Technological Immortality

[James Redford]

---

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? :thinking:

Hi, Esquilax. In the very post of mine which you partially quote, I then go on to show how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to Christian theology. For much more on this matter, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything"; and my article "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", also previously cited within this thread.

Regarding your second paragraph above, unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon a priori philosophical ideals. One of the a priori ideals held by many present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be it.

For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of my aforesaid "Physics of God" article.

[FatAndFaithless]

The old "the scientific community conspiracy" card.

[James Redford]

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.

Hi, LostLocke. The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that the Big Bang initial singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the only way to avoid the Omega Point theory of quantum gravity 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, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

[Iroscato]

Ah, a fresh lunatic. Welcome, welcome, I'm sure I will you will find your stay here most entertaining...

[James Redford]

The old "the scientific community conspiracy" card.  :dodgy:

Hi, FatAndFaithless. The Big Bang cosmology was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics that were already well-established in the 1930s. And many of the leading physicists of that time, such as Albert Einstein and Steven Weinberg, are on record as stating that their rejection of the Big Bang cosmology was because to them it smacked too much of divine creation. For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

[LostLocke]

I'm very curious as to what the force or mechanism it 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?

[Salacious B. Crumb]

"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!

[Exian]

On this discussion forum, I declare bullshit. For more on that, read other stuff.

[James Redford]

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".

---

"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.

[The Grand Nudger]

The old "the scientific community conspiracy" card.  

Hi, FatAndFaithless. The Big Bang cosmology was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics that were already well-established in the 1930s. And many of the leading physicists of that time, such as Albert Einstein and Steven Weinberg, are on record as stating that their rejection of the Big Bang cosmology was because to them it smacked too much of divine creation. For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".

...and yet, despite what you see as their distaste, and despite the vast and capable "conspiracy of science".......we still have BB..not only that, it's the standard model.  

Fuckin god hating conspiratorial sons of bitches......if only they were better at their jobs.....