The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

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/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamie Michelle

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/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-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.

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

Better to tilt at windmills than the wind itself.

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

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!

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...

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.

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?