+EraserFS Yup, based on a very rarefied definition of "rational" to begin with, aka "homo oeconomicus".

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Laz Arus Popper admitted that his falsification criteria is just a rule of thumb. He said this in response to the fact that the proposal that falsification can solve the demarcation problem is itself unfalisfiable. Yes, it is a useful rule of thumb, but it is not a "law", and was never intended to be the basis for a metaphysical system. The demarcation problem, as important as it is, obviously cannot be "solved". The reason is that we cannot predict accurately how we might come to know what we do not yet know. Why? Because to believe such would be to believe that X method of discovery will be applicable to all future knowledge... How could this be proven?  Feyerabend, in spite of being (badly) critiqued by Hoppe, did great work on this. Hoppe pointed out that when it comes to practical applications of science, that such issues are unimportant. I agree with him, but why he assumes that practical applications of science are the only important forms of knowledge remains unanswered. That said, when it comes to economics, I'd agree with him.... The demarcation problem being solved or unsolved doesn't seem to impact the practical principles of economics. Of course, not all principles of economics have the level of certainty we can assign to the practical applications of hard science.

Read more Show less

Reply · 2 3

+Kon Berner I don't believe my original post disputes anything that you've discussed in your reply. Whatever weight Popper wished to give to his falsification criteria, my point was that the logical positivists did not approach scientific claims via Popper's falsificationism, which is what Block confusedly transfers into saying when he begins talking about them. The neopositivists were concerned with *confirmation*, and went to lengths to develop inductive logics they could use to verify scientific claims. Block makes no distinction between the two approaches, he treats them as identical as he introduces logical positivism.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Laz Arus You cannot verify geometric axioms. Yet you can make numerous truthful claims using geometry. It's the same thing with AE.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Be that as it may, my point was not about whether or not verificationism is a good theory, my point is simply about what the verification principle actually was to the neopositivists, which Dr. Block seems a bit confused about, since he equates it with Popper's falsificationism in his lecture. Thanks!

Read more Show less

Reply · 2 3

+Laz Arus thanks for clarifying

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Laz Arus Yes, I was agreeing with you and adding my own understanding of how some Austrians have recently addressed this issue.... that is, poorly. 

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Kon Berner Do you have a Facebook I might follow? Or some internet medium, blog or whats-it, where you prefer to share your thoughts?

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Laz Arus I prefer the anarchic and spontaneous discussion on YouTube. I love philosophy of science and a pet peeve of mine is how great philosophers like Feyerabend have been labeled relativists for pointing out that the scientific method is not as rigid and fixed as some believe it is. I am a big fan of Hoppe, but when he started in on Feryerabend along these lines, it was clear that he is not a philosopher of science. I critiqued Hoppe by quoting Mises saying that there is no apodictic knowledge, but this does not mean that relativism is all that remains. The issue is about selecting the right tool for the right level of analysis, and so the correct response to someone who critiques the action axiom as being uncertain is to point out that their axioms are also uncertain. What evidence is there that humans have an internal scale of values? Simply ask them and you'll get all of the evidence you need. Where did I critique him? In a YouTube upload of one of his excellent speeches... excellent except for him referring to matters he doesn't understand.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1 2

+Kon Berner Very well, I'll follow your posts on here. PoS is also an interest of mine and I'm grateful for your thoughts on the topic. See ya round!

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Kon Berner Would you link me to your Hoppe critique? Preciate ya!

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Hi, Kon Berner. You wrote, "Of course, not all principles of economics have the level of certainty we can assign to the practical applications of hard science." Actually, economics is based upon propositions which cannot be denied without necessitating their use in the denial. For details on that, see App. B: "Basic A Priori Axioms", pp. 7-9 of my following article: James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf .

Read more Show less

Reply · 1 2

+JamesRRedford Yes, I am familiar with Hoppe's work on argumentation ethics. However, the link you posted doesn't go very far into supporting economics. Here are a few quick comments: 1) "Truth, and knowledge of truth, exists" You must first define both truth and knowledge. Attempting to imply that these things are sufficiently defined for this statement to be analyzed, is incorrect. 2) "Conscious humans act." While I don't dispute this personally, what do you mean by consciousness? Last I checked, we have no idea what it is, how it works, and how it can exist at all. I think it is sufficient to say: a) humans select actions from a range of possibilities, 2) human rank their selection based on criteria that can be discovered both by observing their behaviors and also by asking them about their selection criteria. 3) in any case, it seems clear that they have an internal scale of values that is subjective and essential to their choices. I support the action axiom as being self-apparent. However, it is not true that it is sufficient to derive all economics from.... great and brilliant start, however. 3) The big problem I see in this paper is it tries to argue that positive proofs can come out of showing that a false dichotomy is not true on one side... assuming that therefore the remaining side is true. Hoppe makes this same error in this Economics and Ethics of Private Property. He manages to refute Rawls with argumentation ethics, but refuting being able to argue for socialism doesn't prove any positive ethics. Proving positive ethics is much more difficult, if it is possible at all outside of explicit consent. Hume's guillotine seems to prevent us from positing any positive ethics as objective truths. We can, however, refute claims of socialism being ethical with argumentation ethics.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1 2

+Kon Berner I think this piece is quite good in sketching out the beginnings of a positive theory of ethics to complement Hoppe's negative filter for ethical theories: https://mises.org/library/how-we-come-own-ourselves

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Hi, Kon Berner. You yourself do not believe your own critique of my aforecited article, because you yourself know quite well what is meant by the words you pretend not to know, since you yourself use those words in the normal course of your life as a human being. They have the meanings you have in mind when you normally use those words. If I were using those words as specialized technical terms, then I would have defined my terms. I could just as well turn your present erroneous tactic against this jejune critique of yours and pretend not to know what the meanings are of the words you use in your critique. And if everyone behaved that way, no communication would be possible. Also, I'm not strictly advancing Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics. My formulation is along similar lines, but more rigorous. By the way, Kon Berner, you ought to be interested in 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), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf . Said article pertains to physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) 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 space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. The Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+JamesRRedford So you are asserting that I understand what "truth" means... where is your evidence? I am telling you I don't understand what you mean, are you saying that I am lying about this? You might think you have solved all metaphysical problems, but I am not arrogant enough to think that I have. Key laws of physics have been overturned before, and they could well be overturned again. Science is ultimately a tool using Bayesian inference to make predictions.It has no need of apodictic truth to proceed in controlling physical matter to the extent that it can predict within the physical context with reasonable accuracy. I suggest that we simply accept that economics is a sort of sociology, is a soft science, and so while being extremely useful to study and speculate about, forget about the physics envy and accept that humans are messy biological objects that cannot be understood like atoms can be understood.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Moragauth What is weird about this article is that I agree that one's body is one's own possession (and I have my own test for why this is true). The problem is HOW we get from the body to things outside the body. The first use principle is a great proposal, but you can't get from an is to an ought about how given resources ought to come under ownership. This will, to some important extent, have to come down to conventions. Conventions are agreements between humans (also some other higher animals e.g. marking terrain with urine with dogs, etc.): they don't exist objectively in nature outside of the convention in the minds of the creatures who opt in to the conventions (or don't opt in to them). So, body ownership, I endorse as being innate. All resources outside of the body will be a matter of convention and so require consent to a rule set. This said, there are complexities here. If I put 100 hours of the time of my own body into carving a stick into a beautiful sculpture, it is true that stealing this stick amounts to stealing my labor. The question remains if the stick was "really mine" to begin with. I don't see how any ethic can be proven as objective as to why this stick was certainty mine and not yours or the property of nobody... to come to such a conclusion takes an ideology. At this point, the deadly question arises of "whose ideology should be enforced?" Who decides? My answer is that each individual decides by either opting in, or not opting in, to a specific rule set and specific enforcement mechanism. Only in this way can there be a meeting of minds and a manner to resolve conflicts that is consistent and dependable. Consistent and dependable resolution of conflict is important because trade is ultra-efficient compared with the alternatives, and it is a smart move in almost all cases,if abundance and peace are wanted, to set up a system that supports trade.. at least for humans. So, this is a consequentialist argument that solves the is/ought problem by employing an "if" clause. The "if" is the opt in condition.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Kon Berner So you've 100 h of your labour to carve a stick into a sculpture then it's yours. Who else's? At the moment you finish your work nobody knows it exists. You created it's value. It can't be nobody else's but yours. However, if you were given the stick by a capitalist and agreed to carve it for him, then you receive a payment for your labour and the stick is his as per terms of the contract. One thing is certain, the stick is not B. Sander's who claims 90% of ownership.  

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+macuś kraków I'll rephrase the question. You have a large gold nugget that you mined. I steal it and put 100 hours into sculpting it into a tiny statue. Does putting my labor into something I have taken that is not mine make it mine? To extend this thought experiment, let's say I mined it on land claimed by yet another person, but further assume that I don't accept his land claim (e.g. the land was stolen from my ancestors by a treaty having been broken, which is the factual case in large parts of the U.S.), The question is, "Who decides when something outside of your body becomes yours?" This will come down to a fairly large set of specific conventions. Conventions about initial claims, about on-going claims, and about transfer of claim. These rules are obviously not objective/natural/scientific entities, they are social conventions. When social conventions are the topic, the key issue is always, "Who decides what these are?". As for Sanders, he doesn't want abundance or peace, so he has already opted out of the condition necessary for them. His answer to the question, "who decides?" is "me and my thugs."

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Hi, Kon Berner. Your comments violate the "A Priori of Argumentation" of item No. 4 in App. B of my priorly-cited article "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct". By asserting that you do not know what "truth" means you are claiming that it is true that you do not know what it means, and hence you are claiming to know what "truth" means. Bear in mind that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology 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, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation). For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional world with self-aware beings in it, see the following resource: 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/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo .

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+JamesRRedford Ok, fine, maybe I do know it but I don't know that I know it? Is lack of proof, proof? I am not asserting anything, you are the one making the assertions. I pointed out that when you say, "truth exists" that you have not defined your terms. You responded by asserting that I already know what truth means. I responded by denying your assertion. The burden of proof is still on you, and you still have not defined your terms. Human language is, by the way, not mathematics. A quick read through Philosophical Investigations might be in order. Reification, and similar fallacies are common in those who cannot differentiate between objects that are subject to empirical verification and abstract concepts that exist only in human minds. Words are not physical objects that can be externally verified, so their entire meaning (if any) is dependent on definition. Abstractions such as "truth" do not "exist", unless they are defined in such a way as to be objectively verifiable by the parties engaging in the discussion. I say again that science does not need "truth" to be useful, it simply needs to be good at predicting physical mechanics and dynamics.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Kon Berner Mathematics is based on axioms. You don't prove axioms, either. Does it follow that mathematics is phony? 

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Kon Berner You're correct in the sense that, the ethic is directed at individuals who desire peace (reduction of conflict) and its consequent, prosperity. Because the next question that immediately suggests itself after self-ownership is that, given that man will seek out resources to survive and fulfil his wants, and given the fact of scarcity, conflict is likely to arise. Therefore, you're quite right that it would be a consequentialist ethic in nature and Hoppe explicitly builds it off an hypothetical imperative. As you highlighted "if abundance and peace are wanted"; I think that goes quite some way to grounding an ethic, because these are things desired by the majority of humans. Those who revel in aggression cannot, then, complain when met with it. So whilst I don't think the positive theory is on as strong ground as the negative theory (arg ethics), I believe Hoppe etc. have already gone some way to advancing a pretty compelling reason why one should favour a libertarian ethic. Conventions obviously play a big part, particularly with respect to appropriation, which Hoppe acknowledges.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+macuś kraków Do numbers exist? This is one of the many difficult questions in philosophy. If pi exists, then where is it? Or if I add 1 apple to 1 apple, do I get 2 apples, or do I get a set of somewhat similar objects that are not identical? Or if I add 1 raindrop to 1 raindrop do I not get 1 raindrop? Physical reality is not mathematics, but mathematics can be used to help us understand some things about physical reality. Note that mathematics does not have to derive absolute truth to be useful. It simply needs to be used within the domain where it applies and not thought to be metaphysically complete. Context is much more difficult to overcome than is sometimes believed by those who seek easy answers and rush to hasty generalizations.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Moragauth Yes, I think you have presented a good summary here. In order to have peace and prosperity, in most cases (aren't necessary qualifications a drag? ;)), the best approach will be to opt in to a rule set with a group of others who share your values, and as private property is a key aspect of trade, and trade is ultra-efficient compared with the alternatives (see Ricardo's law), a rule set around private property is critical to peace and prosperity. Upon opting in, it is rational to also opt in to rules for paying for enforcement of the rule set. When ideal rule sets vary among people, voluntary segregation is suggested as a smart move towards the goal. The real key is to get the plunder and imposition of ideology out, and the trade and consent in as much as possible. This is my main problem with many ancap proposals, the idea that the rules can be decided after the fact by competing legal systems in the same region: this sounds like a poor basis for trade compared with consistent and simple rules in a region that everyone has agreed to. How people opt to go about this within a group is less important than the fact that they have explicitly agreed to the rules and support them being enforced, and are willing to voluntarily segregate as needed when values are incompatible. The really nasty problem here is what group gets what area to live in? Who decides? This sort of thought is where David Friedman starts talking about animals marking territory and Hoppe starts talking about the fact that you cannot be alive at all without somewhere to live and some resources that can be consumed. So I think here of my case, and would gladly trade liberty for having to live in a smaller space with less than ideal resources. There is a certain sort of good faith that one must have to get along with others, and the lack of this good faith: the willingness to get short term gains at the cost of long term destruction, is the real root of the problem. This then reminds me of how Richard Dawkins, even in his highly skeptical and scientific outlook, does talk about growth of consciousness being important to human happiness. It seems as long as we have destructive thugs running around, saying things like "in the long run we are all dead", this is a problem for everyone, and not one that we should expect to be easy to solve. Being aware of the problem is a good start. Some people want to play a zero or negative sum game, it is a good move towards peace and prosperity to insist as much as possible on positive sum games, and opt out of zero and negative sum games. The main problem with initiation of force is that it is a negative sum game.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Hi, Kon Berner. You wrote, "I am not asserting anything ...". You are asserting that it is true that you do not know what truth is, and therefore you are asserting that you do know what truth is. This is the A Priori of Argumentation of item No. 4 in App. B of my priorly-cited article "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct". You further write that "Human language is, by the way, not mathematics." In actuality, everything is mathematics: see Sec. 7.2: "The Aseity of God", pp. 37 ff. of my article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf . And within spacetime, the mathematical description of everything is finite, per the Bekenstein Bound: see App. A: "The Bekenstein Bound", pp. 121 ff. of my aforecited article. Said article pertains to physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) 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 space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. The Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws. The rest of your statements are the self-refuting logical fallacy of epistemological relativism. See my first paragraph of this post for the details.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+JamesRRedford " You are asserting that it is true that you do not know what truth is, and therefore you are asserting that you do know what truth is." It is not an assertion, it is an observation that could be wrong. Again, human language is not mathematics and many terms are associated with non-rigorous and subjective impressions. If you think that human language is mathematics, then tell me what love and compassion sum up to? Better yet, what is the sum of mathematics and philosophy? Have you read Philosophical Investigations? Maybe work on refuting that and, if you can, you'll have something to say about philosophy instead of talking nonsense (I didn't say "untruth" I said "nonsense" in that the usage of the words you are selecting seemingly have no relation to their common definitions) like natural human language is mathematics. From wiki: "The Tractatus, as Bertrand Russell saw it (though it should be noted that Wittgenstein took strong exception to Russell's reading), had been an attempt to set out a logically perfect language, building on Russell's own work. In the years between the two works Wittgenstein came to reject the idea that underpinned logical atomism, that there were ultimate "simples" from which a language should, or even could, be constructed. In remark #23 of Philosophical Investigations he points out that the practice of human language is more complex than the simplified views of language that have been held by those who seek to explain or simulate human language by means of a formal system. It would be a disastrous mistake, according to Wittgenstein, to see language as being in any way analogous to formal logic."

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Hi, Kon Berner. Again, you are still making truth claims. Even if one simply silently says to oneself, "I don't know", said one is still claiming that it is true that he does not know. Nor, Berner, ought you continue skirting around the issue of God's existence. If God does not exist, then nothing matters. Yet if God does exist, then everything matters. According to the known laws of physics, God does exist. But before getting to that matter, let me point out the logical implications of a position which maintains that God does not exist. If God does not exist, then immortality is logically impossible, as any form of immortality necessarily entails the existence of the capital-G God, in the sense of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal being with infinite computational resources. This is mathematically unavoidable, for the reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Eternal Return per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem. This is very easy to see by considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e., different states), because any finite state will eventually start to repeat. Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of the capital-G God, since mathematically, immortality requires the existence of either an infinite computational state or a finite state which diverges to an infinite computational state (i.e., diverging to literal Godhead in all its fullness), thus allowing for states to never repeat and hence an infinite number of experiences. Yet the only thing that could give existence and life meaning is immortality, since less than full immortality would mean than living beings' consciousnesses eventually come to an end. As well, with the growth of mental resources, it would make the death all the more tragic. Just as the death of a human is far more tragic than the death of an amoeba, the death of a superhuman intelligence would be all the worse. For then what is dying is greater in amount: more memories, more feelings, more intellect. Hence, if literal immortality does not exist, then it would be better that we die in the womb, and if not then than the sooner the better: for every day that we go on, new experiences and memories are added which will all come to naught--which will all be snuffed out. Better that a living thing die as bacteria than it die as a sapient intelligence were it not to be immortal: all the more given that the more primitive an intelligence, the less ability it would have to contemplate its fate. So also, it wouldn't then matter if one were a serial-killer or a mass-murderer as opposed to a paragon of kindness, as in the end it would all equate to the same thing: eternal death. All life and anything anyone had worked for would all come to naught. Thus, the only thing that could give existence and life meaning is if God exists, since then an infinite computational state would exist, allowing for finite states to never repeat as they diverge toward greater complexity, and hence allowing an infinite number of experiences. Only then could life and consciousness, instead of coming to naught, be able to grow and progress endlessly. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals, is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) 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 space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws. The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+JamesRRedford Not so. If I say that I am unsure if there is life on other planets than Earth, I might be making a claim about the state of my knowledge, but I am not making a claim about the issue under discussion. As for your belief that any scientific TOE has anything to do with "all the unique properties claimed for God in traditional religions" such as being a personality, where is the evidence that this supposed "god" is a personal god? Are you claiming that "god" is not said to be a personal god in most religions, or that you have evidence that a personal "god" exists? If "god" is defined as a bologna sandwich, then I'll grant there is evidence of god's existence. Same goes for a definition such as Wittgenstein proposed "the purpose of life", which there could be evidence for (or not!). Or Einstein's impersonal "cosmic forces" sort of god... sure, these can exist, but they certainly are not the typical deity sort of god requiring "faith" that are common in religions.

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

Hi, Kon Berner. You stated, "Not so. If I say that I am unsure if there is life on other planets than Earth, I might be making a claim about the state of my knowledge, but I am not making a claim about the issue under discussion." You are replying to the phantasms of your own fevered imagination. You are not therein replying to any point that I made. Because of course the points I made are correct. And you state death-cultists are a highly superstitious lot. You act like opening a book and actually educating yourself on a mathematical theorem which is logically required by the known laws of physics and that has been published in leading physics journals would lead you to being possessed by a demon. Your state programming has been very effective. Regarding your jejune and irrational statements vis-à-vis that verboten subject which you must remain in ignorance about: 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. The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions. As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221). The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and any point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime. So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it. Quite literally, the cosmological 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. And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources. Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain. Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse. Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions. For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following articles: * 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, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf 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/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo

Read more Show less

Reply · 1

+Giovanni Rosado Nah the dude is 73, he looks pretty decent considering this.

Read more Show less

Reply · 2 3