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), December 30, 2011 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp. 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 2,378,999 bytes MD5: efd75944295f33510ce799662fb450c1
http://theophysics.chimehost.net/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf http://www.webcitation.org/64LNDtvIb
http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf http://www.webcitation.org/64LNXpTxw
http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/7A4APLVO/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf_links http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75TUO2BX http://www.mediafire.com/?cdl8lcj6iyd16o5 http://depositfiles.com/files/mc07k5hnf
http://www.multiupload.com/TPW9HJ6MQ4 http://www.filesonic.com/file/GjIgt5q http://hotfile.com/dl/139200253/10c4d97/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf.html http://www.zshare.net/download/9810410844e7d5d7/
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.
"Jesus Is an Anarchist", Dec. 4, 2011 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics http://theophysics.host56.com
One can find links to this updated version in my previous post above: the SSRN link and the Theophysics links contain the latest version. The WebCite links also contain the latest version if one looks on the date drop-down menu for the latest date.
Below is the new file information for this updated version:
Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf 2,391,502 bytes MD5: 82d093dab0f71b8e5ff66827b9b2bee8
Dear lord, I stopped reading after page 9. Folks, do not waste your time.
I generally don't read things that try to prove the existence of just one particular god, as well as things that state this;
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.
If you're trying to find life in equations, you've missed the point of life completely.
Start with the religions of modern physics and of course you can prove God. Religious thinking is alive and well in modern science departments.
Why anarchy fails
Good Lord, this thread gonna be fun! As a closet christian homosexual I am very interested in such proofs.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
"" Dear lord, I stopped reading after page 9. Folks, do not waste your time. "" In other words, as far as you can tell, everything that I wrote is correct, hence your inability to come up with a single rational objection to it, but you nevertheless strongly disagree with it and therefore wish to swear everyone off of such verboten material.
"" I generally don't read things that try to prove the existence of just one particular god, as well as things that state this; """" 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. """" If you're trying to find life in equations, you've missed the point of life completely. "" Rather than objecting to you know not what, actually read the article and then get back to me. Your statement is at any rate a fallacy, as detailed in Sec. 7.2: "The Aseity of God".
"" Start with the religions of modern physics and of course you can prove God. Religious thinking is alive and well in modern science departments. "" 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.
"" Good Lord, this thread gonna be fun! As a closet christian homosexual I am very interested in such proofs. "" You should come out of the closet, for the reasons detailed in Sec. 7.4.4: "The Soteriology of Existence" and Sec. 8.1.2: "Life with God".
Rather than objecting to you know not what, actually read the article and then get back to me. Your statement is at any rate a fallacy, as detailed in Sec. 7.2: "The Aseity of God".
Define "god" and get back to me.
This is gonna be one of those threads.
To entice the readership to look into the article, here are some quotes:
1. 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. Small spaceships under heavy acceleration up to relativistic speeds can then reach nearby stars in less than a decade. In one million years, these superintelligent self- replicating spacecraft will have completely colonized the Milky Way Galaxy. In 100 million years, the Virgo Supercluster will be colonized. From that point on, the entire visible universe will be engulfed by these sapient spaceships...
2. In this book Tipler also analyzes how Jesus Christ could have performed the mir- acles attributed to him in the New Testament without violating any known laws of physics...
3. ...Ellis asserts that Tipler “ignores the fact” that life cannot exist at arbitrarily high temperatures, but it is Ellis who ignores the fact that Tipler already addressed this matter in the very book under review. Physics allows life to exist as the temperature diverges to infinity if enough energy is available in which to record pro- cessed information (i.e., store manipulated bits) and the information-bearing medium exists at an energy level high enough in which to store information at the given tem- peratures...
OK, now that our apetites are whetted, here come a proof from the very laws of physics that God exists, in less than a hundred words:
4. Physics, in the form of the Big Bang cosmology, has many decades ago already demon- strated per the known laws of physics that God exists, since the Big Bang singularity is the first cause, one of the ancient definitions of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.
Let's set this up in a syllogysm:
a. The laws of physics say there was a big bang.
b. the big bang is the First Cause.
c. all the Abrahamic religions hold that the definition of God is First Cause.
d. Therefore, the Big Bang is God.
e. But the big bang exists.
f. therefore God exists.
g. but we have used the laws of physics to reach this conclusion.
h. therefore the laws of physics prove that God exists.
I dunno, seems like he's got a rock solid case here.
After all, the words First Cause are not used in two different senses inthis argument.
Nor is the word "exists".
Gotta hand it to you, Mr Redford.
BTW, should the churches dump the symbolism of the cross and pray to a picture of a Big Bang instead?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
...one of the ancient definitions of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.
Yeah, and this is where I call b/s and lose my interest. This "God is real!" stuff where someone tries to use equations to prove the existence always comes from this narrow minded monotheistic end. What I mean by that? It only goes by their definition of what a god is which excludes all other ideas of what a god is or can be. Tell me, as a polytheist who believes in a demiurge like deity, where my gods fit in?
All religions have a creation myth, they could all in some way be proved by science. There's a Big Bang in the Poetic Edda (the creation myth is strikingly similar in ways to the Big Bang, more so than what's in the Bible, so take that). The point? That people 2,000-3,000 years ago if not longer had a good conception of how the universe works that became projected from their own minds into the religions they followed.
Sorry to lose you, Bert.
But I give you fair warning. The Big Bang will get you for this.
Smiling Dave: OK, now that our apetites are whetted, here come a proof from the very laws of physics that God exists, in less than a hundred words: 4. Physics, in the form of the Big Bang cosmology, has many decades ago already demon- strated per the known laws of physics that God exists, since the Big Bang singularity is the first cause, one of the ancient definitions of God held by all the Abrahamic religions. Let's set this up in a syllogysm: a. The laws of physics say there was a big bang. b. the big bang is the First Cause. c. all the Abrahamic religions hold that the definition of God is First Cause. d. Therefore, the Big Bang is God. e. But the big bang exists. f. therefore God exists. g. but we have used the laws of physics to reach this conclusion. h. therefore the laws of physics prove that God exists. I dunno, seems like he's got a rock solid case here. After all, the words First Cause are not used in two different senses inthis argument. Nor is the word "exists". Gotta hand it to you, Mr Redford.
Defining "God" simply as "first cause" means that "God" cannot be defined as anything else. So it does not follow from the proof that the Big Bang is/was jealous of all other Big Bangs, or that the Big Bang parted the Red Sea to let the Hebrews escape from Pharaoh, or that the Big Bang gave up Its only son to die on the cross for our sins, etc.
Additionally, the laws of physics have not proved in any way that a "Big Bang" actually occurred. Mainstream cosmology hypothesizes that it did, and points to certain observations as empirical evidence in favor of this hypothesis. That's in no way the same as a proof, which is necessarily logical.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
1. Reality exists ->
2. Causation exists ->
3. God exists!* ->
4. Give money!
*doesn't actually explain anything
That's in no way the same as a proof, which is necessarily logical.
Disclosure: I believe in God. I don't think He is the same as the Big Bang. I think the sylogysm I laid out, and therefore Mr Redford's book, is very flawed in several places.
That said, I'm surprised you wrote that. Only logical proof is proof? Do you deny induction? Do you not live your life 24/7, and are even willing to gamble your life, on inductive reasoning? [=this bridge is built on the principles of newtonian physics, which are inductively true, therefore I will drive across it with no hesitation, even though I'll fall off and die if Newton is wrong].
Smiling Dave:Disclosure: I believe in God. I don't think He is the same as the Big Bang. I think the sylogysm I laid out, and therefore Mr Redford's book, is very flawed in several places.
That's fine. But in your earlier post, it didn't sound to me like you thought the syllogism was flawed.
Smiling Dave:That said, I'm surprised you wrote that. Only logical proof is proof? Do you deny induction? Do you not live your life 24/7, and are even willing to gamble your life, on inductive reasoning? [=this bridge is built on the principles of newtonian physics, which are inductively true, therefore I will drive across it with no hesitation, even though I'll fall off and die if Newton is wrong].
It's an equivocation to use the word "proof" to refer to both inductive and deductive reasoning, so I use it to refer only to the latter. Inductive reasoning is never certain, and therefore neither is science.
I explicitly pointed out two flaws in the syllogysm in the very same post that contained it.
Where? Maybe I missed them.
That article just shows that man can make anything seem plausible and official. Just as long as it sounds remotely comprehensible and has sufficient levels of jargon.
There is no direct evidence for a big bang or singularity. In fact looking at the observable universe one can see what is often described as an organic process. It would seem far more plausible to be in a growing universe rather than a universe that came to an advanced form or a significantly advanced form from nothingness. It would seem far more reasonable to come to the conclusion that the universes growth is sporadic in cosmic distance terms.
I would also like to hear the authors opinion on whether he agrees with the growing planet theory or if he believes in Continental Drift and Plate Tectonic theory?
On the nature of god, If god is everywhere and everything and a Omega Point. Then that must mean that he is evil as well.
7.4.1 The Problem of Evil It may be wondered why, since God can perform miracles using the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism allowed by the known laws of physics, He does not simply materialize a fully-developed sapient self-replicating spacecraft, thereby doing an endrun around the painful early stages of the evolutionary process. The reason God cannot do this is because this would create a logically paradoxical strange loop whereby the knowledge of good and evil doesn’t exist in existence, thereby setting the stage for the destruction of existence due to evil being generated by a highly advanced society: as the universe’s Taublike collapses in different directions require a high level of cooperation among the far-future sapient beings, and hence a highly complex free-market economy, of which could not exist if evil were allowed to grow without restraint.103 The only reason God knows of evil is because evil actually exists in the early part of the multiverse—that is to say, God knows of evil because God knows the beginning to the end. Existence has no choice but to go through a stage of pain and suffering in its early period in order for existence to learn of good and evil before evil becomes powerful enough to destroy existence itself.104 Accordingly, it appears that only the minimum of miraculous intervention is performed by God—which can still be quite extensive—in order to ensure the universe’s evolution into the Omega Point, and therefore to ensure the very existence of existence. Although ultimately existence is itself a divine miracle according to the known laws of physics.105 102Cf. John 10:30; 14:6–13. 103Which is to say that existence itself selects which ethics is correct in order for existence to exist. In mankind’s life on Earth, humanity can be at each other’s throats in large-scale internecine feuding, yet so long as a genetically-viable breeding population continues on then mankind can survive. Whereas during the Taublike collapses, if a significant portion of the population goes rogue then it would terminally disrupt the collapse cycles, destroying existence itself. The closer the Omega Point is approached, the greater the free-market cooperation will have to be. For this reason, the social ethics selected by existence is that of the Golden Rule, which in the form of legal ethics is the Nonaggression Principle.45
102Cf. John 10:30; 14:6–13. 103Which is to say that existence itself selects which ethics is correct in order for existence to exist. In mankind’s life on Earth, humanity can be at each other’s throats in large-scale internecine feuding, yet so long as a genetically-viable breeding population continues on then mankind can survive. Whereas during the Taublike collapses, if a significant portion of the population goes rogue then it would terminally disrupt the collapse cycles, destroying existence itself. The closer the Omega Point is approached, the greater the free-market cooperation will have to be. For this reason, the social ethics selected by existence is that of the Golden Rule, which in the form of legal ethics is the Nonaggression Principle.45
haha, i love this: The reason God cannot do this is because this would create a logically paradoxical strange loop whereby the knowledge of good and evil doesn’t exist in existence
How do you know that evil would eventually take over the planet and destroy existence. Seems very unlikely, what exactly is stopping evil from doing it now? You also mix up free market economics in with your theory and it sounds a bit distorted to be honest. You are also referring to the far future and making theories about it based on your own assumptions about the universe.
What a load of non sense.
"Good Lord, this thread gonna be fun! As a closet christian homosexual I am very interested in such proofs."
It's true, admitting you're a christian is a pretty embarassing thing to have to do.
See Sec. 7.1: "The Haecceities of God" of the article.
BTW, should the churches dump the symbolism of the cross and pray to a picture of a Big Bang instead? ""
Hi, Smiling Dave. By your reply apparently you found everything that I wrote to be correct (literally speaking--not sarcastically speaking), given that you felt the need to misrepresent the article's arguments. Your "syllogysm" is not anywhere to be found in the article. In fact, in Sec. 7.1: "The Haecceities of God", I specifically state that the First Cause in the abstract sense might not necessarily entail identification with God: "" Yet another traditional definition of God is the creator of all reality, which means that all causal chains begin with God. According to the Big Bang cosmology, all causal chains start at the initial singularity, which is the first cause. In the abstract sense, the first cause might not necessarily entail identification with God, since one might abstractly imagine that the first cause doesn't have the other properties of God. But in the concrete sense of the known laws of physics, the first cause logically requires a state of infinite mind, i.e., the Big Bang initial singularity cannot exist per the known physical laws without the Omega Point final singularity. As well, the initial singularity is a different aspect of the final singularity. ""
It's actually the Omega Point final singularity which has the haecceities of God, which I detail in the aforesaid Sec. 7.1. Below is the first paragraph from that section:
"" 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 definitions of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God. ""
I go on in that section to elaborate on the crucial haecceity of God, that of a state of infinite mind which knows everything that is logically possible to know.
In Sec. 3.1: "The Omega Point" I give the mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) that the universe must end in the Omega Point.
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 cosmology 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 science and physics journals 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. http://www.webcitation.org/64KHgOccs (First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.)
* 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.
* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 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://www.webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz
* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T. http://www.webcitation.org/64Uskd785
* 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://www.webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5
* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998). http://www.webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS
* 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://www.webcitation.org/5zPq69I0O Full proceedings volume: http://www.webcitation.org/5zPsZWvmz
* 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, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T. http://www.webcitation.org/5vQ3M8uxB
* 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://www.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
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://www.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. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)
For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper in addition to the following resources:
James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 13, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://theophysics.chimehost.net/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://www.webcitation.org/64it5yg8x
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.chimehost.net , http://theophysics.host56.com , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com
The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists 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) correctly describing and unifying 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.
Hi, Smiling Dave. By your reply apparently you found everything that I wrote to be correct (literally speaking--not sarcastically speaking), given that you felt the need to misrepresent the article's arguments. Your "syllogysm" is not anywhere to be found in the article. In fact, in Sec. 7.1: "The Haecceities of God", I specifically state that the First Cause in the abstract sense might not necessarily entail identification with God:
"" Yet another traditional definition of God is the creator of all reality, which means that all causal chains begin with God. According to the Big Bang cosmology, all causal chains start at the initial singularity, which is the first cause. In the abstract sense, the first cause might not necessarily entail identification with God, since one might abstractly imagine that the first cause doesn't have the other properties of God. But in the concrete sense of the known laws of physics, the first cause logically requires a state of infinite mind, i.e., the Big Bang initial singularity cannot exist per the known physical laws without the Omega Point final singularity. As well, the initial singularity is a different aspect of the final singularity. ""
* 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.)
* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 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.
* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T.
* 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.
* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998).
* 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.
* 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. Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T.
* 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. 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. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.
* 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. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.
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.)
James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), January 13, 2012 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp.
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist.
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.
All religions have a creation myth, they could all in some way be proved by science. There's a Big Bang in the Poetic Edda (the creation myth is strikingly similar in ways to the Big Bang, more so than what's in the Bible, so take that). The point? That people 2,000-3,000 years ago if not longer had a good conception of how the universe works that became projected from their own minds into the religions they followed. ""
I see that you're an adherent of epistemological relativism, which is the logical fallacy that truth is either infinitely malleable, utterly irrelevant, nonexistent, or unknowable. Yet on the contrary, truth exists, it is knowable, and it is independent of what anyone thinks or feels about it.
Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology.
James Redford: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 cosmology 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. [Emphasis added.]
This appears to be an argument from ignorance. The absence of any refutation of a hypothesis or theory does not constitute evidence, let alone proof, that the hypothesis or theory is irrefutable.
And regardless of whether we "know" the Universe will eventually collapse, what is the Universe's "processor speed"... and relative to what? ""
Hi, Josh. Your reading comprehension skills are in need of amelioration. The following is the paragraph which immediately proceeds the paragraph from which you extracted your quoted text:
"" The Omega Point cosmology by Tulane University professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler 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 [433–437, 439–441, 443]. The theorem is an integral part of the Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known physical laws [437, 441, 443]. ""
See also my post previous to my previous post above.
Regarding your question, the universe's processor speed will diverge to infinity relative to proper time.
This appears to be an argument from ignorance. The absence of any refutation of a hypothesis or theory does not constitute evidence, let alone proof, that the hypothesis or theory is irrefutable. ""
The mathematics itself isn't refutable, otherwise it wouldn't be a mathematical theorem. But if it were shown that the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, or Quantum Mechanics were false, then the theorem wouldn't apply to the actual physics of the universe. These physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the only way to reject the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. 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, the laws of physics have not proved in any way that a "Big Bang" actually occurred. Mainstream cosmology hypothesizes that it did, and points to certain observations as empirical evidence in favor of this hypothesis. That's in no way the same as a proof, which is necessarily logical. ""
Hi, Autolykos. Actually, Smiling Dave was elaborating on a phantasm of his own creation. Since you're interested in what my position is on this matter, then read the article that I wrote about it. That's what I wrote it for.
Regarding your second paragraph, your statement therein couldn't be more false. The Big Bang cosmology is a mathematical theorem per General Relativity, which was demonstrated with the Penrose–Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems that are discussed in Sec. 5: "The Big Bang" of my following article.
I would also like to hear the authors opinion on whether he agrees with the growing planet theory or if he believes in Continental Drift and Plate Tectonic theory? ""
Hi, Jack Roberts. The idea of an evolving universe is what the Omega Point cosmology is. It is the existential fact of evolution taken to its logical conclusion.
"" On the nature of god, If god is everywhere and everything and a Omega Point. Then that must mean that he is evil as well.
What a load of non sense. ""
Traditional Christian theology maintains that God can do anything which does not involve a logical contradiction. As I point out in the quote you provide, it is not logically possible for all evil to be avoided in the multiverse. But we are at a very early proper-time stage of the universe's evolution, and are very near the time of technological transformation into immortality and the foundation of Heaven on Earth, after which there will be no more death or suffering. The pleasurable experiences generated will be a set of infinitely greater probability (in the sense of random selection across the entirety of existence) than the painful experiences, and thus in the measure theoretic sense God is totally good.
This along with your mildly snarky attitude leads me to believe you are just a crank. Internet's full of 'em. ""
I notice that many people try to clairvoyantly divine what the contents of this article are without actually reading it for themselves. Sometimes these people will invent ad hoc and logically fallacious epistemic methodologies in an attempt to bolster their clairvoyant perceptions of the article's content.
The Omega Point Theory of Everything goes under different names. I often use "Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)" for all the components of it.
The following is the peer-reviewed paper on the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above 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.)
##########
As I said before, Josh, your reading comprehension skills are in need of amelioration. They would greatly benefit by stopping trying to clairvoyantly divine the contents of a work and instead actually read the work.
We've been over this in my previous response to you. Prof. Tipler's above paper on the Omega Point TOE is Reference 441 in my previous response to you, which is reproduced below.
"" Um, citation needed?
The Big Bang Never Happened.
Ergo, "God exists" is still a non-sequitir.
QED
</thread>
Clayton -
I notice that many people try to clairvoyantly divine what the contents of this article are without actually reading it for themselves.
Dude, get over yourself. There's a mountain of garbage ideas available on the interwebs - if that mountain were the Empire State Building, your little paper would be a speck of dust on the wall. If I feel like reading/seeing garbage, I will go to Google or YouTube and search up the garbage that catches my interest rather than listen to a baby boohoo about how people won't read his garbage.
Get a life.
Clayton
Clayton - ""
The Big Bang cosmology is a mathematical theorem per General Relativity, which was demonstrated with the Penrose–Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems that are discussed in Sec. 5: "The Big Bang" of my following article.
At any rate, you're replying to a phantasm of Smiling Dave's own creation, as the proof of God's existence per the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) isn't based upon the Big Bang.
""
Clayton ""
I see that you're another clairvoyant Knower. For you there is no need for scholarly discourse and rational discussion, as you can psychically divine what the truth is on this matter even though you know nothing about it.
I also see that you're an adherent of epistemological relativism, which is the logical fallacy that truth is either infinitely malleable, utterly irrelevant, nonexistent, or unknowable. Yet on the contrary, truth exists, it is knowable, and it is independent of what anyone thinks or feels about it.
How long does it take you to write one of those montrous tl;dr? My goodness...