Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 20, 2025, 5:35 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Technological Immortality
#29
RE: Technological Immortality
(May 1, 2015 at 2:13 pm)LostLocke Wrote: I'm very curious as to what the force or mechanism is that will decelerate, stop, and reverse the expansion of the universe so that it will collapse into a singularity.
We know it won't be gravity. Gravity's already losing the battle right now. What would it be instead?

Hi, LostLocke. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model of particle physics, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But by sapient life annihilating the baryons in the universe via the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved), this will force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process will provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

For more on this, see my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

(May 1, 2015 at 2:15 pm)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: "I then go on to show how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to Christian theology"

Uhhhhh...WHAT?

As I was reading your original post, I was thinking if I look up this Tipler guy, I would find out he's some sort of pseudo-scientific man who tries to prove the existence of god and tries to gently lead you into christianity. Homeless Nutter did the work for me already though. Nice job!

Hi, Salacious B. Crumb.

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16 years, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point cosmology which occurred after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [p. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, No. 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (p. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on a simulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the simulation).

After the publication of Prof. Tipler's 1994 book The Physics of Immortality, the Omega Point cosmology was formulated as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Concerning the conformance and unique attributes of the Omega Point cosmology with Christianity, see my aforementioned "Physics of God" article, which details Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the aforesaid known laws of physics require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.
Author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761;

and "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", SSRN, Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, which details Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE).
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 12:25 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by FatAndFaithless - May 1, 2015 at 12:27 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Chas - May 1, 2015 at 12:29 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 12:37 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Chas - May 1, 2015 at 12:44 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by LostLocke - May 1, 2015 at 12:51 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 1:46 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by LostLocke - May 1, 2015 at 1:57 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 2:02 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by AFTT47 - May 1, 2015 at 5:39 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 12, 2015 at 2:23 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by dyresand - May 12, 2015 at 2:26 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by dyresand - May 12, 2015 at 1:54 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 12, 2015 at 2:46 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by dyresand - May 12, 2015 at 3:54 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 1:24 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Homeless Nutter - May 1, 2015 at 1:36 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Chas - May 1, 2015 at 7:17 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 12, 2015 at 2:38 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Homeless Nutter - May 1, 2015 at 12:49 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 12:30 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Esquilax - May 1, 2015 at 1:07 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 1:57 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Esquilax - May 1, 2015 at 4:59 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 12, 2015 at 1:57 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Mudhammam - May 1, 2015 at 3:11 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 12, 2015 at 1:51 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Homeless Nutter - May 1, 2015 at 12:36 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by AFTT47 - May 1, 2015 at 12:50 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 1:43 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by FatAndFaithless - May 1, 2015 at 1:08 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by FatAndFaithless - May 1, 2015 at 1:46 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by FatAndFaithless - May 1, 2015 at 1:48 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Homeless Nutter - May 1, 2015 at 1:53 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by FatAndFaithless - May 1, 2015 at 1:59 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 2:11 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Iroscato - May 1, 2015 at 2:03 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by LostLocke - May 1, 2015 at 2:13 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 1, 2015 at 2:23 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Exian - May 1, 2015 at 2:23 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by The Grand Nudger - May 1, 2015 at 2:45 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 12, 2015 at 1:47 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by Iroscato - May 1, 2015 at 3:13 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by AdamLOV - May 1, 2015 at 5:07 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by KevinM1 - May 1, 2015 at 5:32 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by AdamLOV - May 1, 2015 at 5:51 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by AFTT47 - May 1, 2015 at 6:12 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by KevinM1 - May 1, 2015 at 6:13 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by AdamLOV - May 1, 2015 at 6:29 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - May 12, 2015 at 2:06 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by dyresand - May 12, 2015 at 2:11 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by FatAndFaithless - May 12, 2015 at 1:49 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by LastPoet - May 12, 2015 at 2:00 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by LastPoet - May 12, 2015 at 2:34 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by dyresand - May 12, 2015 at 2:39 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by LastPoet - May 12, 2015 at 2:56 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by robvalue - May 12, 2015 at 3:44 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by AFTT47 - May 12, 2015 at 7:52 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by James Redford - June 19, 2015 at 9:59 pm
RE: Technological Immortality - by The Grand Nudger - June 19, 2015 at 11:01 pm



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)