WendyMcElroy.com

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

Quote from: cb750 on December 15, 2013, 11:25:52 AM

And he's still link bombing including referencing himself in his own works.

My own works only reference myself where I have made a contribution to a field.

For example, see my following article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761; PDF, 312715 bytes, MD5: ff45387b1b2ed9d6dec411d5328abdd6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-jesus-is-an-anarchist/redford-jesus-is-an-anarchist.pdf

You cannot reference yourself when making a claim as proof of your claim. "X is true cause see, I said X was true".

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

Quote from: cb750 on December 15, 2013, 11:25:52 AM

And he's still link bombing including referencing himself in his own works.

"Quantity trumps quality and clarity"... ::)

I am embodied quality and clarity.

I mean, come on. I know you guys hate my guts, and all that jazz--but, really, you're not going to find writing at this level, or typographic formatting at this level, from anyone save for me. Heck, I beat out the staff at Oxford University when it comes to that. Put a thousand egghead typographers together and they can't beat out me.

That's because a committee of minds can't beat out one clear-thinking mind.

And my words are poetry. It's what Edgar Allan Poe called "prose poetry". Poe used that term to refer to his own writings in his book Eureka: A Prose Poem (New York: Geo. P. Putnam, 1848), which is an exposition of a pre-Tiplerian Omega Point cosmology, a nonfiction book which Edgar Allan Poe considered to be his magnum opus. Poe basically gives a description of the Omega Point cosmology: of the universe starting at a "primordial particle" (i.e., an atom in the ancient Greek sense of indivisible unity), then expanding and evolving, and then collapsing into Godhead and unity. I wonder if Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was influenced by Poe, since Poe was very big in France.

Get deep into my "Physics of God" article and you'll see that poetry. Heck, you'll see it right off the bat with my "Jesus Is an Anarchist" article. I make words my servants, and make them flow to my will. I have a profound mastery over them. But I only have that because it has been given to me to serve Him. What I have given to the world is not mere knowledge, but profound art on top of it.

Perhaps that sounds like I'm being a big-head in saying that to you. But I'm not, no more than Poe was being a big-head. Rather, in order for humanity to advance to its immortal stage, this knowledge has to be imparted by some means. It might as well be imparted with artistic mastery, style and flair. For example, with typographic mastery, and mastery over the English language. Having one's mind blown should be a delight, as far as possible.

Again, I'm not being a big-head. Rather, I was formulated from the beginning to do what I am doing now. This has to be done. If doing it this way impinges upon some people's egos, then all I can say is that doing it any other way would cause even greater discord.

My below articles explain to people (1) theological ethics and soteriology in a comprehensive and logically-coherent manner; (2) how the known laws of physics prove God's existence while demonstrating the exacting and extensive consilience of the New Testament with said physical laws; (3) the nature of God in light of said physical laws; (4) the End Time, the Tribulation, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Heaven on Earth, and the universal resurrection of the dead in light of said physical laws; and (5) the End Time in light of the history of the globalist oligarchy's self-termed New World Order world government and world religion agenda.

Item No. 1 is important vis-à-vis salvation for those who maintain that they already believe in Jesus Christ's Godhead. Items Nos. 2-5 are important in letting atheists, believers in other religions, and nominal ersatz "Christians" know that God as described by the New Testament does exist and that the New Testament is true. Items Nos. 2-5 are additionally important in giving believers in Christ a much deeper understanding of God and of the End Time, so that they may be strengthened in their faith during the extreme horrors to come and so that they will not fall for the deceptions of the Beast governmental system.

My following articles distill all of the most important aspects of veridical human knowledge into a comprehensive, coherent and unified whole: from theology, physics, science, ethics, legal theory, political theory, economics, sociology, epistemology to history.

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/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

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@4ax.com , July 30, 2013. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761; PDF, 312715 bytes, MD5: ff45387b1b2ed9d6dec411d5328abdd6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-jesus-is-an-anarchist/redford-jesus-is-an-anarchist.pdf

James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733; PDF, 118091 bytes, MD5: e6de8181ad84c9d96400bb9582311c79. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1972733 , http://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf , http://webcitation.org/63xyCLjLm , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-apodictic-libertarianism/redford-apodictic-libertarianism.pdf

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

Quote from: James Redford on April 10, 2014, 10:36:57 PM

Quote from: cb750 on December 15, 2013, 11:25:52 AM

And he's still link bombing including referencing himself in his own works.

My own works only reference myself where I have made a contribution to a field.

For example, see my following article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ's teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761; PDF, 312715 bytes, MD5: ff45387b1b2ed9d6dec411d5328abdd6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 , http://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf , http://theophysics.host56.com/anarchist-jesus.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66AIz2rJw , http://pdf-archive.com/2013/09/10/redford-jesus-is-an-anarchist/redford-jesus-is-an-anarchist.pdf

You cannot reference yourself when making a claim as proof of your claim. "X is true cause see, I said X was true".

Cool. I never reference myself in that manner, so that's not a problem.

But I thank you for your input.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

And my words are poetry. It's what Edgar Allan Poe called "prose poetry".

So are you typing with one hand at this point?

We went through this already. The universe as a whole cannot be deterministic since causality is self refuting. So putting the needle back at the start of the record will not play the same song.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

Quote from: James Redford on April 11, 2014, 12:10:48 AM

And my words are poetry. It's what Edgar Allan Poe called "prose poetry".

So are you typing with one hand at this point?

We went through this already. The universe as a whole cannot be deterministic since causality is self refuting. So putting the needle back at the start of the record will not play the same song.

Causality by definition cannot be self-refuting, since that would mean that logic refutes itself. All causality is is logic. All causality says is that logic applies universally.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

Quote from: cb750 on April 11, 2014, 10:58:33 AM

Quote from: James Redford on April 11, 2014, 12:10:48 AM

And my words are poetry. It's what Edgar Allan Poe called "prose poetry".

So are you typing with one hand at this point?

We went through this already. The universe as a whole cannot be deterministic since causality is self refuting. So putting the needle back at the start of the record will not play the same song.

Causality by definition cannot be self-refuting, since that would mean that logic refutes itself. All causality is is logic. All causality says is that logic applies universally.

If causality is defined as no event can occur without a previous event or event causing it to occur then:

1. The universe cannot have a beginning since there can be no first event. All events MUST derive from previous events.

2. The universe cannot be infinite since an infinite universe would exist without a series of events that cause it to come into existence. Merely existing defies causality since something cannot merely exist without cause.

Now if you're going to argue the universe created itself through time then the universe is an infinite circle and so fails #2. And clearly there would be no reason to "replay" the universe since it will simply loop back in time and do the same thing over again. No "tipler" machine would be required. The universe would simply be an 8 track tape loop constantly replaying itself.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

Quote from: James Redford on April 15, 2014, 04:14:54 PM

Quote from: cb750 on April 11, 2014, 10:58:33 AM

Quote from: James Redford on April 11, 2014, 12:10:48 AM

And my words are poetry. It's what Edgar Allan Poe called "prose poetry".

So are you typing with one hand at this point?

We went through this already. The universe as a whole cannot be deterministic since causality is self refuting. So putting the needle back at the start of the record will not play the same song.

Causality by definition cannot be self-refuting, since that would mean that logic refutes itself. All causality is is logic. All causality says is that logic applies universally.

If causality is defined as no event can occur without a previous event or event causing it to occur then:

1. The universe cannot have a beginning since there can be no first event. All events MUST derive from previous events.

It doesn't matter what position one takes on this matter. Mathematically, even an infinite series of events ends up at a starting-point. This is called compactification.

2. The universe cannot be infinite since an infinite universe would exist without a series of events that cause it to come into existence. Merely existing defies causality since something cannot merely exist without cause.

See above.

Now if you're going to argue the universe created itself through time then the universe is an infinite circle and so fails #2. And clearly there would be no reason to "replay" the universe since it will simply loop back in time and do the same thing over again. No "tipler" machine would be required. The universe would simply be an 8 track tape loop constantly replaying itself.

Your intended point here is not coherent.

Rather, existence has always existed. Finite subsets of existence go through various stages, but not existence as a whole.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

It doesn't matter what position one takes on this matter. Mathematically, even an infinite series of events ends up at a starting-point. This is called compactification.

Compaction is ONLY used as a convienence not when you're actually discussing infinity. You cannot arbitrarily reduce infinite to a finite set for your convenience. If you do then we're back to a finte universe that MUST have a beginning and therefore you fail #1.

Rather, existence has always existed.

"Always existed" = infinite. You cannot have it both ways.

Finite subsets of existence go through various stages, but not existence as a whole.

If the universe is finite then it cannot have always existed. That is a logical contradiction.  The rest is irrelevant. You are once more claiming the universe is infinite while claiming its finite. If you claim its finite it has to have a beginning. If it does not have a beginning and always exists then it is infinite. You cannot eliminate #1 by employing #2 then eliminate #2 by employing #1.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

If the universe is finite then it cannot have always existed. That is a logical contradiction.  The rest is irrelevant. You are once more claim the universe is infinite while claiming its finite. If you claim its finite it has to have a beginning. If it does not have a beginning and always exists then it is infinite. You cannot eliminate #1 by employing #1 then eliminate #2 by employing #1.

Tipler's crazy belief is that an "uncaused" initial point-singularity with no preceding "cause" is not a philosophical or physical problem as long as "God" (== "The Omega Point") can "see" the entire history of the Universe from his/her/its lofty vantage-point of a final point-singularity that is of an extremely special and extremely non-generic type that has an exponentially small probability of occurring naturally --- namely, an "Omega Point."

Tipler's argument is that only Universes that can and do have "Gods" ("Omega Points") who can observe the entire history of that Universe can be said to "exist," because nothing can be said to "exist" unless some conscious entity is "looking at it" --- and `therefore', the fact that we exist "proves" that we (or our descendents, or the descendents of some species, or of every surviving species, or something equally vague) all conspire together to rip the event-horizons off of every black hole and monkey around with the global distribution of matter and curvature of spacetime to manufacture a "God" at "The End Of Time" (== the final "Omega Point"), in order to guarantee their own preceding existence and the preceding existence of the Universe.

So Tipler's entire insane argument is manifestly circular question-begging, quite literally from its "In The Beginning" to the "Big Crunch" at the end  --- and is therefore logically nonsense: It is neither true nor false, it is just "Not even wrong," as Wolfgang Pauli used to say.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

Quote

It doesn't matter what position one takes on this matter. Mathematically, even an infinite series of events ends up at a starting-point. This is called compactification.

Compaction is ONLY used as a convienence not when you're actually discussing infinity. You cannot arbitrarily reduce infinite to a finite set for your convenience. If you do then we're back to a finte universe that MUST have a beginning and therefore you fail #1.

It works mathematically, so I'll go with it.

Quote

Rather, existence has always existed.

"Always existed" = infinite. You cannot have it both ways.

See above. Infinity is counterintuitive.

Quote

Finite subsets of existence go through various stages, but not existence as a whole.

If the universe is finite then it cannot have always existed. That is a logical contradiction. ...

It could have always existed, but as the Eternal Return.

But that's abstractly speaking. Concretely speaking, since Quantum Mechanics inherently uses the complex field, the universe is unavoidably infinite: mathematically speaking, the universe must begin and end at a singularity.

That is, 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.)

The rest is irrelevant. You are once more claiming the universe is infinite while claiming its finite. If you claim its finite it has to have a beginning. If it does not have a beginning and always exists then it is infinite. You cannot eliminate #1 by employing #2 then eliminate #2 by employing #1.

"It's", you mean.

Like I said, infinity is counterintuitive. The seeming paradoxes that you are above struggling with have already been answered within the discipline of mathematics. The things which you think are impossible are in fact possible. Like I said, infinity is counterintuitive.

Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainstream Physics

Quote from: cb750 on April 15, 2014, 07:17:21 PM

If the universe is finite then it cannot have always existed. That is a logical contradiction.  The rest is irrelevant. You are once more claim the universe is infinite while claiming its finite. If you claim its finite it has to have a beginning. If it does not have a beginning and always exists then it is infinite. You cannot eliminate #1 by employing #1 then eliminate #2 by employing #1.

Tipler's crazy belief is that an "uncaused" initial point-singularity with no preceding "cause" is not a philosophical or physical problem as long as "God" (== "The Omega Point") can "see" the entire history of the Universe from his/her/its lofty vantage-point of a final point-singularity that is of an extremely special and extremely non-generic type that has an exponentially small probability of occurring naturally --- namely, an "Omega Point."

Tipler's argument is that only Universes that can and do have "Gods" ("Omega Points") who can observe the entire history of that Universe can be said to "exist," because nothing can be said to "exist" unless some conscious entity is "looking at it" --- and `therefore', the fact that we exist "proves" that we (or our descendents, or the descendents of some species, or of every surviving species, or something equally vague) all conspire together to rip the event-horizons off of every black hole and monkey around with the global distribution of matter and curvature of spacetime to manufacture a "God" at "The End Of Time" (== the final "Omega Point"), in order to guarantee their own preceding existence and the preceding existence of the Universe.

So Tipler's entire insane argument is manifestly circular question-begging, quite literally from its "In The Beginning" to the "Big Crunch" at the end  --- and is therefore logically nonsense: It is neither true nor false, it is just "Not even wrong," as Wolfgang Pauli used to say.

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.)

For the details on that, see the below, in which are are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which 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), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler.

A number of these videos are not otherwise online. 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@4ax.com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

See also my following article on this subject:

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/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf