Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Wednesday April 23rd, 2014: No Call In Show

Thursday and Friday April 24-25th, 2014: The Next Web Conference in Amsterdam

Friday April 25th, 2014: Watch Stefan's Speech LIVE at 9:20am Eastern

Saturday April 26th, 2014: Freedomain Radio Meet-Up in Amsterdam

Sunday April 27th, 2014: No Call In Show


56 Philosopher King files - 71 Gold files - 40 Silver files - 50 Bronze files


Update: A new silver level file on Toxic Guilt and The Credibility Bank Account has been added! Click here to donate if you'd like access to the various premium sections. If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.

Photo

God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

transhumanism superhumanism technology physics quantum gravity Theory of Everything Artificial Intelligence immortality God theology

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic
-41 This post by JamesRedford is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#2
Wuzzums

Wuzzums
  • 225 posts

Protip: whenever you use wording like "mainstream physics" some people, myself included, might take it as clear evidence you have no idea what you're talking about.


  • 0

"My common sense is tingling."

 


-41 This post by JamesRedford is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#4
JamesP

JamesP


  • 3643 posts
What is "god" in your paper? It cannot be the Judeo-Christian god as described in the bible as that one violates the conservation of matter & energy.

If the definition was in your above post, my apologies. I'm on mobile right now, not the easiest device to read long posts on.
  • 0

Connect with me: @jamesapyrich, Facebook, james-a-pyrich on Skype


Meetup with fellow local Freedomainers!

 

I accept BTC: 1DGcCf52Tnyc6pJbyQUwbiLj6Pkt6qHa3Y


#5
MrCapitalism

MrCapitalism

  • 1375 posts

Should I Pray to the Omega Point? Will it send me to Omega Point hell if I don't follow the 10 Omega Point commandments? Is there an Omega Point Bible, and which burning bush will dictate it to us?

Does the Omega Point love me?


  • 1

-41 This post by JamesRedford is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#7
Wuzzums

Wuzzums
  • 225 posts

Rather, you have no idea what I am talking about.

By "mainstream physics", I mean extensively empirically-verified physics, as opposed to anti-reality, nonempirical physics such as String Theory. That is, I mean 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.

So mainstream physics is physics. And physics is tantamount to reality, that which exists outside ourselves. So everything that is not mainstream physics is equivalent to everything that doesn't exist in reality, meaning non-mainstream physics = fantasy. OK. But why point out that god was proven to exist through mainstream reality? Are you implying he was and/or was not proven to exist through fantasy beforehand?


  • -1

"My common sense is tingling."

 


#8
TheRobin

TheRobin

  • 823 posts

Last time I checked, physics didn't make claims about consciousness (which is still something biologists and neurologist are in the midst of figuring out anyway) ;)


  • 0

#9
endostate

endostate
  • 58 posts
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.

Does the Omega Point know what it's going to do tomorrow? If so, could it do something else?

Can the Omega Point leave the room?


  • 0

#10
FriendlyHacker

FriendlyHacker

  • 252 posts

You talk about the Omega point, like it's something verified, when in reality anything before the microwave background radiation event, can be at most considered an educated guess. But do come back to this when the necessary gravitational wave detection equipment is available.

Hawking talks about what you describe as a suggestion of the non existence of God, if everything measured on the Universe adds up to 0, maybe it can't be the result of an outside force.

Maybe the entire Universe can be simulated on a computer, until it happens you might want to skip the word proof and use the correct terminology: science fiction

Proof is a mathematical term and scientists only use it in that context. You can prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but God is not defined mathematically so any calculation won't make sense.


  • 0

#11
JamesP

JamesP


  • 3643 posts
So… god is a black hole?

I suppose there will always be gaps for gods.
  • 0

Connect with me: @jamesapyrich, Facebook, james-a-pyrich on Skype


Meetup with fellow local Freedomainers!

 

I accept BTC: 1DGcCf52Tnyc6pJbyQUwbiLj6Pkt6qHa3Y


#12
cab21

cab21
  • 632 posts

http://theophysics.h...chist-jesus.pdf

so how does this relate to this paper?

is exodus 20-31 or whatever a free market covenant between a people and god? what happened to those that chose not to agree to the covenant?


  • 0

-41 This post by JamesRedford is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#14
cab21

cab21
  • 632 posts

For the answers to your above questions, see Sec. 7.4.2: "God's Relation to the Old Testament", Sec. 7.4.3: "Ha'Mashiach", Sec. 7.4.4: "The Soteriology of Existence", and Sec. 8: "The Societal Implications of the Omega Point Cosmology", all of which are contiguous from pp. 46-107 of my following article:

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; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/d...oryOfEverything , http://theophysics.h...sics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoi...sics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google....sics-of-God.pdf

so if  got this right, old testament includes man claiming that mans actions were ordered by god, when the actions were not ordered by god, but in fact ordered by man( government/priests/patriarchs/would be rulers)?

 
The history of mankind is that of coming out of a condition of extremely ignorant fal-
lacy into lesser states of ignorance, accompanying some massively gruesome setbacks
along the way (with all of the greatest atrocities perpetrated by government). This is
because of mankind's coming out of an animalistic mental state into states of higher

degrees of reason

 So what are your beliefs on human common ancestry and who are ancestors were and were not evolution wise? I have heard other creation theories say god made Adam separate from any other being, and that Adam was the most genetically perfect human, and would have been created with a higher degree of reason than Adams ancestors could have. I do question that as it sounds like Adam in the story quickly disobeyed god, and his son disobeyed god, and his ancestors quickly disobeyed god, all with direct contact with god in the stories. It seems people with more reason would not disobey after such direct evidence?


  • 0

#15
Dylan Lawrence Moore

Dylan Lawrence Moore

  • 146 posts

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.

Oo! Quick! Can you name the logical fallacy?


  • 0

"You hear that? That's the sound of reality crumbling in our wake."


-41 This post by JamesRedford is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#17
James Dean

James Dean

  • 60 posts

I'm confused, if the whole universe will eventually reach an end singularity, how does that singularity have any effect on us today when the universe is, quite noticeably, not a singularity?


  • 0

VI VERI VENIVERSUM VIVUS VICI.

"By the power of knowledge, I, while living, have conquered the universe."

 

ALMS FOR AN EX-LEPER!! 

 

125ht8U8fHJusigoQCDdF3DE2hFBtem5Vt

 

#18
Holo Cene

Holo Cene

  • 110 posts

The problem is that I have proof that it isn't god but an all powerful being I like to call The Fart Monster. I have the only copy of the Fart Monster Bible if you want me to quote anything from it.

" And thus he spaketh with his anus, and he sayeth unto the darkness, Pffttthhhhhssddtttttt which translates to "let there be smell." " Fartgenesis 1:1

That has as much validity as your theory does.


  • -1

#19
J-William

J-William
  • 978 posts
I really wish someone would come up with a genuinely new argument for god instead of these reheated leftovers...

I mean it's just so boring, I came into this thread hoping to read something interesting. I feel let down :(
  • 0

Please read and review my very silly collection of short stories!

Free until the 22nd! download now! 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0052275QS  :thanks:

“Good men don’t serve in the army.  Good iron doesn’t get turned into nails.”- Chinese saying


#20
cab21

cab21
  • 632 posts
Evolution of the species is true; however, the Darwinian conception of evolution is false, since Darwinian evolution is predicated upon random mutations, whereas according to the known laws of physics, no such thing as randomness exists in nature. For example, Quantum Mechanics is actually more deterministic than classical mechanics, because the Schrödinger Equation is simply the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation (i.e., the most powerful formulation of Newtonian mechanics) with the constraint imposed that determinism is maintained, as the Hamilton-Jacobi Equation is indeterministic, because when particle trajectories cross paths a singularity is produced, thereby making it impossible (even in principle) to say what occurs afterwards. Quantum unpredictability is due to ignorance as to what the other interacting (i.e., interfering) particles in the multiverse are doing (or if one prefers, how the wave function evolves).
 
So everything that will ever occur, to the end of time, was set in stone from the beginning of existence. A logically-equivalent way of stating the foregoing sentence is that everything in existence is determined by the end-state of the universe. That is to say, existence is radically teleological. Not so much as the placement of a single elementary particle happens by chance. Nothing in reality is actually an accident. Which also means that not one jot, not one tittle is redundant to existence: the smallest iota is crucial for the entirety of existence (a higher-level emergent expression of this fact in the Omega Point cosmology is that event horizons must be eliminated, which means that not so much as the smallest part of existence can be left behind, but that every part of existence--no matter how small--is crucial to make the whole thing work).
 
Quite interestingly, however, simply because the known laws of physics are purely deterministic does not mean that free will does not exist. Free will does exist. Within the constraint of not being able to violate physical law (such as jumping to the moon, or flapping one's arms and flying to the moon), the future truly is wide open for each individual. The reason for this is because before a universe splits into parallel analogues (or again, if one prefers, before the wave function branches in its evolution), not even God Himself can say which version of the "you" you presently call yourself will end up in which universe, because indeed that question makes no logical sense in the first place. The other "you" in the branched-off parallel universe feels himself to be *the* "you" just as much as you do.
 
Per the known laws of physics, all universes in the multiverse evolve into the Omega Point. But within the constraint of physical law, an infinitude of different histories take place, with all histories ending at Point Omega.

if i got this right

physics are deterministic,
gene mutations are part of physics
therefor gene mutations are deterministic.

physics are deterministic,
free will is not part of physics
therefor free will can be non- deterministic?

I'm not thinking of  a definition of free will that could be deterministic.

i was thought that will was part of physics, rather than not being apart of physics, so any will would be tied into physics

mutations are not part of free will i would assume, or people could choose to grow gills or have children that grow gills, and growing gills is physical, and other animals do grow gills. perhaps genetic engineering could have people that grow gills by manipulation the genes?

that humans can know the genetics of a baby before the egg and sperm meet because it's deterministic, or do humans just not know because of ignorance rather than randomness? can humans know that a miscarry is going to happen because and then select for a nonmiscary instead?


  • 0

#21
endostate

endostate
  • 58 posts

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.

Does the Omega Point know what it's going to do tomorrow? If so, could it do something else?

Can the Omega Point leave the room?

Yes; No; and No.

The Omega Point--the technical physics term for God the Father--is all action logically possible, and completed--and that to an infinite degree. As Stephen Hawking proved, the cosmological singularity is not is spacetime, and hence is not subject to time. It is eternal and unchanging. The Omega Point's perception of reality is as a timeless, unchanging, infinite whole. It is a state of perfect, infinite bliss.

So, not omnipotent?


  • 0

#22
Dylan Lawrence Moore

Dylan Lawrence Moore

  • 146 posts

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.

Oo! Quick! Can you name the logical fallacy?

A haecceity is an attribute that uniquely identifies a thing, i.e., a property which differentiates a thing from all other things that are not that thing. Hence, if a thing has even a single haecceity given by a word's definition, then by definition it is that thing referred to by the word.

Actually, the correct answer is "the bandwagon fallacy". Just because almost all of the world's leading religions agree on something, doesn't make it true.


  • 0

"You hear that? That's the sound of reality crumbling in our wake."


#23
cab21

cab21
  • 632 posts

if the cause is the end point, is that fatalism or determinism? i'm a bit mixed on terms, but i thought determinism was about cause and effect, not effect and cause?


  • 0

-41 This post by JamesRedford is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#25
cab21

cab21
  • 632 posts

aren't there stories in the bible of god making 2+2= 5?

luke 9: 10-17

5 loaves of bread and 2 fish serve 5000 men till the men are full, and there are leftovers.

how do we go about recreating this?


  • 0

-41 This post by JamesRedford is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#27
James Dean

James Dean

  • 60 posts

Is anyone else not NEARLY high enough to read this shit?


  • 0

VI VERI VENIVERSUM VIVUS VICI.

"By the power of knowledge, I, while living, have conquered the universe."

 

ALMS FOR AN EX-LEPER!! 

 

125ht8U8fHJusigoQCDdF3DE2hFBtem5Vt

 

#28
Nathan Diehl

Nathan Diehl

  • 189 posts

 In a review of Tipler's [/size]The Physics of Christianity, [/size]Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".[/size]^ Lawrence Krauss, More Dangerous Than Nonsense, New Scientist, May 12, 2007, page 53. 
 
http://genesis1.asu....iplerreview.pdf


  • 1

#29
cab21

cab21
  • 632 posts

the question is on how humans can do the same, have 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish feed 5000, and solve world hunger.

 

so far i understand that humans have the ability put ingredients together to make bread and catch fish, but not physically materialize  bread and fish. humans aren't putting materials together to make fish, nor are they catching bread.

 

is this saying we could create fish by balancing out the creating of fish by more gravity? by manipulating particles together to create fish?


  • 0

-41 This post by JamesRedford is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#31
cab21

cab21
  • 632 posts
No. It's not an allegory. It literally happened. Not all the miracles Jesus performed were presagements of what mankind will do when the technology becomes sophisticated enough. Some of the miracles Jesus performed are not possible unless one has precise control over every single elementary particle at precisely the same time, which is only possible for the Cosmological Singularity.

 

 

which acts will be possible for humans?


  • 0

-41 This post by JamesRedford is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

#33
cab21

cab21
  • 632 posts

one thing i would be wondering is what kind of differences this makes for those that are ancap christian, and those that are ancap athiest, or other religion?

 

i would see a danger in statist christianity, but not in ancap christianity in the same way.

 

is this saying in the future ancap christians will have be part of what ancap athiests will not be a part of?  would the ancap athiests have a choice in the future to have what the ancap christians have, instead of what the ancap athiests would not have?


  • 0

#34
James E Mahler

James E Mahler
  • 18 posts

the question is on how humans can do the same, have 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish feed 5000, and solve world hunger.

 

so far i understand that humans have the ability put ingredients together to make bread and catch fish, but not physically materialize  bread and fish. humans aren't putting materials together to make fish, nor are they catching bread.

 

is this saying we could create fish by balancing out the creating of fish by more gravity? by manipulating particles together to create fish?

cab, you always ask some very interesting questions and I like that. Not really wanting to disrupt the flow of this conversation too much. Also, I am not defending this or that philosophy, however think of some possibilities in this case, for example: what size are these fish Jesus talked about? they could have been sharks. A couple of large ones and that would do the trick, right? I would also include small size whales with a notation that perhaps they didn't know back than that whales are mammals. Who knows? As for the bread the Sabbath has a interesting ritual on Friday evenings called the Kiddush where small pieces pf bread are distributed at the dinner table during prayer and they are small pieces and the act mostly symbolic. 


  • 0

"No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests" - Leonardo da Vinci


#35
cab21

cab21
  • 632 posts
cab, you always ask some very interesting questions and I like that. Not really wanting to disrupt the flow of this conversation too much. Also, I am not defending this or that philosophy, however think of some possibilities in this case, for example: what size are these fish Jesus talked about? they could have been sharks. A couple of large ones and that would do the trick, right? I would also include small size whales with a notation that perhaps they didn't know back than that whales are mammals. Who knows? As for the bread the Sabbath has a interesting ritual on Friday evenings called the Kiddush where small pieces pf bread are distributed at the dinner table during prayer and they are small pieces and the act mostly symbolic.

 

 

 

luke 9:13 says that the total amount of meat was not enough to feed 5000 on its own.

the apostles say they don't have enough food, and would need to go to the market to buy more food in order to have enough food to feed all 5000.

 

this is assuming the story is real and correctly recorded, which is a question on it's own


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: transhumanism, superhumanism, technology, physics, quantum gravity, Theory of Everything, Artificial Intelligence, immortality, God, theology

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users