The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[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


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 to

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); 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%2...on_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 ..."