The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Wait, so where is it proved that a Big Crunch will happen?

James Redford:

Hi, Gotlucky. I see that you're a particularly superstitious sort who goes out of your way to not understand something if understanding it would call down upon you the wrath of the demons which you act as if inhabit this article.

Hi james redford.  I see that you are a particularly dodgy sort who goes out of your way to not respond to something if responding to it would call down upon the wrath of the demons which you act as if inhabit this forum.

James Redford:

Others here have understood perfectly well what all of the above means, yet you act as if I'm speaking some strange, alien language. Forgive me if I don't wish to, in effect, get into an inane discussion of what the meaning of "is" is (to use President Bill Clinton's famous troll).

Cute.  I don't remember asking about the word "is".  I remember asking about "processor speed" and "memory" and "computational capacity", among other things.

James Redford:

The trouble with you is not that you don't understand what is being said above--as indeed, you understand it perfectly well, as indicated by the rhetorical questions you posed, which clearly show that you understood perfectly well what was beng said, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said--but that you want to pretend to yourself and others that you do not understand. I have no great desire to support people's psychological pathologies by getting into inane discussions with them.

The trouble with you is not that you don't understand what my questions were above--as indeed, you understand them perfectly well, as indicated by your lack of response to my questions, which clearly show that you understood perfectly well what was being asked, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being asked--but that you want to pretend to yourself and others that you do not understand.  I have no great desire to support people's psychological pathologies by getting into inane discussions with them.  Well, I was trying to humor you in this thread with actual questions, so I suppose that last sentence, strictly speaking, isn't true.  But you get the idea.

James Redford:

If you have a genuine question to ask, and not some jejune rhetorical question which you merely ask as a pscyhological rationalization to yourself for why you're supposed to not understand clear English, then I'll be happy to answer it after you read the entire article.

I asked genuine questions.  I will repost for your own ease:

gotlucky:

Wait, what?!  Where is this processor speed and memory in the universe?  What computational capacity?

gotlucky:

Wait, what?  How can the universe be omniscient?  How can it know anything?  How can the universe wield power?  Does the Earth have power?  In what sense are you even using the word power?  I'll grant you that the universe is omnipresent, but isn't that the definition of the universe - that it is everything?

Frankly, I'm a little surprised you decided to not expand upon and defend your ideas from these questions.  After all, they are not complex questions.

Wheylous wrote the following post at Wed, Apr 18 2012 11:54 PM:

Wait, so where is it proved that a Big Crunch will happen?

 

Reading is fundamental. But obviously many people don't wish to take a trip along the reading rainbow. Instead, I suppose they're just wating for a drug for the government to develop whereby they can obtain knowledge by injection. I guess if McDonald's doesn't serve it, it isn't worth feculence.

 

As I said before, which I suppose only the reading-types would have picked up on, if any such exist: For why the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) logically require the Omega Point cosmology, see Sec. 3: "Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology", Subsec. 3.1: "The Omega Point", and also see App. A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" of my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

gotlucky wrote the following post at Thu, Apr 19 2012 12:06 AM:

James Redford:

Hi, Gotlucky. I see that you're a particularly superstitious sort who goes out of your way to not understand something if understanding it would call down upon you the wrath of the demons which you act as if inhabit this article.

Hi james redford.  I see that you are a particularly dodgy sort who goes out of your way to not respond to something if responding to it would call down upon the wrath of the demons which you act as if inhabit this forum.

James Redford:

Others here have understood perfectly well what all of the above means, yet you act as if I'm speaking some strange, alien language. Forgive me if I don't wish to, in effect, get into an inane discussion of what the meaning of "is" is (to use President Bill Clinton's famous troll).

Cute.  I don't remember asking about the word "is".  I remember asking about "processor speed" and "memory" and "computational capacity", among other things.

James Redford:

The trouble with you is not that you don't understand what is being said above--as indeed, you understand it perfectly well, as indicated by the rhetorical questions you posed, which clearly show that you understood perfectly well what was beng said, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said--but that you want to pretend to yourself and others that you do not understand. I have no great desire to support people's psychological pathologies by getting into inane discussions with them.

The trouble with you is not that you don't understand what my questions were above--as indeed, you understand them perfectly well, as indicated by your lack of response to my questions, which clearly show that you understood perfectly well what was being asked, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being asked--but that you want to pretend to yourself and others that you do not understand.  I have no great desire to support people's psychological pathologies by getting into inane discussions with them.  Well, I was trying to humor you in this thread with actual questions, so I suppose that last sentence, strictly speaking, isn't true.  But you get the idea.

James Redford:

If you have a genuine question to ask, and not some jejune rhetorical question which you merely ask as a pscyhological rationalization to yourself for why you're supposed to not understand clear English, then I'll be happy to answer it after you read the entire article.

I asked genuine questions.  I will repost for your own ease:

gotlucky:

Wait, what?!  Where is this processor speed and memory in the universe?  What computational capacity?

gotlucky:

Wait, what?  How can the universe be omniscient?  How can it know anything?  How can the universe wield power?  Does the Earth have power?  In what sense are you even using the word power?  I'll grant you that the universe is omnipresent, but isn't that the definition of the universe - that it is everything?

Frankly, I'm a little surprised you decided to not expand upon and defend your ideas from these questions.  After all, they are not complex questions.

 

Again, others here understood perfectly well what your previous quotes of me meant. Your own questions demonstrated that you understood it perfectly well, too, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said. So I have no desire to play this inane game with you.

James Redford:

Sorry, Gotlucky. But a have no desire to entertain a psychopath. Surely there's a government school near you where you can harass some school children. That would surely be a far more productive use of your time.

Seems I struck a nerve.

James Redford:

Again, others here understood perfectly well what your previous quotes of me meant. Your own questions demonstrated that you understood it perfectly well, too, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said. So I have no desire to play this stupid game with you.

Look.  You made a claim about "the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage)".  I asked you where these things were.  Instead of responding with a relevant answer, you resort to ad hominems, e.g. psychopath.  I also asked, among other things, "how can the universe be omniscient?"  Same response.

So, where does that leave me?  Well, I guess there really isn't much else to say here except that you are a nutcase who doesn't respond well under pressure.  When pressed in debates, people like Walter Block or Ron Paul don't run around calling people psychopaths.  Instead, they explain their ideas, even if they have to repeat themselves.

James Redford:

Perhaps find some animals you can torture. That would be more fulfilling in the end, as you would soon enough tire of this conversation at any rate.

Is this what you normally do when you tire of conversations?

[hands gotlucky a tinfoil hat]

gotlucky wrote the following post at Thu, Apr 19 2012 12:42 AM:

James Redford:

Sorry, Gotlucky. But a have no desire to entertain a psychopath. Surely there's a government school near you where you can harass some school children. That would surely be a far more productive use of your time.

Seems I struck a nerve.

James Redford:

Again, others here understood perfectly well what your previous quotes of me meant. Your own questions demonstrated that you understood it perfectly well, too, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said. So I have no desire to play this stupid game with you.

Look.  You made a claim about "the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage)".  I asked you where these things were.  Instead of responding with a relevant answer, you resort to ad hominems, e.g. psychopath.  I also asked, among other things, "how can the universe be omniscient?"  Same response.

So, where does that leave me?  Well, I guess there really isn't much else to say here except that you are a nutcase who doesn't respond well under pressure.  When pressed in debates, people like Walter Block or Ron Paul don't run around calling people psychopaths.  Instead, they explain their ideas, even if they have to repeat themselves.

James Redford:

Perhaps find some animals you can torture. That would be more fulfilling in the end, as you would soon enough tire of this conversation at any rate.

Is this what you normally do when you tire of conversations?

 

A psychopath etymologically is simply someone who has a psychological pathology.

 

You're playing a game here which has no winners, except those who choose to not play. And you have a sadistic streak, as you wish to involve me in this inane game of yours.

 

Again, others here understood perfectly well what your previous quotes of me meant. Your own questions demonstrated that you understood it perfectly well, too, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said.

 

If you truly didn't understand what was meant, then the sane thing to do was to continue reading the article, as the whole point of the article is to explain such matters.

 

But your questions put to me were hostile, clearly showing that they were not genuine questions but merely rhetorical, with your mind already made up pertaining to passages that you understood perfectly well. What sort of insanity does a person have to be suffering under in order to expect to receive a warm reception when such a hostile attitude is presented? You even said "WTF?", which is an acronym for "what the fuck?" And after using such hostile language with me you have the nerve to here call me a "nutcase" because I didn't take kindly to your abuse?

 

So in your book, not being a glutton for punishment makes me a "nutcase". Hence the reason why you are a psychopath. I didn't say you were a particularly severe psychopath, or one that couldn't be reformed. Repentence is up to you. All mortal humans are psychopaths to one degree or another. The only reason I brought it up in your case is because of the sadistic semantics-game you were playing which it wasn't possibe for me to win, because even if I had answered your questions you could have simply posed more such questions in a never-ending series of inane posts. Your hostilty toward me and verbal abuse with me already demonstrated that these were not genuine questions, but merely rhetorical, i.e., that you understood perfectly well what I said, but that you simply *disagreed* with what I said.

 

Even though you're playing a rhetorical game, see Sec. 3.3: "The Universal Resurrection of the Dead" and App. A: "The Bekenstein Bound" of my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" for the answer to your hostile rhetorical questions. Even though you understood perfectly well the semantics of what I said in your quotes of me, you are still in ignorance as to the physics of how it is possible.

 

It is said that there is no such thing as a stupid question. But that is a stupid statement. All questions asked rhetorically and hostily are stupid, since the point of such questions is not to obtain knowledge, as such hostile rhetorical questions assume that there is no knowledge to be obtained from the one to whom they are posed. Instead, the point of such hostile rhetorical questions is simply to hector the person to whom they are posed.

 

So even though you are playing a rhetorical game here, your point in playing it was that you assumed that I had no knowledge to impart. I do, far beyond what you could have imagined. You don't rightly deserve what I've just imparted to you, but God is good to the evil and unjust, and so I will be too. I don't figure you will be grateful for what I've just imparted to you, just as you were unthankful and unkind to me for being good enough to put so much effort in attempting to educate people about such matters.

 

I do this for people and mostly I get unending abuse. Not that I'm actually complaining that much, as I pretty much expected this behavior from people. I'm too much a student of humanity to have expected otherwise.

Smiling Dave wrote the following post at Thu, Apr 19 2012 1:12 AM:

[hands gotlucky a tinfoil hat]

 

Now he can join you in wearing one. It's great that you realize who possesses and wears tinfoil hats. I didn't expect this much honesty and self-awareness from you.

James Redford:

A psychopath etymologically is simply someone who has a psychological pathology.

I see what you did there, because, you see, psychopath does not actually mean "suffering soul".  The word has a specific meaning in English, one which you chose not to use.  It would be as if you called me "gay" and then said, "I'm not really calling you 'homosexual' because it really means 'happy'".

James Redford:

You're playing a game here which has no winners, except those who choose to not play. And you have a sadistic streak, as you wish to involve me in this inane game of yours.

I was actually playing, have a question and ask it, but then you went and changed the rules and started name calling.

James Redford:

Again, others here understood perfectly well what your previous quotes of me meant. Your own questions demonstrated that you understood it perfectly well, too, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said.

Okay, I have no idea what you are talking about now.  Are you mad from when I said you wrote posts that were way too long for people to actually read?  Because that was literally months ago.  Now that I am asking you questions about your work, you get upset.  So touchy.

James Redford:

If you truly didn't understand what was meant, then the sane thing to do was to continue reading the article, as the whoe point of the article is to explain such matters.

Most people define their terms when they are used.  I ran a search of your article for the terms "processor" and "memory", and they appear 8 and 5 times, respectively.  It not one of those times do you actually define what you mean by those terms.  You mention it in terms of other things, but you never define them.

So, what's the point of getting all pissy at me wondering what your terms mean when you don't define them?  Am I supposed to be a mind-reader?

James Redford:

But your questions put to me were hostile, clearly showing that they were not genuine questions but merely rhetorical, with your mind already made up pertaining to passages that you understood perfectly well. What sort of insanity does a person have to be suffering under in order to expect to receive a warm reception when such a hostile attitude is presented? You even said "WTF?", which is an acronym for "what the fuck?" And after using such hostile language with me you have the nerve to here call me a "nutcase" because I didn't take kindly to your abuse?

Thank you for explaining what "WTF" means.  I had absolutely no idea what it meant.  *rolls eyes*

Look, regardless of the manner in which they were asked, they were legitimate questions that you answered with insults.  Some academic you are.  Furthermore, the insults that you hurled were far greater than anything I had said to you.  And you are supposed to be a Christian?  So much for turning the other cheek.

James Redford:

So in your book, not being a glutton for punishment makes me a "nutcase". Hence the reason why you are a psychopath. I didn't say you were a particularly severe psychopath, or one that couldn't be reformed. Repentence is up to you. All mortal humans are psychopaths to one degree or another. The only reason I brought it up in your case is because of the sadistic semantics-game you were playing which it wasn't possibe for me to win, because even if I had answered your questions you could have simply posed more such questions in a never-ending series of inane posts. Your hostilty toward me and verbal abuse with me already demonstrated that these were not genuine questions, but merely rhetorical, i.e., that you understood perfectly well what I said, but that you simply *disagreed* with what I said.

No.  You are a nutcase because you respond to legitimate questions with insults.  Furthermore, you have no idea what the word psychopath actually means.  And since you did not actually answer my questions in your paper, as you left those words UNDEFINED, I see no reason why you should think they are rhetorical questions.  Actually, you should thank me for pointing it out, because now you have the chance to refine and fix your paper by ACTUALLY PROVIDING DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS YOU USE.  But that's only if you are actually trying to be academically honest.

James Redford:

Even though you're playing a rhetorical game, see Sec. 3.3: "The Universal Resurrection of the Dead" and App. A: "The Bekenstein Bound" of my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" for the answer to your hostile rhetorical questions. Even though you understood perfectly well the semantics of what I said in your quotes of me, you are still in ignorance as to the physics of how it is possible.

Nope.  I actually had read these sections on my original skim of your paper, and guess what?  These did not actually contain the definitions of the words I asked about?  Holy crap.

James Redford:

It is said that there is no such thing as a stupid question. But that is a stupid statement. All questions asked rhetorically and hostily are stupid, since the point of such questions is not to obtain knowledge, as such hostile rhetorical questions assume that there is no knowledge to be obtained from the one to whom they are posed. Instead, the point of such hostile rhetorical questions is simply to hector the person to whom they are posed.

"Blah, blah, blah.  I have no desire to define the terms I'm using in my paper. Blah, blah, blah."

James Redford:

So even though you are playing rhetorical game here, your point in playing it was that you assumed that I had no knowledge to impart. I do, far beyond what you could have imagined. You don't rightly deserve what I've just imparted to you, but God is good to the evil and unjust, and so I will be too. I don't figure you will be grateful for what I've just imparted to you, just as you were unthankful and unkind to me for being good enough to put so much effort in attempting to educate people about such matters.

Do you realize that in the time it took you to be so massively self-righteous enough to compare yourself with God that you could have actually defined the terms that you use in your paper when you haven't actually done so?

James Redford:

I do this for people and mostly I get unending abuse. Not that I'm actually complaining that much, as I pretty much expected this behavior from people. I'm too much a student of humanity to have expected otherwise.

There's that self-righteousness again.  Maybe you would be interested in defining the terms that you use that you don't define in your paper?

gotlucky wrote the following post at Thu, Apr 19 2012 2:14 AM:

James Redford:

A psychopath etymologically is simply someone who has a psychological pathology.

I see what you did there, because, you see, psychopath does not actually mean "suffering soul".  The word has a specific meaning in English, one which you chose not to use.  It would be as if you called me "gay" and then said, "I'm not really calling you 'homosexual' because it really means 'happy'".

James Redford:

You're playing a game here which has no winners, except those who choose to not play. And you have a sadistic streak, as you wish to involve me in this inane game of yours.

I was actually playing, have a question and ask it, but then you went and changed the rules and started name calling.

James Redford:

Again, others here understood perfectly well what your previous quotes of me meant. Your own questions demonstrated that you understood it perfectly well, too, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said.

Okay, I have no idea what you are talking about now.  Are you mad from when I said you wrote posts that were way too long for people to actually read?  Because that was literally months ago.  Now that I am asking you questions about your work, you get upset.  So touchy.

James Redford:

If you truly didn't understand what was meant, then the sane thing to do was to continue reading the article, as the whoe point of the article is to explain such matters.

Most people define their terms when they are used.  I ran a search of your article for the terms "processor" and "memory", and they appear 8 and 5 times, respectively.  It not one of those times do you actually define what you mean by those terms.  You mention it in terms of other things, but you never define them.

So, what's the point of getting all pissy at me wondering what your terms mean when you don't define them?  Am I supposed to be a mind-reader?

James Redford:

But your questions put to me were hostile, clearly showing that they were not genuine questions but merely rhetorical, with your mind already made up pertaining to passages that you understood perfectly well. What sort of insanity does a person have to be suffering under in order to expect to receive a warm reception when such a hostile attitude is presented? You even said "WTF?", which is an acronym for "what the fuck?" And after using such hostile language with me you have the nerve to here call me a "nutcase" because I didn't take kindly to your abuse?

Thank you for explaining what "WTF" means.  I had absolutely no idea what it meant.  *rolls eyes*

Look, regardless of the manner in which they were asked, they were legitimate questions that you answered with insults.  Some academic you are.  Furthermore, the insults that you hurled were far greater than anything I had said to you.  And you are supposed to be a Christian?  So much for turning the other cheek.

James Redford:

So in your book, not being a glutton for punishment makes me a "nutcase". Hence the reason why you are a psychopath. I didn't say you were a particularly severe psychopath, or one that couldn't be reformed. Repentence is up to you. All mortal humans are psychopaths to one degree or another. The only reason I brought it up in your case is because of the sadistic semantics-game you were playing which it wasn't possibe for me to win, because even if I had answered your questions you could have simply posed more such questions in a never-ending series of inane posts. Your hostilty toward me and verbal abuse with me already demonstrated that these were not genuine questions, but merely rhetorical, i.e., that you understood perfectly well what I said, but that you simply *disagreed* with what I said.

No.  You are a nutcase because you respond to legitimate questions with insults.  Furthermore, you have no idea what the word psychopath actually means.  And since you did not actually answer my questions in your paper, as you left those words UNDEFINED, I see no reason why you should think they are rhetorical questions.  Actually, you should thank me for pointing it out, because now you have the chance to refine and fix your paper by ACTUALLY PROVIDING DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS YOU USE.  But that's only if you are actually trying to be academically honest.

James Redford:

Even though you're playing a rhetorical game, see Sec. 3.3: "The Universal Resurrection of the Dead" and App. A: "The Bekenstein Bound" of my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" for the answer to your hostile rhetorical questions. Even though you understood perfectly well the semantics of what I said in your quotes of me, you are still in ignorance as to the physics of how it is possible.

Nope.  I actually had read these sections on my original skim of your paper, and guess what?  These did not actually contain the definitions of the words I asked about?  Holy crap.

James Redford:

It is said that there is no such thing as a stupid question. But that is a stupid statement. All questions asked rhetorically and hostily are stupid, since the point of such questions is not to obtain knowledge, as such hostile rhetorical questions assume that there is no knowledge to be obtained from the one to whom they are posed. Instead, the point of such hostile rhetorical questions is simply to hector the person to whom they are posed.

"Blah, blah, blah.  I have no desire to define the terms I'm using in my paper. Blah, blah, blah."

James Redford:

So even though you are playing rhetorical game here, your point in playing it was that you assumed that I had no knowledge to impart. I do, far beyond what you could have imagined. You don't rightly deserve what I've just imparted to you, but God is good to the evil and unjust, and so I will be too. I don't figure you will be grateful for what I've just imparted to you, just as you were unthankful and unkind to me for being good enough to put so much effort in attempting to educate people about such matters.

Do you realize that in the time it took you to be so massively self-righteous enough to compare yourself with God that you could have actually defined the terms that you use in your paper when you haven't actually done so?

James Redford:

I do this for people and mostly I get unending abuse. Not that I'm actually complaining that much, as I pretty much expected this behavior from people. I'm too much a student of humanity to have expected otherwise.

There's that self-righteousness again.  Maybe you would be interested in defining the terms that you use that you don't define in your paper?

 

I used the term psychopath in the common English sense of the term, because that is what you are. You have a definite sadistic streak. Your first post in this thread was hostile to me, and your first post to me in this thread after skimming a little of my relevant article was hostile and abusive toward me. Now you're calling me insane because I didn't take kindly to your hostility and abuse. It is a common feature of psychopaths to blame their victims when their victims have a problem with their abuse.

 

Regarding your false claim that I didn't define my terms, I used no terms that needed defining within the article other than terms that I in fact define in the article. The terms  used in the quotes you provided of me were not used in some peculiar sense unique to this article. I have a Glossary in the article for terms which I thought it important to provide explanation on, due to the general public's unfamiliarity with them or because of popular misunderstandings of them. But very few books, even technical books, even have a glossary.

 

So unless I was using words in a peculiar sense, then it would be nonstandard to define them in this article. Have you never read a book or article before? You here act as if you haven't.

 

What's even stranger is that you apparently aren't even familiar with the concept of footnotes, as indicated by your below comment:

 

The Haecceities of God:

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.75 Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

 

Wait, what?  How can the universe be omniscient?  How can it know anything?  How can the universe wield power?  Does the Earth have power?  In what sense are you even using the word power?  I'll grant you that the universe is omnipresent, but isn't that the definition of the universe - that it is everything?

 

That number 75 is to a footnote where a number of your above questions are answered, and your other questions are answered in the very section which you take the above quote from. See also Sec. 3.3: "The Universal Resurrection of the Dead" and App. A: "The Bekenstein Bound" of my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" for even deeper physical answers to your hostile rhetorical questions.

 

But as your post from which I take the above quote of you demonstrates, you weren't asking genuine questions, as you didn't expect there to be answers: they were asked rhetorically and hostilely. Again, others here understood perfectly well what your previous quotes of me meant. Your own questions demonstrated that you understood it perfectly well, too, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said. Yet you make a pretence to the contrary here. Shameless lying even when caught is another trait of psychopathy.

 

Again, I didn't say that you were a particularly severe psychopath. You are more severe in this than the average human, though. All mortal humans are psychopaths to one degree or another (and, yes, I mean here psychopathy in the common sense). You can reform yourself if you want to, but right now it doesn't appear that you have any interest in doing so.

James Redford:

That doesn't logically follow in the least bit. Your above statement is the logcal fallacy of non sequitur.

For you to say that means you don't fully understand logic. If I use the term "proof" instead of "chain of reasoning", does that make what I'm saying any clearer for you?

James Redford:

Hypothetically it's possible for almost everything that I've said in this thread to be logically invalid and yet for almost everything that I've said in my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" (which for some superstitious reason you are afraid to read) to be logically valid.

In my last post, I was referring only to what you've said in your article. I thought that was clear.

James Redford:

But as you realize yourself here, you haven't disproven anything that I've said, let alone anything critical to the Omega Point Theorem, otherwise you would have spared no effort to make known this phantasm [sic] of disproof in your above post. Yet you remain strangely silent about actually explicating it in the above.

Please go back and read the first post I made in this thread.

James Redford:

Indeed, you write in the above, "Hence I don't need to actually read the entire article to (try to) do that." (Emphasis mine.) So apparently what you are attempting to say in the above is that you are attempting to come up with such a disproof by trolling [sic] this thread, and hence that people with morals oughtn't get upset with you for being a troll [sic] since you're simply trying to do your inane [sic] best to gin up [sic] something that you hope will psychologically excuse your deplorable [sic] behavior in this thread as well as providing you with a psychological rationalization as to why you needn't actually bother learning about this subject.

I included the phrase "try to" in parentheses to leave open the possibility of me making a mistake. Again, I thought that was clear.

With all due respect, Mr. Redford - however much that is at this point notwithstanding - whether you consider my behavior "deplorable" no longer matters to me. As far as I'm concerned, by this point you've abandoned all intellectual honesty in this thread. I consider this abandonment of intellectual honesty to be demonstrated by your resort to personal attacks.

James Redford:

But this is all to no end. The Omega Point comsology is a mathematical theorem. Nothing you can say or do can negate that. As well, nothing I can say or do can negate that. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem."

I certainly hope that quoting Stephen Hawking here isn't an appeal to authority. Aside from that, do you mean to say that the Omega Point cosmology is a valid (i.e. logically consistent) mathematical theorem? If so, and even if it really is, that doesn't make it true. The validity of any mathematical theorem as such is not dependent in any way upon empirical (i.e. observed) reality.

James Redford:

Minds far more brilliant than yours Other minds have long ago realized that it is impossible to get out from under the theological implications of the known laws of physics, which is why they are attempting to discard empirical science with such physical theories as String Theory and other proposed new laws of physcs, all of which violate the known laws of physics and which have no experimental support whatsoever. It is a reversion to Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon philosophical ideals. That is, if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

If these physics geniuses other minds have realized that rejection of God requires rejection of empirical science, then a superstitious [sic], inane [sic] troll [sic] like you stands no chance. ("[S]uperstitious" because you act like you're deathly afraid to do anything more than to simply skim short sections of the article, as if you will bring down upon you the wrath of some demon-god if you were to actually attempt to read and understand the article. Hence requiring you to propitiate this wrathful demon by making sure to only skim short sections of the article--not enough to actually understand it, as that would call down this vengeful god's might, and hence it is absolutely critical that you go out of your way to *not* understand it, and that at all costs. Indeed, the more deeply and thoroughly you can *misunderstand* it--particularly while pestering its author with inane cavils to no end--the more that you will placate this fallen god.)

Do you have any evidence (preferably in the form of actual statements) that the physicists who've developed String Theory and other new(er) physical theories have done so necessarily because of the alleged theological implications of the "known" (i.e. generally accepted) laws of physics? Do you even have evidence that all of those physicists are necessarily aware of these alleged theological implications?

Reading is fundamental. But obviously many people don't wish to take a trip along the reading rainbow. Instead, I suppose they're just wating for a drug for the government to develop whereby they can obtain knowledge by injection. I guess if McDonald's doesn't serve it, it isn't worth feculence.

I am glad that you respond like that to someone you've never even talked to before who asked a mere question but doesn't feel like reading a 130 page behemoth.

Also, why does one need to go even as far as your Omega Point cosmology to find the existence of something which "knows everything"? Why not just cut to the chase and say that the Universe itself is God and be done with it?

James Redford:

I used the term psychopath in the common English sense of the term, because that is what you are. You have a definite sadistic streak. Your first post in this thread was hostile to me, and your first post to me in this thread after skimming a little of my relevant article was hostile and abusive toward me. Now you're calling me insane because I didn't take kindly to your hostility and abuse. It is a common feature of psychopaths to blame their victims when their victims have a problem with their abuse.

That you call all humans psychopaths tells me you have no idea what it even means.

James Redford:

Regarding your false claim that I didn't define my terms, I used no terms that needed defining within the article other than terms that I in fact define in the article. The terms  used in the quotes you provided of me were not used in some peculiar sense unique to this article. I have a Glossary in the article for terms which I thought it important to provide explanation on, due to the general public's unfamiliarity with them or because of popular misunderstandings of them. But very few books, even technical books, even have a glossary.

Well, the fact of the matter is you did not define those particular terms, and you used them in a manner which is not typical of their usage.  When we talk of "processors" and "memories" and whatnot, we typically use that to refer to beings with brains.  When people use memory for something that does not have a brain, typically it is used metaphorically.  Is that what you are doing?  Using those terms metaphorically?  But then why would they have a place in a supposed scientific paper?

In addition, have you ever read a textbook before?  They define terms constantly.  Now, I understand that what you wrote was not a textbook, but you are posting your paper to a place where most people do not specialize in the topic you wrote about.  So, to not define your terms is rather dishonest of you, especially when those terms are used in different ways from which we typically use them.

To claim that the universe has a memory is a pretty bold claim.  Asking for you to explain yourself when you do not do so in your paper is a reasonable request, even if I hurt your precious feelings in the process.

James Redford:

So unless I was using words in a peculiar sense, then it would be nonstandard to define them in this article. Have you never read a book or article before? You here act as if you haven't.

Ah, but you were using them in a peculiar sense, as the universe is not an living being.  Rather, you are trying to prove it is an acting being by claiming that it is omniscient and omnipotent (of course Mises disproves this notion of even being possible).  You are treading very closely to begging the question, if you aren't actually doing it already.  You assume it is an living being, but you have offered no proof of that in the beginning of your paper.  You use terms that are used only for living beings.  The only two ways you could follow this up is to actually demonstrate how the universe is alive or that you were using the terms in a manner that is not typical of their usage.  You did not demonstrate that the universe is alive.  You did not define your terms.

Furthermore, many people use such statements as "I will demonstrate in such and such a section exactly how it is the case that the universe is alive".  But you do not do this.  You just make a bunch of assumptions and never really address them in the paper.  It is intellectually dishonest, and no wonder no one in the established world of physics takes you seriously.

You probably called all the physicists who rejected your paper psychopaths too.

James Redford:

That number 75 is to a footnote where a number of your above questions are answered, and your other questions are answered in the very section which you take the above quote from. See also Sec. 3.3: "The Universal Resurrection of the Dead" and App. A: "The Bekenstein Bound" of my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything" for even deeper physical answers to your hostile rhetorical questions.

No, you do not address my questions in these passages.  You do not use the terms "omniscient" and "omnipotent" in Appendix A, and you do not explain how the universe is omniscient or omnipotent in Section 3.3.  Again, you do not use those terms in section 3 either.  They appear in Sections 2 and 7, and omniscient appears once more in the glossary entry for miracle.  So, no, you do not address my questions.

James Redford:

But as your post from which I take the above quote of you demonstrates, you weren't asking genuine questions, as you didn't expect there to be answers: they were asked rhetorically and hostilely. Again, others here understood perfectly well what your previous quotes of me meant. Your own questions demonstrated that you understood it perfectly well, too, but that you simply didn't *like* what was being said. Yet you make a pretence to the contrary here. Shameless lying even when caught is another trait of psychopathy.

Okay.  So far you have refused to answer simple questions.  You have lied about the answer being in your paper.  I know this because I went looking for the answer, even after taking your direct advice to look in specific sections.  But they are not there.  I could give you the benefit of the doubt, but since you are so hostile to me and others here, I see no reason to do so.  I suspect you are lying when you say the answers are in those sections - because they are most certainly not.

Okay, I'll bite.  Who else here understands perfectly well what my previous quotes of you meant?  You keep referring to these others, but I have no idea to whom you are referring.  Please cite sources.  Otherwise I will have to conclude you are lying again.

Your shameless lying is a symptom of psychopathy.  Perhaps you should get some help.

James Redford:

Again, I didn't say that you were a particularly severe psychopath. You are more severe in this than the average human, though. All mortal humans are psychopaths to one degree or another (and, yes, I mean here psychopathy in the common sense). You can reform yourself if you want to, but right now it doesn't appear that you have any interest in doing so.

That you believe all humans to be psychopaths tells me you have no idea what it means.  That you are shamelessly lying about your paper tells me you intellectually dishonest, though I cannot know from this alone if you are also a psychopath.

I hope that you will define and explain the terms you used in your paper.  Again, you did not use them in a conventional manner, and you did not use the terms in your supposed explanations.  Hopefully you can move past all this ad hominem business of yours.

Oh, don't forget, you started the ad hominems.  There is a record of all the posts in this very thread.  You were the first one to start using insults between the two of us and I suspect probably in the entire thread too.  So, drop your self-righteousness and get to actually defining the terms you use.

 

My apologies for such a late reply, but the burst of recent thread activity delivered to my inbox made me wonder what I replied to in the first place. It's all coming back to me now....

James Redford:

""

And regardless of whether we "know" the Universe will eventually collapse, what is the Universe's "processor speed"... and relative to what?

""

 

Regarding your question, the universe's processor speed will diverge to infinity relative to proper time.

Ok, perhaps you were using the term "processor speed" to refer to the time variable's value in different reference frames compared to proper time, but I'm curious to know your explanation of "proper time" in this context and how its value could be determined relative to "the Universe." Statements like that, along with the following:

the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage)

... are leading me to suspect you don't have a particularly firm understanding of what constitutes an inertial system. If you can't explain your ideas without resorting to reified metaphors or acquiescence to the purported conclusions (let alone heterodox conclusions) of others, then you yourself don't even understand it. Groucho would of course change his opinion were you to demonstrate some principles, reasoning, and progression of thought  that made the ideas more compelling, or perhaps even used a well-articulated gedanken experiment.

-Groucho (formerly known as "Josh")

Groucho wrote the following post at Tue, Jan 24 2012 4:58 PM:

One overarching curiousity is why you would choose the Mises Institute forum (which as far as I can tell, is for discussions related to Austrian economics and the people, events, and issues that relate to it) as a place to invite criticism of your Omega physics thing.

I would think there are many more folks at the Physics Forums who would be able to discuss many of the technical points of your article in fine detail and with footnotes. Have you tried it?

I didn't post this article here in order to "invite criticism of [my] Omega physics thing." (You couldn't even get its name right or its attribution right, so little do you known about it, despite my having posted this article which explains it, of which article is the topic of this very thread. So it's rather clear that you didn't even bother reading the article before becoming upset about it.) As with Austrian economics when properly exposited, the only options are to either accept the truth, reject the truth, or to not comprehend the truth.

I posted this article here in order to explain existence to people, and to thereby save souls.

Regarding your second paragraph, I have posted this article to many physics forums.

10/10. Deserves to stay on the front page another month.

mustang19:

10/10. Deserves to stay on the front page another month.

Troll harder next time!

I have posted this article to many physics forums.

Links, or it never happened.

mustang19 wrote the following post at Thu, May 3 2012 10:00 PM:

10/10. Deserves to stay on the front page another month.

Correct, Mustang19.

This article explains to people the nature of existence and what is required of them in order for them to obtain an ultimately desirable outcome, i.e., in reference to the afterlife.

But many would rather scoff than obtain knowledge, and to thereby save themselves. So deep is their government inculcation that they would sooner hold on to their etatist upbringing on this matter and be damned rather than to save themselves. As the state has taught us all that only it deserves reverence. Even those who call themselves anarchists (even anarcho-capitalists) are often caught in the trap of hipsterism, which is the snarky dismissal of almost all things which are not supportive of the state.

Nothing is more dangerous to the state than the possibility that people might actually come to regard the state itself as being against God. And so the very idea of God as being outside of what the state grants us to believe is the ultimate heresy.

@James Redford

I'm still waiting for you to define the terms I asked you about.  In a previous post I stated that the parts you said explained the answers to my questions did not actually answer my questions.

If you continue to make false accusations against us in this thread, I will report you for trolling.

While I believe in God, it is purely by way of faith and intuition. There is no proof for God, nor should there be. Your scientific laws are not laws; they are merely inductive conclusions you decided to summarize as though you found the solution deductively. Also, the Big Bang cannot be God. The Big Bang is the stupidest explanation for anything I've ever heard of; naturally the scientists believe in it and not in God.

Nobody can comprehend the universe on a logical level due to causation. The uncaused cause is unknown--please leave all slippery slopes out of this. One thing we do know, though: we are not meant to know the origins (if there was any) of the universe because we do not know the origins of the universe. Otherwise, have fun playing with everything part of the universe you can sense. It's pretty fun not knowing where we came from or where we're going when you think about it. Life would be so boring with all the answers.

...we are not meant to know the origins (if there was any) of the universe because we do not know the origins of the universe.

How much logic have you studied?

 

gotlucky wrote the following post at Thu, May 10 2012 10:04 PM:

@James Redford

I'm still waiting for you to define the terms I asked you about.  In a previous post I stated that the parts you said explained the answers to my questions did not actually answer my questions.

If you continue to make false accusations against us in this thread, I will report you for trolling.

Report me for trolling? This is supposed to put fear into me, apparently.

If I were given to such fear then I would never have been able to write this article in the first place.

The whole point of this article is that it is a deprogramming gide to all the toxic mental waste which the government assaults us with from birth to death.

The terms I use in the article, if they be terms which could benefit with further explanation, are given elaboration within the article. There are technical physics terms which are used, but I still provide explanation for them in the article, while of course providing considerable references to the technical scientific literature should one desire even more insight.

At any rate, for more on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .

James Redford:

The terms I use in the article, if they be terms which could benefit from further explanation, are given elaboration within the article. There are technical physics terms which are used, but I still provide explanation for them in the article, while of course providing considerable references to the technical scientific literature should one desire even more insight.

Regarding the underlined, I listed the terms that did not have an explanation within the article.  You may have, in fact, defined most of your terms.  But the ones I named in a previous post were not defined.  You listed where the definitions occured, and after looking where you suggested, I found no such definitions.

Regarding the bold, that's great that you have given references elsewhere, but you should really just define the terms here that I requested, as you said they were defined, but they weren't.  And I don't see why I should start running around looking for definitions when you could just put them here.

Anyway, you needn't bother.  I don't expect you to honor my request.  And I really don't care anymore.  It would have been nice if you just defined the terms, as they hadn't been defined.  But it's been months, and I don't really care to look into it anymore.  If you want to define them so that others may look into it, then that's your choice.  But you needn't make the effort on my behalf.

Good day.

gotlucky wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 30 2012 1:10 AM:

James Redford:

The terms I use in the article, if they be terms which could benefit from further explanation, are given elaboration within the article. There are technical physics terms which are used, but I still provide explanation for them in the article, while of course providing considerable references to the technical scientific literature should one desire even more insight.

Regarding the underlined, I listed the terms that did not have an explanation within the article.  You may have, in fact, defined most of your terms.  But the ones I named in a previous post were not defined.  You listed where the definitions occured, and after looking where you suggested, I found no such definitions.

Regarding the bold, that's great that you have given references elsewhere, but you should really just define the terms here that I requested, as you said they were defined, but they weren't.  And I don't see why I should start running around looking for definitions when you could just put them here.

Anyway, you needn't bother.  I don't expect you to honor my request.  And I really don't care anymore.  It would have been nice if you just defined the terms, as they hadn't been defined.  But it's been months, and I don't really care to look into it anymore.  If you want to define them so that others may look into it, then that's your choice.  But you needn't make the effort on my behalf.

Good day.

Pardon me, but I don't know which are the terms that you wanted defined.

It's not as if I use language in a strange and secretive way. I certainly use words that most people aren't familiar with, but for the most part I use them in their dictionary sense (even if it be a science dictionary). If I deviate from some dictionary sense then I typically explain why it is that I am doing so while making clear what it is that I mean.

I am no trendy hipster who uses language in nebulous ways that can't be pinned-down because it shifts with every usage of it even within the same text, hence rendering it meaningless. I definitely use "big words" that most people aren't familiar with, but I use those words in concrete ways.

But I am quite familiar with the phenomenon of people disliking what I say, yet having no coherent rebuttal of it, and hence pretending that they are in ignorance of what I said due to some unclarity on my part.



For those who would like to learn about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .

James,

Long time no see. Has God spoken to you in the interim?

Smiling Dave wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 30 2012 1:36 AM:

James,

Long time no see. Has God spoken to you in the interim?

Of course, God speaks to me always. I am in communion with God. I am a tool which He uses. I am a biomechanical process formed for His usage.

But then, being a government-indoctrinated hipster trendy, obviously you scoff at that, even though the known laws of physics (which have been confirmed by every experiment to date) state that God apodictically must exist.

Karen De Coster has elaborated upon the phenomenon of what she has termed the "trained monkey" syndrome. Here I'll mention the phenomenon of "dumber than dirt" which I have observed. You see, dirt has an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of zero. So it might at first seem that it's not possible to be dumber than dirt, but in fact that is not actually the case. For dirt doesn't actively do anything to threaten its own existence in the ultimate sense. Yet many humans do. Such humans are literally dumber than dirt.

Such dumber-than-dirt humans would rather follow their government-inculcated programming that they have received since their birth and be eternally damned because of it rather than to free their minds and become full children of God. Full children of God who have been given dominion over the entire universe.


As I've said before, for those who would like to learn about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html

Asked and answered. Go away troll.

Nice find, Clayton.

 

Clayton wrote the following post at Sat, Jun 30 2012 3:46 AM:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html

Asked and answered. Go away troll.

Who are you referring to? If to me, then I cannot go away from my own thread. After all, it is my thread, and will remain so whatever I do or don't do.

Thus also, if you are referring to me, then I cannot possibly be a "troll", since this is my thread. If I were a "troll", then that would mean that you are making the choice to post on a troll's thread. But why would any sane person do such a thing?

The point here being is that you quite well know that I am no troll. Rather, you simply dislike what I am saying, yet you have no rational rebuttal to it, hence you merely have scare-words and insults in which to direct to me.


Regarding PanDeism's video reponse to Prof. Frank J. Tipler, of course all of existence is God. Tipler has never disputed that.

Regarding Graham Oppy, he really doesn't address Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology one way or another. His objections for the most part aren't objections to the Omega Point cosmology, but to his own imagination. Many of Oppy's criticisms concerned the uncertain nature of the Omega Point cosmology circa 1995, as if Oppy expected the Omega Point Theorem to be laid at his doorstep at that very instant. Instead, that would be presented in a few years hence.

We now have the Omega Point Theorem, i.e., the mathimatical proof per the known laws of physics (which have been confirmed by every experiment to date) that God exists.


To learn more about physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .