repeating decimal expansion or not.


The truth is that as there are no boundaries to space that can be measured, time also has no boundaries: the languages that we use enclose us within a 'certain world' to comfort us.

Here our agreement depends on which space or which space-time is under discussion. There are whole infinite classes of geometries that mathematicians study. Some have boundaries and some don’t. Most of what pure mathematicians study has no obvious application to cosmology. If, for the moment we restrict our attention to those space-time models of Lemaitre (which satisfy Einstein’s field equations) we find: 1) They are all boundless (there are no walls beyond which the universe doesn’t exist and there is no time beyond which the universe doesn’t exist). 2) They are continua (i.e. the interval between any two points or any two times is infinitely divisible). 3) At any given time they all have a finite age. This latter is not a human failing. Not a failing of human comprehension or mental ability. It would be easy enough for a mathematician to invent cosmological models of universes that never had a beginning...universes which at any given now would have an infinite age. But such models would simply not depict the universe we live in as we now understand it to be. Our universe has a finite age. This restriction is imposed by the Einstein field equations. (As Hawking points out, there are many other laws that impose the same restriction; e.g. the second law of thermodynamics).

There is a conceptual difficulty that very often trips up even agile laymen, “How can the universe be boundless but finite?” At the risk of boring you with an example of which you may already be aware I’ll make an attempt to explain: Imagine the surface of the sphere. Just the surface. Through away the three dimensional space in which it is embedded. We are only interested in the intrinsic geometry of a sphere. This geometry exists independently of the usual embedding. Spherical geometry is a two-dimensional geometry. It has it’s own interpretation of the word “line” and its own axioms. One can develop the theorems of spherical geometry picturing a sphere sitting within a three-dimensional environment, just as you can develop the theorems of Euclidean plane geometry without ever imaging a plane embedded in a three-dimensional surrounding. Embeddings help us picture geometries, but they are not essential to their definition or development. Keeping this independence in mind, go ahead and picture a sphere, because it’s easier to have the picture before you. Draw half a meridian going from the south pole to the north pole. Label the South Pole 0 years and label the North Pole 32 billion years. Label the point where the meridian passes the equator 16 billion years. Continue to subdivide and label the points on the median in this fashion. Think of this meridian as a time-axis. Now imagine the point on the time-axis that you labeled 16 billion years. Label the antipodal point 1 billion light years. Subdivide and label the equator so that the labels indicate this distance all the way around is 2 billion light years. Think of this calibrated equator as a spatial-axis. Now using this coordinate frame you can assign a pair of coordinates to any point on the surface of the sphere. Just look at where the meridian through the given point pass through the equator (that will be the spatial coordinate of the point) and look at where the latitude through the given point intersects the calibrate meridian (the time-axis) and that will be the point’s temporal coordinate. We just invented a two-dimensional space-time geometry. It models a universe that at time zero eases into an expanding phase, reaches it maximal size after 16 billion years and then enters a collapsing phase. After 32 billion years it collapses to a point and the whole show it over. The point of this toy model is to demonstrate that time was born with the universe and died with the universe. There is no time outside the universe. Space was born with the universe and died with the universe. There is no space (three-dimensional or otherwise) outside the universe (remember spherical geometry can developed independently of whether or not the sphere is embedded in another higher dimensional space).
(Disclaimer: This toy model isn’t very physical as it is not designed to satisfy the Einstein field equations. The spatial coordinates in the model shouldn’t be used to measure distances without employing a latitude dependent scaling factor...generally curvilinear coordinates and distances are not always the same things).


The irony is that just as science cannot describe something that cannot be observed, so language cannot explain God to the satisfaction of its users, some of whom dispute that what we actually do see is the creation of God. Another example of language which we accept socially, being used to verify and deny individual choice.

A: Science confirms that the universe had a beginning.

B: Oh so it might have been designed and created.

A: But science also demonstrates within reasonable tolerances that time and space also had a beginning.

B: Damn! Unfortunately that precludes actions such as design and creation that need to take place within the passage of time!

A: Indeed, it’s not that God can’t be observed, but that He has no place to stand and no time exist.

B: If God exists, He is timeless (not eternal but rather outside time) and without extension. He does not act, as actions take place in time. Yet He is responsible for our existence. These would be mysteries we can choose to believe, or not.

A: The question for Christians like Lemaitre would be, “Why those mysteries and not the ones cherished by other religions?” Why can’t we say, “The Hindu gods exist, timelessly and without extension and are responsible for our existence?” What test can be used to determine who is more likely correct?

B: If we had a test, it wouldn’t remain a mystery.

[trish]

Let's agree that in this post the word "spider" shall mean a set of lines from a book, play or poem.


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

This spider has always been one of my most favorite from Lewis Carrol. In part it captures so well what mathematicians actually do to create a precise jargon in which to converse about specific ideas. "Group", "ring", "function", "manifold" etc. are all words who have been shown the boss.