Technological Immortality

[Esquilax]

---

Regarding how physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, Christian theology:

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 quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

Okay, so first of all? Bullshit. Bull-fucking-shit. In fact, you've completely tipped your hand here in the most hilarious of ways, because christian theology has a whole hell of a lot more than just those three qualities in it, doesn't it? The christian god does things, creates life, smites people, Jesus-es it up, and none of that is contained within what you just said. What you've actually presented here, at best, precisely matches deist theology, not specifically christian theology, and in fact could be used as support for any other god claim out there, since all other gods tend to have the same attributes. The fact that you've made this enormous leap to claiming that it supports the christian god specifically shows that this isn't about following the evidence where it leads at all, but taking whatever evidence you think can support the conclusion you'd already come to before you'd even started searching.

Besides, taking your point as true, you claim you've got this binding scientific truth that points directly to the christian god, and yet somehow the majority of scientists are still atheists. One wonders why they don't agree with what you're claiming here; for all your pretensions to scientific rigor, this claim is not one that has been adopted into mainstream science, is it?

Maybe it's because it's all pseudoscience. Maybe that's it?

[FatAndFaithless]

It's just another kalam-ish set of premises with some numbers and vaguely-scientific gildings attached to them.

[James Redford]

Hi, Chas. The known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) mathematically require immortal superintelligence in general to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory storage) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point.

Only if one accepts the premise of an "Omega Point".  I don't.  
The existence of an Omega Point is not required by the laws of physics.

Hi, Chas. Actually, the Omega Point final singularity is mathematically unavoidable 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. For the details on this, see Sec. 3: "Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology", Subsec. 3.1: "The Omega Point", pp. 12-19 of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

---

---

Hi, Homeless Nutter. What follows below is my December 22, 2014 reply to the Encyclopedia of American Loons post which you cite above:

G.D., "#1212: Frank Tipler", Encyclopedia of American Loons, Nov. 18, 2014, http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2014/1...ipler.html , https://wayback.archive.org/web/20141225...ipler.html , http://www.webcitation.org/6V5bQdk2B , http://archive.today/djaQQ , http://megalodon.jp/2014-1226-0237-49/ar...oday/djaQQ .

[Begin the aforesaid reply.]

Hi, G.D.

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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].) Further, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics is also mathematically required by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Regarding Prof. George Ellis's criticism, to date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Ellis and Dr. David Coule (see G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule, "Life at the end of the universe?", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 26, No. 7 [July 1994], pp. 731-739). In the paper, Ellis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event horizons eliminated. Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of physics require the Omega Point to exist.

Concerning Martin Gardner's review of Profs. John D. Barrow and Tipler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), notice that Martin Gardner never states any error on Tipler's part within said review. However, I do find the below exchange between Tipler and Gardner to be quite telling; it transpired from Gardner's aforesaid review of Barrow and Tipler's book. Note Gardner's two-word reply to Tipler.

Frank J. Tipler, reply by Martin Gardner, "The FAP Flop", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 19 (December 4, 1986). In reply to Martin Gardner, "WAP, SAP, PAP, & FAP", New York Review of Books, Vol. 33, No. 8 (May 8, 1986).

Dr. Michael Shermer doesn't attempt to present any error on Prof. Tipler's part regarding the Omega Point cosmology.

In his review (see Lawrence Krauss, "More dangerous than nonsense", New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53) of Prof. Tipler's book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss repeatedly commits the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss gives no indication that he followed up on the endnotes in the book The Physics of Christianity and actually read Tipler's physics journal papers. All that Krauss is going off of in said review is Tipler's mostly nontechnical popular-audience book The Physics of Christianity without researching Tipler's technical papers in the physics journals. Krauss's review offers no actual lines of reasoning for Krauss's pronouncements. His readership is simply expected to imbibe what Krauss proclaims, even though it's clear that Krauss is merely critiquing a popular-audience book which does not attempt to present the rigorous technical details.

Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.)

As pointed out with Ellis and Coule's criticism, this isn't the first time that this ironic outcome has befallen critics of Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. So when Tipler's critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils, they end up making Tipler's case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that's the expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of physics.

G.D., Prof. Tipler has not written for the blog Uncommon Descent.

For my reply to Dr. Sean M. Carroll's erroneous criticisms of Prof. Tipler in Carroll's blog post "The Varieties of Crackpot Experience" (Discover Blogs; and Preposterous Universe, Jan. 5, 2009), see WebCite: 5yDcRx6IZ and Archive.Today: 56z3C.

Nor has Prof. Tipler ever denied climate change, whether it involves global warming or global cooling. The climate is in constant flux, and Tipler acknowledges that fact. Rather, Tipler quite correctly rejects the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), which has been repeatedly experimentally falsified.

It's very unfortunate that AGW isn't true, as life loves a warm, carbon dioxide-rich Earth. It would be quite a life-giving boon to humanity and the other creatures if AGW had been true.

G.D., you state that Prof. Tipler is a "crackpot", misuses technical terminology, and doesn't understand science, but bear in mind that Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. And as said, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE is mathematically forced by the known laws of physics, which have been confirmed by every experiment to date, so the only way to reject the Omega Point TOE is to reject empirical science.

For much more on that, see my following article, which details Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the 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.

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708.

Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of Prof. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos.

James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013.

[End the aforesaid reply.]

---

Hmmm, I see... You ARE a looney. Welcome.

Hi, Homeless Nutter. I thank you for your welcome. However, in an insane world, those who are the sanest are liable to be thought of as insane by others.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...] in an insane world, those who are the sanest are liable to be thought of as insane by others.

lol

In an insane world, those who are actually bat-sh*t-crazy are also liable to be thought of as insane by others. And I must say - statistical probability is not on your side, since there are great many more lunatics, than geniuses.

[James Redford]

Welcome, James. I am fascinated by transhumanism but equating it in any way with Christianity seems nuts to me. I can see humanity one day becoming a god like the Q of Star Trek but what in the world does that have to do with the absurd God of the Bible?

Hi, AFTT47. Thank you for your welcome.

In partial answer to your inquiry, read over my previous posts on the first page of this thread which address some of these matters. However, for much more on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/...QWt4KcpMVo .

Regarding "the absurd God of the Bible", such pertains to the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Pentateuch. The God of the New Testament is an ultrarational God. For the details on that, see my above-cited "Physics of God" article, particularly Sec. 7.4.2: "God's Relation to the Old Testament", pp. 46-47 and Sec. 7.4.4: "The Soteriology of Existence", pp. 50-52.

[FatAndFaithless]

"The God of the New Testament is an ultrarational God."


Oooooookay.

[James Redford]

Only if one accepts the premise of an "omega Point".  I don't.  
The existence of an Omega Point is not required by the laws of physics.

And, from what I understand so far, the current idea is that the universe won't collapse.
Rather, it will expand until it rips itself apart.

Hi, LostLocke. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.) While cosmological observations cannot tell us what the ultimate fate of the universe will be, the known laws of physics themselves can, as the universe is forced to end in finite proper time in order for unitarity to remain unviolated.

[FatAndFaithless]

[Homeless Nutter]

[LostLocke]

And, from what I understand so far, the current idea is that the universe won't collapse.
Rather, it will expand until it rips itself apart.

Hi, LostLocke. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.) While cosmological observations cannot tell us what the ultimate fate of the universe will be, the known laws of physics themselves can, as the universe is forced to end in finite proper time in order for unitarity to remain unviolated.

No one claims we can know for absolute certainty what the ultimate fate of the universe will be. However, current observations, including the laws of physics, indicate the universe will end in or through its continued expansion, not from a collapse.
And PS, the universe isn't 'forced' to do anything. It does what it does and it's our job to figure out what that is. It's not our 'right' to tell the universe what we expect it to do.