The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[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/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-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/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-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/ThePhysic...ryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redfor...ics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/69kSvuziV , http://flashmirrors.com/files/1foosl5woi2rgy2