This is the html version of the file https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Page 1
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708
The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity
Theory of Everything
∗
James Redford†
September 10, 2012
ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-
reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals
by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that
in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe
must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmo-
logical singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic compo-
nent of the Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory
of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which
itself is also required by the known physical laws. With infinite computational re-
sources, the dead can be resurrected—never to die again—via perfect computer
emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Miracles are also phys-
ically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point
cosmological singularity. The Omega Point is a different aspect of the Big Bang
cosmological singularity—the first cause—and the Omega Point has all the haec-
ceities claimed for God in the traditional religions.
From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, eco-
nomic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology.
∗Originally published at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) on December 19, 2011, doi:
10.2139/ssrn.1974708 . Herein revised on September 10, 2012. This article and its contents are re-
leased in the public domain. If one desires a copyright for this work, then this article and its contents
are also released under Version 3.0 of the “Attribution (By)” Creative Commons license and/or Version
1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License. Note that this article incorporates various priorly-published
writings of mine in diverse locations.
†Email address: <jrredford@yahoo.com>.
1
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708
Contents
4
5
12
3.1 The Omega Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 The Universal Resurrection of the Dead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
posed New Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
26
28
33
35
7.1 The Haecceities of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2 The Aseity of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.3 The Trinity of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.4 The Theodicy of Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.4.1 The Problem of Evil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.4.2 God’s Relation to the Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.4.3 Ha’Mashiach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.4.4 The Soteriology of Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
53
8.1 Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.1.1 The Dysteleology of Life without God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
8.1.2 Life with God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
8.2 Ponerology Vis-à-Vis Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.2.1 The Beast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.2.2 The Mark of the Beast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
108
121
2
121
A.1 A Description of the Bekenstein Bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
A.3 An Example of the Bekenstein Bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
127
128
128
130
134
135
135
List of Figures
The Universe’s Taublike Collapse Cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
An Example of a Fractal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3
1 A Brief Description of the Omega Point Cosmology
The Omega Point cosmology by Tulane University professor of physics and mathe-
matics Frank J. Tipler is a proof of God’s existence according to the known laws of
physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum
Mechanics [436–438, 440, 441, 443–445, 447]. The theorem is an integral part of the
Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything
(TOE), which is also required by the known physical laws [441, 445, 447].
The Omega Point is a term used by Prof. Tipler to designate the final cosmological
singularity, which according to the known laws of physics is a physically-necessary
cosmological state in the far future of the universe. Per the laws of physics, as the
universe comes to an end at this singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch,
the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and
memory storage) increases unlimitedly with a hyperbolic growth rate as the radius
of the universe collapses to zero, allowing an infinite number of bits to be processed
and stored before the end of spacetime. Via this supertask, a simulation run on this
cosmological computer can thereby continue forever in its own terms (i.e., in computer
clock time, or experiential time), even though the universe lasts only a finite amount
The known laws of physics require there be intelligent civilizations in existence at
the appropriate time in order to force the collapse of the universe and then manipulate
its collapse so that the computational capacity of the universe can diverge to infinity.
Due to the increasing temperature of the universe during the collapse phase (wherein
the temperature diverges to infinity), life will have to transfer its information processes
to higher energy states, eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on
via traveling waves and standing waves. As the radius of the universe goes to zero, the
matter energy of the universe goes to positive infinity,1 thereby allowing the number
of particle states in which to store information to diverge to infinity.
The Omega Point final singularity and its state of infinite informational capacity is
by definition God, due to it having all the haecceities claimed for God by the traditional
religions (as is detailed in Section 7.1). The final singularity is actually a different
aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by
all the Abrahamic religions. The implication of the Omega Point cosmology for present-
day humans is that the cosmic-scale computer close in proper time to the Omega
Point will be able to run computer emulations which are perfectly accurate down to
the quantum level of every physically-possible universe, and of any life contained in
1For how the matter energy of the universe can diverge to positive infinity without violating the
conservation of energy, see the excerpt of Prof. Stephen Hawking on p. 16.
4
them, from the start of the Big Bang (which starts at zero informational capacity and
diverges to infinite informational capacity as the universe progresses in time, thereby
allowing sufficiently later states of the universe to perfectly render earlier states). The
recreated inhabitants at the states near the Omega Point will thereby be resurrected in
an infinite-duration afterlife, which can take any imaginable form due to its computer-
rendered nature.
The interstellar colonization phase required for achieving the Omega Point will
be accomplished by naturally-evolved sapient lifeforms (with such species indepen-
dently evolved on average roughly every Hubble volume2) whose brains have been
transformed (e.g., with nanotechnology) into artificial computers (such as quantum
computers) onboard tiny starships of circa one kilogram that will exponentially colo-
nize space, many times faster than mortal human beings. The incredible expense of
keeping flesh-and-blood humans alive in space makes it highly improbable that such
humans will ever personally travel to other stars. Instead, highly efficient substrate-
transformations of naturally-evolved sapient minds and artificial intelligences will
spread civilization throughout space. Given the rate of exponential growth of human
technological development, this colonization phase should likely start before 2100.
Small spaceships under heavy acceleration up to relativistic speeds can then reach
nearby stars in less than a decade. In one million years, these superintelligent self-
replicating spacecraft will have completely colonized the Milky Way Galaxy. In 100
million years, the Virgo Supercluster will be colonized. From that point on, the entire
visible universe will be engulfed by these sapient spaceships as it approaches the point
of maximum expansion. The final singularity of the Omega Point itself will be reached
between 1018 and 1019 years of proper time (i.e., one quintillion to ten quintillion
years, using the US short scale convention for names of large numbers).3
2 History of the Omega Point Cosmology
Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed and published in many
prestigious physics and science journals since 1986 [426, 429–434, 436–438, 440,
443, 445]. The first book wherein the Omega Point Theory was described was 1986’s
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, written by astrophysicist John D. Barrow (pro-
2Ref. 443, p. 147 of the Int. J. Astrobio. version, or p. 8 of the arXiv version.
3Ref. 445, pp. 915–916 of the Rep. Prog. Phys. version, or pp. 28–29 of the arXiv version.
5
fessor at the University of Cambridge) and Tipler, wherein they concluded the book by
writing that4
if life evolves in all of the many universes in a quantum cosmology, and if life
continues to exist in all of these universes, then all of these universes, which
include all possible histories among them, will approach the Omega Point. At the
instant the Omega Point is reached, life will have gained control of all matter and
forces not only in a single universe, but in all universes whose existence is logically
possible; life will have spread into all spatial regions in all universes which could
logically exist, and will have stored an infinite amount of information, including
all bits of knowledge which it is logically possible to know. And this is the end.
In an endnote to the above paragraph, Barrow and Tipler added that “A modern-
day theologian might wish to say that the totality of life at the Omega Point is om-
nipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient!”5 The first book solely concentrating on the
Omega Point Theory was Tipler’s The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God
and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1994 [435].
An atheist since the age of 16 years [146], 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 instead mathematician and physicist Prof. Freeman J. Dyson’s 1979
Reviews of Modern Physics paper “Time without end: Physics and biology in an open
universe”.6
The term “Omega Point” was coined by Jesuit priest, paleontologist and geolo-
gist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in his book The Phenomenon of Man [418], published
posthumously in 1955, the same year of his death. Teilhard used the term to mean
the condition he maintained the Earth is evolving to, whereupon superintelligence
becomes dominate, of which state Teilhard identified as Christ. While both Teilhard
and Tipler’s Omega Point concepts share similarities in their mutual meliorism, their
physical cosmologies are fundamentally different. Unlike Tipler, Teilhard was not a
cosmologist, and his Omega Point doesn’t go beyond the Earth, a fatal flaw that dooms
life in Teilhard’s cosmology on the grounds of physics. Teilhard’s Omega Point concep-
tion is quite vague in physical details, being more of a philosophic idea. Tipler chose
Teilhard’s term upon realizing that life can continue forever only if the universe ends
4Ref. 13, Ch. 10: “The Future of the Universe”, pp. 676–677. The first mention that I could find of
Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology is Ref. 420.
5Ref. 13, p. 682.
6Ref. 117. For a nontechnical exposition of the ideas presented in this paper, see Ref. 118. See Refs.
259; and 435, pp. 108, 116–119, 139–140 and 451 for Tipler’s discussion of Dyson’s ideas and their
influence on him. Dyson himself twice cites a paper by Barrow and Tipler [11] in his aforementioned
1979 Rev. Mod. Phys. paper.
6
in a solitary-point final singularity.7 In Tipler’s use of the term, “Omega Point” means
end-point, in the sense of the literal end of spacetime at a literal geometric point of
infinite sharpness.
The world’s leading quantum physicist, David Deutsch (professor at the University
of Oxford, and inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathemat-
ically formulate how such a device operates8), in his 1997 book The Fabric of Reality
defends the physics of Tipler’s Omega Point Theory in Chapter 14: “The Ends of the
Universe”9 (of which chapter concentrates mainly on the Omega Point Theory):10
I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory
of the future of spacetime until and unless it is experimentally (or otherwise)
refuted. (Experimental refutation is possible because the existence of an omega
point in our future places certain constraints on the condition of the universe
today.)
Deutsch later comments within a concluding paragraph of the same chapter re-
garding the synthesis of his “four strands” conception of fundamental reality, which
7Ref. 435, pp. 110–117. See ibid., pp. 119, 139–142 (which makes reference to Conditions 1–3 on
pp. 132–133) for why it is physically impossible for life to continue forever if the universe does not end
in an Omega Point final singularity.
8Ref. 105. In 1998 Deutsch won the Institute of Physics’ Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work.
Prof. Ellis [124] in part describes Deutsch’s contribution to the field of quantum computation in the fol-
lowing passage: “He [Dennis Sciama] supervised over 70 PhD students, among them Stephen Hawking,
Brandon Carter (formulator of the Anthropic Principle in cosmology), Sir Martin Rees, Philip Cande-
las, John Barrow and David Deutsch (originator of quantum computing).” (Among other postdoctoral
positions Tipler held, he was also a postdoctoral researcher under Sciama.) See also the Royal Society
of London’s announcement [363] of Deutsch becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 2008,
wherein the Society conveys some of his achievements.
Deutsch’s book The Beginning of Infinity was published in 2011 [107]. In it Deutsch argues that infi-
nite progress by humans along with their eventual obtainment of immortality is allowed by the known
laws of physics. Although on p. 451 of the book, Deutsch mistakenly thinks that the universe’s acceler-
ating expansion disconfirms the Omega Point cosmology. In this book, Deutsch displays no awareness
of the advancements in the Omega Point cosmology (see p. 16 of this article regarding the acceler-
ating expansion). Moreover, were the Omega Point cosmology actually disconfirmed, then Deutsch’s
infinite-progress worldview would also be disconfirmed, for unless the laws of physics are considerably
different than the current known laws of physics, then endless progress would be physically impossible
(for details on that, see the second sentence in footnote 7 on p. 7 of this article; Deutsch’s suggestion
[107, p. 451] of using the dark energy for life’s energy requirements does nothing to negate Tipler’s
points here, since the amount of dark energy is still finite over the entire universe). However, in a
November 28, 2011 email communication with me, Deutsch allowed for the possibility that the Omega
Point cosmology could be correct.
9Ref. 106, pp. 344–366; extracts from said chapter with additional comments by Tipler are available
at WebCite: 5olRwXSFX, <http://goo.gl/nDkHa>.
10Ref. 106, p. 355.
7
includes the strengthened version of mathematician Alan Turing’s theory of universal
computation in the form of the Omega Point Theory:11
It seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the
‘natural’ view to hold. It is the conservative view, the one that does not propose
any startling change in our best fundamental explanations. Therefore it ought to
be the prevailing view, the one against which proposed innovations are judged.
That is the role I am advocating for it. I am not hoping to create a new orthodoxy;
far from it. As I have said, I think it is time to move on. But we can move to better
theories only if we take our best existing theories seriously, as explanations of the
world.
One of the world’s foremost theologians, Wolfhart Pannenberg (professor emeritus
at the University of Munich, who holds five honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees),
defends the theology of the Omega Point cosmology in a number of articles [326–329].
In 2007 Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity was published [447], which gives
an update to the latest findings of the Omega Point cosmology while also analyzing its
pertinence to Christian theology. The Physics of Christianity is written more for a popu-
lar audience than is The Physics of Immortality, with much less technical details being
given (of which technical details Tipler instead confines to his papers in the science
journals). In the book, Tipler identifies the Omega Point as being the Judeo-Christian
God, particularly as described by Christian theological tradition, e.g., that the Omega
Point cosmology when formulated in multiversal terms (of which multiverse concep-
tion isn’t necessary for the physics upon which the Omega Point itself is based12) is
fundamentally triune in its structure: the Final Singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the
All-Presents Singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and
the Initial Singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang), which Tipler identifies with
the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, respectively (successively, the First, Second and
Third Persons of the Trinity).13
In this book Tipler also analyzes how Jesus Christ could have performed the mir-
acles attributed to him in the New Testament without violating any known laws of
physics, even if one were to assume that we currently don’t exist on a level of im-
plementation in a computer simulation (in the case that we did, then such miracles
would be trivially easy to perform for the society which was running the simulation,
even though it would seem amazing from our perspective). This proposed process
11Ref. 106, p. 366.
12On the inherent multiversal nature of Quantum Mechanics, see Refs. 435, pp. 483–488; 439, 449.
13See Figures 1 and 2 on pp. 9 and 10, respectively, for diagrams of the multiverse formulation of the
Omega Point cosmology.
8
The Final Singularity
(Omega Point). Infinite
entropy, i.e., infinite
information.
The All-Presents
Singularity.
The Initial Singulariy
(start of the Big Bang).
0 entropy.
Radii of the universes.
Proper time.
Universes too large to develop
structure. Entropy remains at 0.
Universes that
develop structure.
Entropy goes from
0 to infinity.
Currently there are less than 2
different universes in the multiverse.
This number diverges to infinity as
the Omega Point is approached.
Universes too small
to develop structure.
Entropy remains at 0.
Note A.
10123
Figure 1: A diagram of the multiverse formulation of the Omega Point cosmology. Note that
the physics of the Omega Point cosmology aren’t dependent on a multiverse formulation. See
also Figure 2 on p. 10 for a different visualization of the multiversal Omega Point cosmology.
Note A: Sapient life develops, gradually taking over control of more resources in the universes with
structure, eventually becoming ubiquitous throughout and in control over all resources in each of these
universes.
During the colonization phase, life uses baryon annihilation for its energy requirements and for in-
terstellar travel. In the process, the annihilation of baryons forces the Higgs field toward its absolute
vacuum, thereby canceling the positive cosmological constant and forcing these universes to collapse.
During the collapse phase, life in each of these universes uses energy from gravitational shear by
forcing Taub universe collapses, thereby creating a temperature differential whereby usable energy can
be obtained. The Taublike collapses, first in one direction, and then another direction (i.e., Mixmaster
oscillations), are also used to eliminate event horizons, which is necessary for information process-
ing (and hence life) to continue. This mode of collapse ends (in proper time) in a single c-boundary
(i.e., causal boundary) point: the Omega Point. The gravitational shear energy thereby available to life
diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached.
Due to the increasing temperature of these universes during the collapse phase (wherein the temper-
ature diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached), life will have to transfer its information
processes to higher energy states, eventually using elementary particles to directly compute on.
9
The
Cosmological
Singularity.
Figure 2: A diagram of the multiverse formulation of the Omega Point cosmology, here show-
ing the unified nature of the Cosmological Singularity, with its different aspects being the Initial
Singularity, the All-Presents Singularity and the Final Singularity, as depicted in Figure 1 on
p. 9. See also that diagram for an explanation of the other visual features of this diagram.
10
uses baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling14
caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega
Point final cosmological singularity exists. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth
of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who
obtained all of his genetic material from Mary (i.e., an instance of parthenogenesis).
Tipler concludes that the Star of Bethlehem was either a Type Ic hypernova located
in the Andromeda Galaxy, or a Type Ia supernova located in a globular cluster of our
own Milky Way Galaxy.15
If the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and the miracles attributed to him in the New Tes-
tament were necessary in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point—and if
the known laws of physics are correct—then the probability of these events occurring
is certain. Furthermore, Tipler proposes tests on particular relics associated with Jesus
which, if the relics are genuine, could verify whether in fact said miracles took place
via the aforementioned mechanisms. Tipler writes in this book that miracles, if they
indeed exist, do not violate physical law, but instead are events which are so improb-
able that they would only be likely to occur within human history via the Least-Action
Principle if the universe is required to evolve into the Omega Point.
The Physics of Christianity shows a change from Tipler’s earlier position within The
Physics of Immortality regarding theism and Christianity. In the opening paragraph of
Chapter XII: “The Omega Point and Christianity” of The Physics of Immortality, Tipler
wrote the following:16
To emphasize the scientific nature of the Omega Point Theory, let me state here
that I am at present forced to consider myself an atheist, in the literal sense that
I am not a theist. (A-theist means “not theist.”) I do not yet even believe in the
Omega Point. The Omega Point Theory is a viable scientific theory of the future
of the physical universe, but the only evidence in its favor at the moment is theo-
retical beauty, for there is as yet no confirming experimental evidence for it. Thus
scientifically one is not compelled to accept it at the time of my writing these
words. So I do not. [Antony] Flew, among others, has in my opinion made a con-
vincing case for the presumption of atheism. If the Omega Point Theory and all
possible variations of it are disconfirmed, then I think atheism in the sense of
14For the mechanism in the Standard Model of particle physics that allows for the nonconservation
of baryon number (i.e., baryon annihilation, and its inverse, baryogenesis), see Refs. 87, 198, 364;
and 471, Ch. 23: “Extended Field Configurations”, pp. 421–477. Weinberg gives a derivation of this
mechanism from the Atiyah–Singer Index Theorem in Ref. 471. Gerardus ’t Hooft, who discovered this
new physical law in 1976 [198], was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1999.
15Ref. 447, Ch. 6: “The Christmas Miracle: The Star of Bethlehem”, pp. 141–153, of which chapter is
based upon Ref. 446.
16Ref. 435, p. 305.
11
Flew, [David] Hume, [Bertrand] Russell, and the other self-described atheists is
the only rational alternative. But of course I also think the Omega Point Theory
has a very good chance of being right, otherwise I would never have troubled
to write this book. If the Omega Point Theory is confirmed, I shall then consider
myself a theist.
Tipler is now a theist due to advancements in his Omega Point cosmology which
occurred after the publication of The Physics of Immortality.17 Namely, Tipler has
shown that the known laws of physics—specifically, the Second Law of Thermodynam-
ics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics—require the existence of the Omega
Point singularity in order to avoid their violation [436–438, 440, 441, 443–445, 447];
whereas in The Physics of Immortality, Tipler investigated what would be necessary
from the postulate that life continues forever while still keeping the analysis confined
to the known laws of physics.
These physical laws have been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment to date,
constituting a massive body of empirical evidence for the Omega Point cosmology’s
correctness. And as indicated above, Tipler is also now a Christian due to the triune
structure of the Omega Point cosmology preferentially selecting God as described by
Christian theological tradition.
3 Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology
3.1 The Omega Point
From his 2005 paper in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics, Prof. Tipler gives
the following proof that the universe must end in the Omega Point in order for the
known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity,
and Quantum Mechanics) to be mutually consistent at all times:18
Astrophysical black holes almost certainly exist, but Hawking [186] and Wald
[19]
have shown that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then
they will completely evaporate, and unitarity will be violated. Thus, unitarity re-
quires that the universe must cease to exist after finite proper time, which implies
17Ref. 286; see Part 1 concerning Tipler no longer being an atheist. And see Ref. 447, p. 62.
18Ref. 445, p. 925 of the Rep. Prog. Phys. version; see also pp. 904–905. Citation formatting in the
quoted passage has been modified for the sake of clarity, including the footnote numbers within super-
script brackets that have been added by me. For this same proof given elsewhere by Tipler, see Refs.
436–438, 440, 441, 443–445, 447.
19Ref. 463, Ch. 7: “The Hawking Effect”, Sec. 7.3: “Evaporation of Black Holes and Loss of Quantum
Coherence”, pp. 175–187.
12
that the universe has spatial topology S3.
[20]
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
says the amount of entropy in the universe cannot decrease, but Ellis and Coule
[122] and I[21]
have shown that the amount of entropy already in the CMBR will
eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final singularity unless there
are no event horizons, since in the presence of horizons the Bekenstein Bound im-
plies the universal entropy S ≤ constant [i.e., the Bekenstein Bound]×R2, where
R is the radius of the universe, and general relativity requires R → 0 at the final
singularity. If there are no horizons then the (shear) energy density can grow as
R−6 which means that the total available energy grows as (R−6)R3 ∼ R−3, and so
the Bekenstein Bound yields ER ∼ (R−3)R ∼ R−2 which diverges as R−2 as R →
0 at the final singularity.
[22]
The absence of event horizons by definition means
that the universe’s future c-boundary is a single point, call it the Omega Point.
MacCallum [261] has shown that an S3 closed universe with a single point future
c-boundary is of measure zero in initial data space. Barrow [12, 17], Cornish and
Levin [96] and Motter [301] have shown that the evolution of an S3 closed uni-
verse into its final singularity is chaotic. Yorke et al [382, 383] have shown that a
chaotic physical system is likely to evolve into a measure zero state if and only if
its control parameters are intelligently manipulated. Thus life (≡intelligent com-
puters) almost certainly must be present arbitrarily close to the final singularity in
order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent at all times. Misner
[291, 293, 294] has shown in effect that event horizon elimination requires an
infinite number of distinct manipulations, so an infinite amount of information
must be processed between now and the final singularity. The amount of infor-
mation stored at any time diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is approached,
since S → +∞ there, implying divergence of the complexity of the system that
must be understood to be controlled.
Explanation of the Proof: Thus it’s shown that the Omega Point cosmology is a
logically-inescapable consequence of the known laws of physics.23 In the above, the
phrase “almost certainly” (also called “almost surely” or “with probability 1”) is a
technical term in probability theory that means the likelihood of an event occurring
20Tipler [445, p. 926 of the Rep. Prog. Phys. version] writes that “A dynamical proof for S3 can be
found in Barrow (1986)”, which is Ref. 14.
21Ref. 435, App. C: “The Bekenstein Bound”, pp. 410–411. Said Appendix is reproduced in Ref. 441,
Sec. 2: “Apparent Inconsistencies in the Physical Laws in the Early Universe”, Subsec. a: “Bekenstein
Bound Inconsistent with Second Law of Thermodynamics”, p. 7.
22Ref. 435, pp. 410–411 and 462. And Ref. 443.
23Ergo, the title of Omega Point Theorem is now correct to apply to the Omega Point cosmology, since
it is now a mathematical theorem per the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and
Quantum Mechanics. For more on this, see App. A.2.
13
has a probability of 1 (with the range of possible values being from 0 to 1 on the real
line), i.e., that it is infinitely improbable that the event does not occur.24 However,
another way to state the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that the universe evolves
from less probable states to more probable states.25 An infinitely improbable state is
not a “more probable” state. Hence, in order for an infinitely improbable state to occur
would require violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Consequently, if the
known laws of physics are true statements of how the world works, then the Omega
Point cosmology is logically unavoidable.
In the above-quoted paragraph, “measure zero” is a technical term in measure the-
ory (an area of mathematics which deals with the sizes of sets) that means “null set”
(also called “measure 0 set”). A null set corresponds to a probability of 0 in probabil-
ity space, which in the above means that its occurrence is infinitely improbable if the
selection-process is unguided.26 Here the “initial data space” is the superset in which
this “measure zero” set exists. The initial data space is all the possible outcomes which
could come about given particular physical conditions—the reason for it being called
“initial” is because as time progresses, events occur which preclude other events from
taking place.27 Hence, the initial data space is the largest set of possible outcomes for
a given physical system. In the context of the above, what it means is that the Omega
Point cosmological singularity is infinitely improbable acting only on blind and dead
forces, i.e., that the probability of the universe evolving into the Omega Point without
intelligent control is infinitely improbable. The reason for this is because in order for
the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, event horizons must be eliminated, other-
wise one doesn’t get a solitary-point final singularity (which is one of the definitions of
the Omega Point), but instead a singularity with many different points due to different
locations of the universe being out of causal contact with each other (which is what
the term “event horizon” means), which would be completely lethal to life as even-
tually even a single computer with the complexity and intelligence of a human mind
would be out of causal contact with the rest of itself, thereby making human-level
intelligence impossible (and progressing further in time, eventually even the simplest
form of life would become out causal contact with the rest of itself). Yet in order to
eliminate event horizons requires intelligence to direct the collapse trajectories of the
universe, necessitating an infinite number of distinct manipulations as the universe col-
lapses toward the Omega Point. Because the complexity of the universe grows without
bound, and because the universe must be understood so that its collapse trajectories
24Ref. 277, p. 1269.
25Ref. 488, Ch. 2: “General Principles of Statistical Thermodynamics”, p. 94.
26Refs. 50, p. 73 (or p. 41 of the reprint); 169, pp. 1–2.
27Refs. 432, p. 171 of the reprint; 435, p. 161; 13, pp. 495–496, 501–502.
14
can be controlled, life growing in intelligence without bound—becoming literally infi-
nite in intelligence at the end of proper time—is a logically inherent consequence of
the known laws of physics.28
The phrase “arbitrarily close” in the foregoing block quotation of Tipler is a techni-
cal term in analysis (a branch of mathematics which includes calculus) that refers to
the limit of a function. It means infinitesimally close, or infinitely close.29 The reason
for this term being used here is because while the known laws of physics say that the
cosmological singularity must exist, no possible laws of physics can apply to the sin-
gularity itself, because physical values are at infinity there, and hence it’s not possible
to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction (nor multiplication
or division) on those physical values in order to apply a physics equation to them.
Further Elaboration: During the collapse phase of the universe, life obtains gravi-
tational shear energy by forcing cycles of Taub universe collapses (named after physi-
cist Abraham Haskel Taub30), whereby the universe collapses in one direction into
the shape of an oblate spheroid by life directing trajectories of mass, thereby creat-
ing greater heating in the direction of collapse and hence a temperature differential
whereby usable energy can be obtained.31 The Taublike collapses, first in one direction,
and then another direction (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations32), are also used to eliminate
event horizons by allowing communication across the universe in the direction of col-
lapse, which is necessary for information processing (and hence life) to continue.33
This mode of collapse ends (in proper time, as in computer clock time it never ends)
in a single c-boundary (i.e., causal boundary) point: the Omega Point. The gravita-
28To elaborate on this matter, in order to eliminate event horizons life will have to understand the
universe to some degree. Life can’t understand the universe in which it lives perfectly, since that would
involve a proper subset perfectly modeling its proper superset. Here the degree of life’s understanding
doesn’t matter to this argument, as the issue is that the complexity of the universe is increasing, and this
will necessarily increase the complexity of far-future life’s imperfect models of how the universe is to
evolve and thus how they are to respond to it so as to manipulate the universe’s collapse trajectories—
the point being here is that whatever their degree of understanding, said knowledge will still have to
diverge to infinity.
29Ref. 158, Sec. 5.1: “Limits”, p. 31.
30Refs. 262, 292, 313, 416; and 369, Ch. 8: “T–NUT–M Space—Open to Closed to Open”, pp. 132–
146. Taub collapses have also been termed Kasner crushings, after mathematician Edward Kasner.
31Ref. 435, pp. 136–144 and 462–463. This process which avoids Heat Death is depicted in Figure 3
on p. 17.
32Refs. 291, 293, 294. A Mixmaster universe is also called a Bianchi Type IX universe.
33Black hole event horizons are eventually eliminated via the trapped surfaces of today’s black holes
merging with the future trapped surfaces of the collapsing universe. See Ref. 435, App. H: “The Classical
Omega Point Universe: Mathematical Details”, pp. 478–479. Cf. Ref. 438, 2nd sentence of Sec. 6.
15
tional shear energy thereby available to life diverges to infinity as the Omega Point is
approached. That is, by making the negative gravitational energy go to minus infin-
ity, the positive energy available to life goes to plus infinity, as the total energy of the
universe at all times sums to exactly zero, as physicist Stephen Hawking has pointed
out:34
The answer [to where the universe’s energy came from] is that the total en-
ergy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of
positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces
of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a
long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the
gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational
field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform
in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the
positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is
zero.
Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of
positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without
violation of the conservation of energy.. . . As [physicist Alan] Guth has remarked,
“It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate
free lunch.”
The distance traversed in order for a signal (such as from a photon) to make a com-
plete transition across the universe gets shorter and shorter as the universe collapses
into the final singularity.35 In other words, the universe’s processor speed diverges
toward becoming infinitely fast as the universe collapses into the singularity, as the
amount of time it takes to send a signal across the universe is getting shorter. A light
ray thereby traverses an infinite number of times across the entire universe before the
final singularity, allowing an infinite number of computer clock cycles before the end
of proper time. Hence, experiential time lasts forever, i.e., the number of thoughts that
occur is infinite.
At the same time, the universe’s entropy (i.e., informational complexity) diverges
to infinity. In other words, the universe’s memory space diverges to infinity at the same
time that the universe’s processor speed is diverging to infinity, with both becoming
infinite at the final singularity (i.e., infinite processor speed and infinite memory space
at the final singularity).
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. Al-
34Ref. 188, Ch. 8: “The Origin and Fate of the Universe”, pp. 166–167.
35This process is depicted in the Penrose Diagram of Figure 4 on p. 20.
16
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3: 2-Sphere representations of the universe during stages of one of its Taublike col-
lapses. The actual spatial topology of the universe is that of a 3-sphere. The technical term
for this squashed sphere shape is oblate spheroid, which is a type of ellipsoid, and which has a
3-sphere analogue in addition to the 2-sphere form depicted above. In order to overcome event
horizons so that light will circumnavigate the universe just once in the collapsing direction—
hence allowing communication across the universe—the size of the universe in that direction
must decrease by a factor of approximately 70 [435, p. 144], as depicted in frame (c). Collapse
in that direction is then halted and the universe undergoes collapse in a different direction,
with an infinite number of these different Taublike collapses (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations) oc-
curring before the final singularity, thereby allowing light to circumnavigate the universe an in-
finite number of times before the end of proper time, thus creating an infinite-communication
universe whereby every point in the universe is able to signal to every other point in the
universe an infinite number of times. These anisotropic collapse cycles additionally provide
gravitational shear energy for life by creating a temperature differential across the universe,
because greater heating occurs in the direction of collapse.
17
though physicists Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner have pointed out
[242] that
The recognition that the cosmological constant may be non-zero forces us to re-
evaluate standard notions about the connection between geometry and the fate of
our Universe. An open Universe can recollapse, and a closed Universe can expand
forever. As a corollary, we point out that there is no set of cosmological obser-
vations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the
ultimate destiny of the Universe will be.
The reason why cosmological observations cannot tell us whether the universe will
expand forever or eventually collapse is because that is dependent on the actions of
intelligent life. 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 observed cosmological constant. But by sapient
life annihilating baryons in the universe—again via electroweak quantum tunneling
(which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number,
B − L, is conserved36)—the Higgs field is forced toward its absolute vacuum state,
canceling the observed cosmological constant and thereby allowing 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. As Tipler writes:37
The SM provides such a mechanism, which I actually discussed in the last section
of the Appendix for Scientists in ([435], p. 515). This mechanism is the creation/
destruction of baryon number by electroweak quantum tunneling. (Baryons are
the heavy particles made up of quarks. Examples are neutrons and protons.) In
my book, I pointed out that this mechanism would be ideal for propelling inter-
stellar spacecraft, but I did not discuss its implications for the Higgs vacuum, a
serious oversight on my part. (An oversight which invalidates the second part of
my Fifth Prediction on page 149 of [435].) If the SM is true—ALL experiments
conducted to date indicate that it is (e.g. [476] and [345], last full paragraph on
36Again, see footnote 14 on p. 11 for the details of this mechanism.
37Ref. 444. Citation numbering in the quoted passage has been modified for the sake of clarity. See
also Refs. 441, 443, 445, 447 for more on this mechanism of the universe’s collapse. In his 1994 book,
Tipler recognized that the Higgs field could stop the collapse of the universe but did not at the time
investigate the full implications of this [435, p. 465; cf. p. 150]: “The only known mechanism that could
stop the contraction [of the universe] is the positive cosmological constant Λ [Lambda] that must exist
(if the standard model is correct) to cancel the current negative energy density of the Higgs field; . . . ”.
18
p. 35)—then the net baryon number observed in the universe must have been cre-
ated in the early universe by this mechanism of electroweak quantum tunneling.
If the baryons were so created, then this process necessarily forces the Higgs field
to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum. But if the baryons in the
universe were to be annihilated by this process, say by the action of intelligent
life, then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, canceling
the positive cosmological constant, stopping the acceleration, and allowing the
universe to collapse into the Omega Point. Conversely, if enough baryons are not
annihilated by this process, the positive cosmological constant will never be can-
celled, the universe will expand forever, unitarity will be violated, and the Omega
Point will never come into existence. Only if life makes use of this process to
annihilate baryons will the Omega Point come into existence.
3.2 The Omega Point and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Every-
thing
In his 2005 paper in the journal Reports on Progress in Physics [445], Tipler demon-
strates that the correct38 quantum gravity theory has existed since 1962, first dis-
covered in that year by Richard Feynman [134–136, 138] (awarded the 1965 Nobel
Prize in Physics), and further independently developed by Bryce DeWitt [108–111],
Steven Weinberg [469] (awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics), and others
[130, 142, 267, 268]. But because these physicists were looking for equations with
a finite number of terms (i.e., differential equations with derivatives no higher than
second order), they abandoned this qualitatively unique quantum gravity theory since
in order for it to be consistent it requires an arbitrarily higher number of terms [447].
“They also did not realize that the correct quantum gravity theory is consistent only if
a certain set of boundary conditions are imposed . . . ”, writes Tipler (which includes
the initial Big Bang, and the final Omega Point, cosmological singularities).39 The
equations for this theory of quantum gravity are term-by-term finite, but the same
mechanism that forces each term in the series to be finite also forces the entire series
to be infinite (i.e., infinities that would otherwise occur in spacetime, consequently
destabilizing it, are transferred to the cosmological singularities, thereby preventing
the universe from immediately collapsing into nonexistence40). Tipler writes that41
38That is, correct according to the known laws of physics.
39Ref. 445, p. 899 of the Rep. Prog. Phys. version.
40On this matter, see Refs. 15, 427, in addition to Tipler’s 2005 Rep. Prog. Phys. paper [445] and his
2007 book [447].
41Ref. 447, p. 49, and the endnote on p. 279 to the sentence before the ellipsis.
19
The Big Bang Initial Singularity.
Space.
Time.
The Omega Point
Final Singularity.
Worldline of the Earth.
Worldline of a point in
the universe antipodal
to the Earth.
A light ray (i.e., a photon)
that leaves the Earth
circa AD 2011.
Figure 4: A Penrose Diagram (named after physicist Roger Penrose [428]) of the Omega Point
cosmology, showing the c-boundary (i.e., causal boundary) of a solitary-point final singular-
ity, termed the Omega Point. A photon traverses the entire length of the universe an infinite
number of times before the final singularity is reached. Furthermore, the distance between an-
tipodal points in the universe becomes closer and closer as the universe collapses into the final
singularity, meaning that the time it takes a photon to travel between opposite points of the
universe becomes shorter and shorter, i.e., the time it takes to send a signal between different
points in the universe is decreasing. In other words, an infinite number of computer processor
cycles occur before the final singularity (i.e., an infinite number of bits are processed, i.e., an
infinite number of thoughts occur), and the processor speed of the universe diverges to infinity
as the universe collapses into the final singularity.
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 5: Total available energy as the radius of the universe goes to zero: E = R−6 × R3 =
R−3 = 1/R3. That is, for every halving of the universe’s radius R, the total available energy E
increases by 8 times. In the graph, the horizontal axis is the radius, and the vertical axis is the
energy. The limit of this function is limR↘0
1
R3 = +∞ × E.
21
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Figure 6: Entropy growth allowed by the Bekenstein Bound as the radius of the universe goes
to zero: S ≤ R−3 × R = R−2 = 1/R2. That is, for every halving of the universe’s radius R,
the entropy S allowed by the Bekenstein Bound can increase by 4 times. In the graph, the
horizontal axis is the radius, and the vertical axis is the entropy.
22
It is a fundamental mathematical fact that this [infinite series] is the best that
we can do. . . .
This is somewhat analogous to Liouville’s theorem in complex analysis, which
says that all analytic functions other than constants have singularities either a
finite distance from the origin of coordinates or at infinity.
From the aforesaid Reports on Progress in Physics paper, Tipler elaborates on the
mathematics and physics of this issue, in part explained below:42
So basic quantum field theory quickly forces upon us the general invariant
action
S =
∫
d4 x
−g Λ +
1
8πG
R + c2
1
R2 + c3
1
R3 ···
+ c2
2
RµνR
µν + ··· + c3
1
Rµν;αR
µν;α + ···
(3)
This is the qualitatively unique gravitational Lagrangian picked out by quan-
tum mechanics. Physicists do not like it because (1) it has an infinite number of
(renormalizable) constants ci
j
, all of which must be determined by experiment
and (2) it will it not yield second order differential equations which all physicists
know and love. But the countable number of constants are in effect axioms of
the theory, and I pointed out in an earlier section that the Löwenheim–Skolem
theorem suggests there is no real difference between a theory with a countable
number of axioms and a theory with a finite number of axioms. The finite case is
just easier for humans to deal with, provided the ‘finite’ number is a small number.
Further, as Weinberg ([470], pp 499, 518–519) has emphasized, this Lagrangian
generates a quantum theory of gravity that is just as renormalizable as QED and
the SM.
Since quantum field theory itself is forcing the Lagrangian (3) on us, I pro-
pose that we accept the judgement of quantum mechanics and accept (3) (and
the countable number of additional terms involving the non-gravitational fields
interacting with the hµν
) as the actual Lagrangian of reality.
Donoghue [114] and Donoghue and Torma [115] have shown that Lagrangian
(3) will not contradict experiment provided the (renormalized) values of the infi-
nite number of new coupling constants are sufficiently small. . . .
One consequence of the above Lagrangian being the true description of quantum
gravity is that so long as one is within spacetime, then one can never obtain a complete
42Ref. 445, p. 914 of the Rep. Prog. Phys. version. Citation formatting in the quoted passage has been
modified for the sake of clarity. Typographical errors in this quoted passage have been corrected, again
for clarity.
23
description of quantum gravity and hence of physics: there will always be infinitely
more to learn and discover in the field of physics, including by requiring the use of
experiment [447]. Physics will become ever-more refined, knowledgeable and precise,
but never complete (i.e., within spacetime). Only at the final singularity of the Omega
Point (which is not in spacetime43) will the full description of physics be obtained.
In the same journal article, Tipler combines the above theory of quantum gravity
with the extended Standard Model of particle physics in order to form the Theory of
Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics.44
The Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE solves all
the outstanding problems in physics and cosmology, such as the black hole information
issue; the dark matter and the dark energy; the observed isotropy, homogeneity, and
spatial flatness of the universe; the observed excess of matter over antimatter; the
observed photon to baryon ratio; the Harrison–Zel’dovich perturbation spectrum; the
Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays issue; the Gauge Hierarchy
Problem; the free parameters to the Standard Model; etc.
Out of 50 articles, Tipler’s said paper was selected [325] as one of 12 for the
“Highlights of 2005” accolade as
the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68].
Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the
field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a
high number of downloads from the journal Website.
Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading peer-reviewed journal of the Institute
of Physics, Britain’s main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress
in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports45) than
Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one,
incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal’s im-
pact factor is a measure of the importance the science community places in that jour-
nal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers, with a higher number
meaning more citations. Impact factors published by Journal Citation Reports are the
standard measure used to compare a journal’s influence.
3.3 The Universal Resurrection of the Dead
Given an infinite amount of computational resources, recreating the exact quantum
state of our present universe is trivial (per the Bekenstein Bound), requiring at most a
43Ref. 182, Ch. 6: “Causal structure”, Sec. 6.8: “The causal boundary of space-time”, pp. 217–221.
44See also Refs. 441, 445, 447 for where Tipler has described the Omega Point TOE elsewhere.
45Refs. 85; and 211, p. 37.
24
mere 10123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 210123
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 proper subset of this powerset).46 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 10−1010
and 10−10123
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.47
The Continuity of Consciousness: Logically speaking, an exact emulation is the
thing being emulated. If it were not, then this would violate the Law of Identity in
the field of logic, and thus it would be a logical contradiction. An exact emulation of,
e.g., a human is merely a very large number.48 Indeed, even the entire lifetime of a
human can be perfectly described by a single number—a tremendously large number
compared to the numbers we’re used to dealing with, but still quite finite.
To say that a perfect emulation is not the thing being emulated would be the same
as saying that 3765258724 = 3765258724, i.e., that there is something about the
number 3765258724 on the left-hand side of the foregoing relation which makes it
nonequivalent to the version on the right-hand side. But this is a logical contradiction,
as it violates the Law of Identity that A = A.
So as conclusively as one can maintain that A = A (and one can be logically certain
of this), then one can be confident that one’s resurrected self will be oneself in every
possible way, and that one’s consciousness will continue. Again, to suppose otherwise
involves a logical contradiction.
3.4 The Omega Point Cosmology Vis-à-Vis String Theory and Other
Proposed New Physics
According to string theorist Prof. Brian Greene, it is unknown if singularities of gravi-
tational collapse are possible or excluded in String Theory as applied to the actual ge-
ometry of the universe, although he states that string theorists suspect that no object
46Ref. 445, pp. 903–904 of the Rep. Prog. Phys. version.
47Ref. 435, Ch. IX: “The Physics of the Resurrection of the Dead to Eternal Life”, Sec.: “When Will the
Dead Be Raised?”, pp. 225.
48For the details on this, see App. A.
25
can be compressed below the Planck length within String Theory.49 If such singular-
ities are not possible in String Theory, then String Theory would violate the known
laws of physics in this regard, specifically General Relativity (for details on this, see
the discussion regarding the Penrose–Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems in Sec-
tion 5). As well, the Omega Point cosmology requires the existence of a cosmological
singularity at the end of proper time, and the Omega Point cosmology is required by
the known laws of physics.
Prof. Stephen Hawking has proposed [189] a solution to the black hole informa-
tion issue in order to preserve unitarity but without the universe collapsing which
is dependent on the conjectured String Theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal
field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). Besides proposing new phys-
ical laws that have no experimental confirmation in an effort to solve the black hole
information problem, Hawking’s proposal also violates the known laws of physics (see
Appendix A.2 for the details on that).
Whereas the known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment con-
ducted to date, String Theory has never been confirmed by even a single experiment.
As yet, String Theory has been nothing more than pure mathematics with the aspira-
tion held by its proponents of someday becoming physics—a goal that has so far been
a wild-goose chase. Tipler himself argues against the validity of String Theory in its
current state [445]. The same lack of experimental confirmation presently applies to
all other forms of proposed new physics, and such proposed new physics also violate
the known laws of physics.
4 Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology
To date the only peer-reviewed paper in a physics journal that has criticized Tipler’s
Omega Point cosmology has been in 1994 by physicists Prof. George Ellis and Dr.
David Coule in the journal General Relativity and Gravitation [122]. In the paper, El-
lis and Coule unwittingly gave an argument that the Bekenstein Bound violates the
Second Law of Thermodynamics if the universe collapses without having event hori-
zons eliminated.50 Yet in order to bring about the Omega Point, event horizons must
be eliminated, and Tipler cites this paper in favor of the fact that the known laws of
physics require the Omega Point to exist.51
49Ref. 160, Ch. 10: “Quantum Geometry”, Sec.: “How General Is This Conclusion?”, pp. 254–255; cf.
pp. 236, 239, 252–255 and 357–358.
50See Ref. 122, p. 733, Equation No. 3, and the discussion by Tipler on this paper in Ref. 435, pp.
410–411.
51Ref. 445, p. 925 of the Rep. Prog. Phys. version.
26
There have also been a number of unrefereed book reviews appearing in science
journals and popular science magazines which have been critical of Tipler’s Omega
Point cosmology. Writing in the “Book Reviews” section of the journal Nature, Ellis
[123] described Tipler’s book The Physics of Immortality as “a masterpiece of pseu-
doscience. ... the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the
normal constraints of scientific or philosophical discipline.” Ellis’s criticisms in his re-
view consist of the logical fallacy of bare assertion while ignoring what Tipler actually
wrote. If one ignores what the critiqued individual wrote then one can construct any
irrelevant objection.
For example, Ellis asserts that Tipler “ignores the fact” that life cannot exist at
arbitrarily high temperatures, but it is Ellis who ignores the fact that Tipler already
addressed this matter in the very book under review. Physics allows life to exist as the
temperature diverges to infinity if enough energy is available in which to record pro-
cessed information (i.e., store manipulated bits) and the information-bearing medium
exists at an energy level high enough in which to store information at the given tem-
peratures. Tipler points out in his said book that such energy will be available and
that within the Omega Point cosmology the energy levels for the medium in which to
store information at the given temperatures automatically scale with the collapse of
the universe.52 It’s as if Ellis skimmed parts of the book without reading all of it, and
hence is unaware that his objections were already addressed.53
In the magazine New Scientist, physicist Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss [243] referred
to Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity as “a collection of half-truths and exaggera-
tions, I am tempted to describe Tipler’s new book as nonsense—but that would be un-
fair to the concept of nonsense. It is far more dangerous than mere nonsense . . . ”. Else-
where, Krauss has made it a point to emphasize what he considers to be the utter pur-
poselessness of the universe and the futility of human life within in.54 It’s quite bizarre
then how Tipler’s writings could possibly be viewed as “dangerous” by Krauss, since
per Krauss’s Weltanschauung, existence is completely pointless. Apparently Krauss be-
lieves that Tipler’s “dangerous” ideas pose the risk of screwing up mankind’s pointless
fate!
In his review, Krauss repeatedly commits the logical fallacy of bare assertion.
Krauss gives no indication that he followed up on the endnotes in the book The Physics
of Christianity and actually read Tipler’s physics journal papers. All that Krauss is going
off of in said review is Tipler’s mostly nontechnical popular-audience book The Physics
52Ref. 435, pp. 461–463, 465, 473 and 475–476. See also Ref. 445.
53Ellis elsewhere [399] makes this same faulty criticism, also with no apparent awareness that Tipler
already addressed this matter.
54Ref. 244, 43:10 min:sec ff. At 55:53 min:sec ff., Krauss uses an invective to refer to Tipler.
27
of Christianity without researching Tipler’s technical papers in the physics journals.
Krauss’s review offers no actual lines of reasoning for Krauss’s pronouncements. His
readership is simply expected to imbibe what Krauss proclaims, even though it’s clear
that Krauss is merely critiquing a popular-audience book which does not attempt to
present the rigorous technical details.
For instance, Krauss asserts that “He [Tipler] claims that we have a clear and con-
sistent theory of quantum gravity. We don’t.” Whereas Tipler gives detailed arguments
for the Omega Point/Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model
Theory of Everything (TOE) in his 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper [445].
Krauss displays no awareness of this peer-reviewed paper or of Tipler’s other refereed
papers on the Omega Point cosmology published in many physics journals.
Although in this same review, Krauss does admit that the mechanism that Tipler
proposes for Jesus Christ’s miracles is physically sound if said miracles were necessary
in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point and if the Omega Point is required
in order for existence to exist.
Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen
Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of
the universe’s expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to
obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in
Reference 242 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.”
As pointed out with Ellis and Coule’s criticism, this isn’t the first time that this
ironic outcome has befallen critics of Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology. So when Tipler’s
critics actually do real physics instead of issuing bare assertions and nihil ad rem cavils,
they end up making Tipler’s case stronger. Ironic though it is, nevertheless that’s the
expected result, since the Omega Point cosmology is required by the known laws of
physics.
5 The Big Bang
Physics, in the form of the Big Bang cosmology, has many decades ago already demon-
strated per the known laws of physics that God exists, since the Big Bang singularity
is the first cause, one of the ancient definitions of God held by all the Abrahamic
religions.
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
28
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.55
The originator of the Big Bang theory was Roman Catholic priest and physicist
Prof. Georges Lemaître in 1927;56 and it was enthusiastically endorsed by Pope Pius
XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it. Indeed,
Lemaître relates that when he spoke with Albert Einstein regarding his Primaeval Atom
Hypothesis, Einstein’s response to it was “Non, pas cela, cela suggère trop la création”
(“No, not this—this too much suggests the creation”).57
55Ref. 182, Ch. 6: “Causal structure”, Sec. 6.8: “The causal boundary of space-time”, pp. 217–221.
56Refs. 247–251. Alexander Friedmann was the first to derive solutions to Einstein’s field equations
that require the curvature of space to vary with time [144, 145], but did not suggest that the universe
was actually expanding. Lemaître independently derived the solutions, and proposed that the universe
was in fact expanding (as also the title to his first paper [247] on the subject indicates), while providing
observational evidence that this was so. For histories on this, see Refs. 57, 241, 285. As physicist George
C. McVittie wrote [285, p. 296] in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society’s obituary for
Lemaître,
It is true that, unknown to Lemaitre, the Russian mathematician A. Friedmann had, in
1922 and 1924, published papers in which the general differential equation for [Ein-
stein’s field equations’ radial scale-factor] R was considered. But Lemaitre went beyond
the determination of a specific form for R: he showed that his model could be used to in-
terpret the observed redshift in the spectra of extragalactic nebulae, regarded as a Doppler
effect. With this step, cosmology, as we know it today, was launched.
And as physicist Alain Blanchard wrote [57, p. 241],
the questions he [Lemaître] addressed shows that he was the first cosmologist in the mod-
ern sense . . . In this sense, [according] to [cosmologist] Jim Peebles, Physical Cosmology
during the century was essentially a continuation of Lemaître’s program (Peebles, 1991).
Wherein “(Peebles, 1991)” is Ref. 332.
57Ref. 252. Lemaître’s meaning of “atome primitif ” is the initial cosmological singularity of zero radius,
with “atom” being used in the ancient Greek sense of Leucippus and Democritus as an indivisible unity
[253, p. 477]. Lemaître’s Primaeval Atom Hypothesis would later be mathematically proved per General
Relativity with the Penrose–Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems, discussed in this section farther
below.
29
Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1–5 assert that the universe had a beginning, and that
God is its First Cause.58 Rabbi Moses Maimonides,59 and Thomas Aquinas in his Five
Ways,60 had both defined God as the uncaused First Cause,61 which is equivalent to
Aristotle’s conception of God as the Unmoved First Mover (i.e., the Prime Mover).62
The physics community was therefore quite reluctant to confirm with the Big Bang
that God exists per this traditional and ancient definition of God.
As regards physicists abandoning physical law due to their theological discomfort
with the Big Bang cosmology, in an article by Prof. Tipler he gives the following exam-
ple involving no less than physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg:63
The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specif-
ically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I
audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told
his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory
because “it least resembled the account in Genesis” (my emphasis). In his book
The First Three Minutes (chapter 6),
[64]
Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of
the Big Bang Theory: “[O]ur mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously,
but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that
these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do
with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that
certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimen-
tal effort.” [My emphasis—J. R.]
I have now known Weinberg for over thirty years, and I know that he has
always taken the equations of physics very seriously indeed. He and I are both
convinced that the equations of physics are the best guide to reality, especially
when the predictions of these equations are contrary to common sense. But as
he himself points out in his book, the Big Bang Theory was an automatic conse-
quence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nu-
58Cf. 2 Maccabees 7:28.
59Ref. 265, Part 1, Ch. 69, pp. 102–105, passim.
60Ref. 419, 1st Part, Question 2, Art. 3.
61Interestingly, the First Cause does have a cause in the sense of future-to-past causality. However, in
past-to-future causality, all causal chains begin at the Big Bang initial singularity, and so it is uncaused
in the sense of how humans commonly think of causality. Another sense in which the cosmological
singularity is uncaused is that it is outside of spacetime [182, pp. 217–221], and therefore eternal, as
time does not apply to it.
62Ref. 6, Book 12 (Λ), Ch. 7, Bekker Nos. ca. 1072a20–1073a10.
63Ref. 442. In the quoted passage, the footnote number within the superscript brackets was added
by me. Also see Ref. 442 for a number of other such examples of physicists rejecting physical law if it
conflicts with their distaste for religion.
64Ref. 468.
30
clear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well
established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out.
Weinberg rejected this standard physics not because he didn’t take the equations
of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the
laws of physics. . . .
Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces what Einstein, Weinberg and Tipler spoke about
concerning the antagonism of the 20th century scientific community for religion, re-
sulting in the scientific community abandoning good physics. In his famous book A
Brief History of Time, Hawking wrote that65
Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it
smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on
the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with
the Bible). There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion
that there had been a big bang. The proposal that gained widest support was
called the steady state theory. . . .
In the same chapter, Hawking wrote about how attempts to avoid the Big Bang
were dashed in the form of the Penrose–Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems [153–
155, 176–181, 333–335]:66
The final result [of the Singularity Theorems] was a joint paper by Penrose and
myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang sin-
gularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains
as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly
from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and
partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant
and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue
with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted
and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang
singularity. . . .
65Ref. 188, p. 62.
66Ibid., pp. 66–67. In this book Hawking is himself dissatisfied with the implications of the Penrose–
Hawking–Geroch Singularity Theorems, and on p. 67 goes on to reference the Hartle–Hawking No-
Boundary Proposal [174, 187] that he formulated with James B. Hartle as an attempt to avoid the
initial singularity, which Hawking writes about further on pp. 172–181, esp. p. 175. However, given the
Singularity Theorems, the only way this proposal could be correct is if General Relativity is incorrect,
i.e., that General Relativity is merely an approximation to true physical law. Regarding the possibility
that the energy condition on the universe’s matter won’t hold at Planck scales, the initial and final
cosmological singularities are actually more inevitable when Quantum Mechanics is taken into account:
see Refs. 15, 427.
31
Hawking subsequently in the same book mentions that “In real time, the universe
has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at
which the laws of science break down.”67
Agnostic physicist Prof. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA’s Goddard Insti-
tute for Space Studies, wrote in his book God and the Astronomers:68
Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a begin-
ning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting
demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective
mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the ar-
ticles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the
rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irri-
tated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless
phrases.
Later in this book, Jastrow states that69
There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes
there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a
rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its
cause; there is no First Cause. Einstein wrote, “The scientist is possessed by the
sense of universal causation.”
This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world
had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not
valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that
happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he
would be traumatized. . . .
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story
ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to
conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by
a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Although, contrary to Jastrow’s somewhat bleak conclusion vis-à-vis science, this
result is the best possible outcome for science, since within the Omega Point cosmol-
ogy knowledge will grow without bound, and hence anything that can logically be
known—no matter how complex—will eventually be known perfectly.70
67Ref. 188, p. 179.
68Ref. 216, p. 16.
69Ibid., pp. 113 and 116.
70It’s apposite that the epigraph used on both the title page and the masthead of the journal Nature—
the world’s most prestigious science journal—from its first issue of November 4, 1869–April 1870 and
32
It’s fitting that science, which began in the modern sense with the Scientific
Revolution—its inception dated to the publication of devout Catholic cleric Nicolaus
Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543—should return to its roots
as a religious project: as an endeavor to better know the mind of God.
6 Science Comes Home
Science and Christianity have been closely intertwined since the birth of science. Both
the university system and the field of natural science as a systematic discipline are the
inventions of Christianity. The Christian Weltanschauung was a unique development
in the history of thought, since it held that God is rational and that (unlike in, e.g.,
Judaism or Islam) the mind of God could be better known through the systematic
study of His creation—as opposed to the arbitrary and capricious gods of the ancient
Greeks and Romans that made serious investigation into the physical world a dubious
proposition as contrasted with the idealized perfection of geometry. It was this change
in worldview which made systematic study into the physical world possible. Jesus
Christ founded the only civilization in history to pull itself out of the muck, and along
with it the rest of the world. A great irony is that even antitheists benefit enormously
from the civilization that Christ founded: indeed, almost all of the Earth’s current
population—and hence, almost all antitheists—couldn’t even be alive were it not for
the advancements made by Christian civilization.71
Natural science as a discipline in the modern sense didn’t exist before the Scientific
Revolution. The Scientific Revolution began with the publication of De revolutionibus
orbium coelestium by clergyman Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543.72 Before then, what
existed in the Western intellectual world (and originating in ancient Greece) was Aris-
for over a hundred years was “To the solid ground / Of Nature trusts the mind which builds for aye”
by poet William Wordsworth [484, Sonnet 34, p. 36; 483, id., p. 203]. “[A]ye” here means “ever”, as
in eternity [386]. According to the known laws of physics, Wordsworth’s worthy words here are in this
case literally true.
71For much more on the matters discussed in this section, see the books on this by Prof. Woods [482],
and Dr. Hannam [172]. Note that by antitheist I mean one having a positive belief in the nonexistence of
God, which popularly goes by the etymologically incorrect name atheist. Atheist etymologically means
one lacking a positive belief in God.
72Of which publication is itself the resultant product of Christian scientific thought going back to
such academicians as Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln; Albertus Magnus, Bishop of Regensburg;
the Franciscan friars Roger Bacon and William of Ockham; and the intellectual and academic ground-
work laid by the monastic and cathedral schools beforehand, which date to before the Sack of Rome by
the Visigoths in 410 [482, p. 44]. It was the Christian religious orders which preserved and advanced
European civilization through the tumultuous centuries of the Barbarian Invasions (ca. 300–900). With-
33
totelianism, which maintained the verity of geocentrism predicated on philosophical
premises. This lead to the persecution of Galileo Galilei, which was demanded by the
Aristotelian academics of the time in order to protect their bailiwick; the pope and sev-
eral of the churchmen were quite enthusiastic about Galileo’s observations confirming
heliocentrism, but caved-in to the demands of the Aristotelian academics.73
Many of the top names in the history of science have been deeply devout Christians,
such as Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, James
Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, and Georges Lemaître, just to name a few. For these men,
their scientific investigations were driven by their desire to better know the intellect
of God.
It might be objected that while Christianity has birthed science and provided con-
siderable inspiration for its advancement, the seeking after God cannot serve as a
methodological basis for science, because such an enterprise presupposes that God ex-
ists, whereas science must be prepared to accept any answer that’s correct. Rather than
a methodological basis, the search in understanding God’s design instead provides the
raison d’être for science, for otherwise science is ultimately a pointless undertaking
ending in eternal extinction.74 But if God does not exist, then we should still want to
know the answer, for the reason that I detail in Section 8.1.1.
In an interview by ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer in 2010, Stephen Hawking said
that “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority,
out this salvatory and ameliorative role of the Christian church, there would be no Western civilization
to speak of.
73For the details on this, see Refs. 45, 255. Note that Prof. Lessl on p. 163 of Ref. 255 incorrectly states
that government support of science was increasingly required since the middle of the 19th century.
However, as Prof. Kealey shows in Ref. 233, private donors as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) were more generous in funding science (including fundamental science, not just applied science)
than government has been, and he also therein shows why government funding of science displaces
more funding than it actually provides.
74As Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, said [340, pp. 184 and 187 of “Religion and Natural
Science”, a lecture Planck gave in May 1937, pp. 151–187],
while both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to
the former He is the starting point, to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the
former He is the foundation, to the latter the crown of the edifice of every generalized
world view.
...
Religion and natural science are fighting a joint battle in an incessant, never relaxing
crusade against scepticism and against dogmatism, against disbelief and against super-
stition, and the rallying cry in this crusade has always been, and always will be: “On to
God!”
34
and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it
works.”75 Yet in order for science to win, God must exist, as God is simply that infinite
state which is the perfection of all knowledge. If God does not exist, then ultimately
there is no such thing as winning—we are all existential losers in that case.
According to the known laws of physics, science has won. The prize it has won,
instead of inexorable eternal extinction, is divergence to infinite knowledge.
7 The Nature of God
7.1 The Haecceities of God
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 prop-
erties are the traditional definitions of God held by almost all of the world’s leading
religions.76 Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.
The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial sin-
gularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.
The crucial concept of God is as a state of infinite mind. As such, God is inherently
personal, since the mental resources of God are infinitely greater than that of a sapient
human being.
Given a state of infinite mind, anything that can exist can be rendered. Further-
more, any universal Turing machine is mathematically equivalent to any other univer-
75Refs. 195, 371. This comment by Hawking is unintentionally ironic on every point that he attempted
to make with it. In Hawking’s book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in
2010 [190], 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. Yet despite the complete
lack of any confirmational observations for M-Theory, people are apparently supposed to be impressed
that the authority-figure Hawking has come to this conclusion. As well, it begs the question as to what
the prize is that science will win if sapient life is ultimately meaningless—which is a point that Hawking
emphasized in his interview by Sawyer—and doomed to extinction.
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.
76What omniscience means is knowing all that can logically be known, wherein this knowledge is
infinite in extent: in physical terms, consisting of an infinite number of bits (or bytes, or nats) of in-
formation. Omnipotence means containing all power and energy that exists, wherein this power and
energy is infinite in amount, i.e., physically speaking, an infinite number of watts and joules. Omnipres-
ence means existing everywhere in existence.
35
sal Turing machine, as any universal Turing machine can perfectly emulate any other
Turing machine, and indeed, anything that can exist.77 Since one of the traditional def-
initions of God is having an infinite mind, then by definition God would be a universal
Turing machine.
Although there is a sense in which not all Turing machines would be equivalent,
and that is the time taken to compute a result. Only given infinite computational time
can they all compute the same result.
However, one of the traditional haecceities of God is that God knows everything
that can logically be known all at once. In other words, God has a singular mind, i.e.,
a mind which is not subject to elapsed time due to spatial distance.
In the Omega Point cosmology, all spacetime points impinge upon the Omega Point
singularity all at once. The Omega Point is the collection of all spacetime points in a
solitary-point final singularity. Moreover, computational resources (in terms of both
processor speed and memory space) become literally infinite at the Omega Point, and
so anything which at any time can exist will simply be a subset of what is rendered
at the Omega Point. The Omega Point knows all that can logically be known, and it
knows it all at once.
Moreover, since everything that will ever exist is simply a subset of what is rendered
at the Omega Point, the totality of all existence is God.78 That is to say, for instance:
God doesn’t merely contain love. God is love itself.79 God doesn’t merely contain truth.
God is truth itself.80
Another traditional concept of God is that God is eternal. Because the cosmological
singularity is outside of spacetime, it is not subject to time. It is eternal. While time
is necessary for finite minds to exist, this is because our minds occupy spatial extent,
77As David Deutsch wrote [106, p. 357], “To the omega-point computers, nothing is intractable. There
is only ‘computable’ and ‘non-computable’, and rendering real physical environments definitely comes
into the ‘computable’ category.”
78One might wonder then if God therefore is malevolence and suffering, since these things exist.
However, the injustices and pains of the current mortal world have a finite existence compared to the
infinity of blissful experiences that will be generated by the future immortal societies. Even if it is true
that a state of endless anguish is rendered as punishment for unrepentant malignity by the society
which performs the general resurrection of the dead, and that consequently such a state would be
infinite, it would nevertheless have asymptotic density 0 compared to the infinitely more probable set
of ecstatic experiences that are generated with asymptotic density 1, as elaborated upon further in
footnote 130 on p. 53. And thus, either way (i.e., if such eternal punishment is generated or not), God’s
pleasurable attributes would still be of infinitely greater probability than the pains of existence (in the
sense of a random selection process across the entirety of existence, as an individual’s own actions
would completely determine their ultimate fate).
79See 1 John 4:8,16.
80See John 1:1–5; 8:12,31,32; 14:6.
36
and hence it takes time for one part of the brain to signal to another part in order
to apprehend logical connections. However, all logical connections impinge upon the
Omega Point solitary-point singularity all at once. Thus, the Omega Point’s perception
of reality is as a timeless, unchanging, infinite whole.
Since computational resources diverge to infinity going into the Omega Point final
singularity, the far-future societies going into the Omega Point will have ever-greater
computational resources coming online in which to render realities that they find to
be more pleasurable—i.e., closer to perfection—with this ecstasy diverging to infinity,
becoming literally infinite at the final singularity. Hence, the Omega Point itself is a
state of infinite pleasure and perfection. The Omega Point is a state of infinite love and
liberty: of perfected, infinite knowledge, perceived all at once for eternity. It is a state
of perfect, infinite bliss.
Due to the Omega Point cosmology having infinite computational resources, the
universal resurrection of the dead will eventually be trivial to perform, whereupon the
resurrected people can be granted immortality in an infinite-duration afterlife. Resur-
rection of the dead and the granting of immortality is another property traditionally
claimed for God in the Abrahamic religions.
In the Abrahamic religions, God also has the ability to perform miracles, which are
events that are so improbable that they can have the appearance of violating physical
law. In the Omega Point cosmology, the Omega Point can perform miracles via the
Principle of Least Action, including by using electroweak quantum tunneling.
Yet another traditional definition of God is the creator of all reality, which means
that all causal chains begin with God. According to the Big Bang cosmology, all causal
chains start at the initial singularity, which is the first cause. In the abstract sense,
the first cause might not necessarily entail identification with God, since one might
abstractly imagine that the first cause doesn’t have the other properties of God. But
in the concrete sense of the known laws of physics, the first cause logically requires a
state of infinite mind, i.e., the Big Bang initial singularity cannot exist per the known
physical laws without the Omega Point final singularity. As well, the initial singularity
is a different aspect of the final singularity.
7.2 The Aseity of God
What is often regarded as the deepest and most perplexing question of all is why
anything exists at all, as opposed to nothingness. But like the solution to many of the
deepest of mankind’s enigmata, the answer is actually quite simple and obvious once
37
explicated.81 Indeed, it’s an answer that’s so obviously correct that when it’s mentioned
in a slightly different context, everyone accepts it as true without protest.82
The answer as to why anything exists as opposed to nothingness is that existence
is mathematics, i.e., logic. Only this and nothing more.83 But therein is everything. Ex-
istence is a mathematical theorem. That does not mean that everything mathematical
exists, as those things that are mathematical yet do not exist would not be an element
of this ultimate theorem.84
But then why does mathematics—i.e., logic—exist? If logic itself required a justi-
fication for its existence, then no justification could be given, since logic would have
to be used in the justification, hence presupposing logic’s existence. For this reason,
mathematics is inherently its own cause, i.e., mathematics has the property of aseity.
Because mathematics is its own cause, there exists nothing more basic to turn to in
order to explain why mathematics exists. Indeed, that’s what “explanation” means: all
explanation is predicated on explicating cause-and-effect relationships. If something
has no cause other than itself, then it also can have no explanation which utilizes
something beyond itself in the explanation.
Although it can be veridically said that reason is the reason why logic is self-
existent, i.e., it’s the reason for logic’s aseity. That is, in order for there to be a reason
for anything—an explanation for anything—logic must first exist. All explanation is
predicated upon logic’s prior existence.
So what then is mathematics? What mathematics really is is cause-and-effect—
among many other things that are all really the same thing. This is another reason
81Here I have in mind principally the solutions to economic and ethical problems, such as the Marginal
Revolution solving the diamond/water value paradox. The simplicity and ex post obviousness of such
solutions does not mean that answering them wasn’t difficult, as it took mankind thousands of years to
arrive at the solutions.
82With this I have in mind various of theologian Prof. William Lane Craig’s discussions on the aseity
of God, wherein he uncontroversially gives mathematics as an example of something which has the
property of aseity.
83Tipler, in a 2008 interview by Robert Lawrence Kuhn for Kuhn’s Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
show Closer to Truth, states that the underlying reality of existence is physical. But in the context it’s
clear that Tipler is contrasting this with mathematics as performed by humans, as opposed to mathe-
matics itself. Tipler gives the example of the physics of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics being
based upon the mathematics of the continuum (i.e., the set of real numbers ), and points out that no
mathematician in our universe can actually perform mathematics on the continuum—in the sense of
using number-strings with significands of infinite length—but instead can only perform mathematics
using finite symbols.
84For example, a hypothetical reality in which an innocent person is tortured for an infinite duration
would not exist, since the future immortal beings will decide what to render or not to render, and they
will know that their actions cannot be kept secret and that they will be punished if they act unethically,
as detailed farther below in this section under the heading “Worlds within Worlds”.
38
why mathematics cannot have a more fundamental explanation for its existence: how
does one explain the cause of cause-and-effect itself?85 Logic is simply the fundamental
fact of reality that everyone must accept even to be capable of denying it.
So also, in order for any mind to exist, logic must exist, otherwise it makes no
sense to say that any sort of mind could exist, since the process of mentation involves
the interplay of logical relationships. If no logical relationships exist, then no mind can
exist.
It might then appear that God doesn’t have the property of aseity, because logic
must exist for any mind to exist, and therefore there is something more fundamental
and basic than the Mind of God: namely, logic, i.e., mathematics. But in actuality this
is not the case. The reason this isn’t the case is because God is the Logos (λ γοσ): i.e.,
logic, computation, thought, reason, cogitation, ratiocination, cerebration, cognition,
mentation.86 That is, God is logic itself, i.e., mathematics itself. And mathematics is
infinite. God is mathematician Georg Cantor’s Absolute Infinite. And the set cardinality
of God is that of the continuum: 2ℵ0 .87
In reality, neither logic nor mind is first and foremost over the other, as both logic
and mind are simply two ways of considering the same thing, i.e., the Logos. Some-
thing that is never experienced by some form of consciousness (however primitive the
consciousness) cannot coherently be said to exist, because what is meant when it is
said that something exists is that it can in some sense be experienced, either directly
or indirectly, i.e., that it has effects upon reality—effects that are experienced. So in
order for existence to exist, mind must exist. And, again, there is no duality between
mind and existence, because existence is mind, i.e., the Logos.88
Worlds within Worlds: The Omega Point apodictically must exist now according to
the known laws of physics, otherwise existence couldn’t exist. If one considers the
85According to the Omega Point/Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model The-
ory of Everything (TOE), one can actually explain the existence of cause-and-effect itself, it’s just that it
requires a countably infinite number of axioms to do so. Ergo, only God can know the full explanation
as to why existence exists.
86See John 1:1–5; cf. John 14:6. Logos has usually been translated into English as “word” in this
passage, which barely even begins to convey the full meaning of the word Logos. Etymologically, the
closest English word is logic [386]. On the meaning of Logos, see also Ref. 402, G3056.
87See Refs. 16, and 445, pp. 911–912 of the Rep. Prog. Phys. version. Although within a single universe
only ℵ0 (the cardinality of the countable set of natural numbers ) bits can be recorded between now
until the final singularity [435, p. 248].
88Of course, when I speak here of mathematics, mind and existence being the Logos, what is meant
is when these things—which are all really different aspects of the same thing—are considered in toto.
A finitary logical result (such as with Presburger arithmetic); a finite mind; or a finite part of existence
is simply a finite subset of the infinite totality of existence, i.e., of the Logos.
39
entire timeline of the entire multiverse as a whole—from the Big Bang singularity at
zero entropy and information (i.e., what one may term the Alpha Point) to the final
singularity of the Omega Point at infinite entropy and information—then this infinite
structure (i.e., the entirety of existence) would exist eternally as a static, unchanging
structure.89 It’s only finite subsets of existence which experience change as their states
progress from earlier to later times in the multiverse. For us, being finite subsets of
existence, time has its beginning at the Big Bang singularity and its proper-time end at
the Omega Point (although in experiential time this is never reached). But for existence
as a whole, the entire timeline of the multiverse exists as a static structure.
So in the ultimate sense, sub specie aeternitatis, the totality of existence has always
existed. What then of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo if in the ultimate sense existence
has always existed? To be precise, creatio ex nihilo is the doctrine that the universe
had a beginning, and that it wasn’t made from preexisting material, but instead that
the material which makes up the universe came into being with the universe.90 The
doctrine further maintains that the universe is not made from the divine substance,
but that the divine substance is fundamentally different from the universe. That fun-
damental difference being God’s intrinsic infiniteness and His divine substance being
beyond creation. Hence also, the doctrine does not hold that all of existence had a be-
ginning, but rather that the universe did, i.e, creation had a beginning. In the Big Bang
cosmology, spacetime starts at the Big Bang singularity, and the Big Bang singularity
is not itself in space or time.91 As well, the singularity is intrinsically infinite, whereas
the universe is only infinite in the sense of its entire duration from beginning to end.
Again, as stated above, from our perspective, being that we’re finite subsets of exis-
tence, the universe has its beginning at the Big Bang singularity. But from the ultimate
perspective, with the God’s-eye view of sub specie aeternitatis, the entire duration of
the multiverse has existed eternally.
One may then wonder why it is that we find ourselves in the early part of the
universe if existence has always existed. One reason is because the multiverse can be
perfectly rendered from the start of the Big Bang singularity when the computational
capacity of a universe reaches a stage that doing so only requires a trivial amount of
total computational resources. The complexity of the multiverse grows as it advances
in time, but this presents no problem for the society running the emulation since ad-
89Such as is pictured in the diagrams of the multiversal Omega Point cosmology of Figures 1 on p. 9,
and 2 on p. 10. See also Ref. 432, p. 176 of the reprint.
90Keith Ward, “Creatio Ex Nihilo”, in Ref. 208, p. 184.
91See Ref. 182, Ch. 6: “Causal structure”, Sec. 6.8: “The causal boundary of space-time”, pp. 217–221.
Spacetime begins at the Big Bang initial singularity and ends at the Omega Point final singularity in the
sense of an open interval, as the singularity itself is not a part of spacetime.
40
ditional computational resources are continuously coming online. The reason for such
a society running such an emulation is so that they can resurrect their ancestors (and
hence, family members), as well so they can learn all the details of the past. Even once
this emulation of the multiverse reaches the stage when all the beings in it have them-
selves become immortal by being able to upload the programs of their minds onto
more robust hardware, there will be reasons for continuing this emulation, because
accidents will still rarely occur, such as the occasional ship being lost during the col-
onization phase (which, even though mental backups will exist, the experiences after
backup would be lost); to keep everyone honest and ethical, since everyone will know
that all their actions will eventually be recreated by the future society in their own
timeline; and for additional reasons.
Hence, at the Omega Point itself (which, again, is reached in proper time; in ex-
periential time it is never reached) there exists an infinite number of levels of imple-
mentation of the complete multiverse from Alpha Point to Omega Point, i.e., a literal
fractal of worlds within worlds, ad infinitum.92 And so there exists an infinite number
of copies of the early stages of the multiverse. Existence is the Ultimate Fractal.
Furthermore, one must find the origins of one’s own personal consciousness in the
early timeline of the multiverse.93 The reason for this is because all possible combi-
nations of finite consciousnesses eventually become exhausted per the Quantum Re-
currence Theorem. The less complex a consciousness is, the sooner all possible com-
binations of it become exhausted. Therefore any nascent consciousnesses must find
their origin in the early part of the multiverse. Moreover, a finite mind can only expe-
rience so much complexity, and if the complexity of an environment exceeds what a
particular finite mind is capable of experiencing, then the extra complexity will be lost
upon that mind. That is to say, a mind of mortal human-level complexity is not even
capable of experiencing a sufficiently-advanced superhuman society, except in outline
or small-scale aspects of it.
Another way of thinking about it is that even without infinite levels of implementa-
tion being emulated—or indeed any level of implementation; instead, just base-level
reality94—each moment in time is being eternally experienced. When our conscious-
92For an example of a fractal, see Figure 7 on p. 42.
93Here “early” is used in a relative sense in relation to some designated point in time; as to be
accurate, in terms of experiential time, every time is early since experiential time is infinite, and hence
a point in experiential time has a finite past but an infinite future. Although proper time is finite, an
infinity of experiences happen in the last fraction of a second of proper time, whereas only a finite
number of experiences occur in the one quintillion to ten quintillion years that precede the last fraction
of a second.
94Or rather, what we take for exposition’s sake as base-level reality, because so long as a level of
implementation isn’t interfered with by a lower level of implementation, then one can simply regard it
41
Figure 7: An example of a fractal. It approximately forms Fermat’s Spiral in the manner of
a sunflower (Helianthus annuus) floret as described by Helmut Vogel [461]. It is centered at
−0.743643889127337887+0.131825904554182573i with a magnification of 68719476736×
in the Mandelbrot Set.
42
ness moves from state t0 to state t1, state t0 is for us in the past, and we no longer
experience it directly. But while the particular consciousness that we call ourself ex-
periences state t0 as being in our past, the past still exists in the multiverse (as David
Deutsch wrote, “Other times are just special cases of other universes”95), and so state
t0 is still being experienced by the previous version of ourself (i.e., the version of
ourself at state t0). One can think of it as a sort of existential conveyor belt: that as
soon as version x0 of oneself moves from state t0 to state t1, version x
−1
of oneself
moves from state t
−1
to state t0, meanwhile version x
−2
of oneself moves from state
t
−2
to state t
−1
, and so on. Thus, even without any emulated levels of implementa-
tion, the early part of the multiverse will forever be experienced by the relatively new
consciousnesses that inhabit it. Note that this is not the Eternal Return, because any
version of a consciousness, xy, only experiences state tz once—and so while state tz
exists eternally and is continuously being experienced, each experiencer xy of state tz
experiences state tz as a new and original state, from whence they then move on to
state tz+1
, and so on.
Due to this existential conveyor belt, the far-future society won’t have any wor-
ries about allowing the emulation of the multiverse to continue beyond the universal
resurrection—and hence allowing eventually an infinite number of levels of imple-
mentation to develop, which also means an infinite number of copies of the early
multiverse—because they will know that the early stages of the multiverse are already
continuously being experienced, apart from whatever they choose to render.
7.3 The Trinity of God
As Stephen Hawking proved, the cosmological singularity is not in spacetime, but
rather is the boundary of space and time.96
The Schmidt b-boundary (i.e., bundle boundary) has been shown to yield a topol-
ogy in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points
in spacetime [63, 170, 224, 225, 373–376], 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 cosmological singularity is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and
time.
as base-level reality, since from within the level of implementation there would be no difference in that
case. Of course, God in toto, being the totality of existence, is the ultimate base-level reality.
95Ref. 106, Ch. 11: “Time: The First Quantum Concept”, p. 288.
96Ref. 182, Ch. 6: “Causal structure”, Sec. 6.8: “The causal boundary of space-time”, pp. 217–221.
43
In classical relativistic cosmology, the Initial Singularity and the Final Singularity
are permanently separate and distinct singularities. But in quantum relativistic cos-
mology, the Initial and the Final Singularities are connected by a third singularity:
the All-Presents Singularity, since all sizes of universes are obtained in the multiverse,
which means that there are a class of universes which don’t expand out from the Big
Bang singularity at all, but remain as a singularity.97
These three distinct aspects to which perform different physical functions in bring-
ing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the
entirety of the multiverse: the Cosmological Singularity, of which consists eternally
of three hypostases in a homoousian triune, i.e., three distinct entities of the same
substance (ousia).98
Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics
due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Cosmological Singularity within the
Omega Point cosmology, which is deselective of all other major religions.
Occasionally it’s suggested that Hinduism also holds to a concept of a divine Trin-
ity, involving “the ‘triple form’ (trim¯urti) in which the cosmic functions of creation,
maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahm¯a, Vis.n.u, and
Siva respectively.”99 In actuality, this notion appears to be mostly a case of Western-
ers’ eagerness to find corollaries with Christianity in other religions. As historian and
Indologist Prof. Arthur Llewellyn Basham writes:100
Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the
Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the
Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really “caught on”. All
Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context
it is clear that K¯alid¯asa’s hymn to the Trim¯urti is really addressed to Brahm¯a, here
looked on as the high god. The Trim¯urti was in fact an artificial growth, and had
little real influence.
In addition to the New Testament, the concept of the Holy Trinity is also found in
the Old Testament, but the Jews didn’t incorporate it as doctrine. Besides mentioning
the Holy Spirit in the Tanakh a number of times,101 Isaiah 9:6 states:102
97See Ref. 445, Sec. 6: “The quantized FRW universe”, Subsec. 6.3: “Singularity structure of the
multiverse”, p. 922–924, which is pp. 41–43 of the arXiv version. This process is depicted in Figures 1
on p. 9, and 2 on p. 10.
98See Ref. 447, pp. 82, 97 and 100 for more on the physics of the Trinity; and pp. 226–235 for how
Jesus the Man can be united with the All-Presents Singularity.
99Ref. 274, p. 139.
100Ref. 18, pp. 310–311.
101See Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 57:15; 63:10,11.
102New King James Version. Cf. Isaiah 9:7; Psalms 2; 110; Daniel 7:13,14.
44
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
The word translated as “God” in the above is in the original Hebrew el ( ). El is
sometimes translated as “mighty”, etc., although the only sensible translation of this
passage is, e.g., “mighty God” or “powerful God”, since the word el is intensified by the
Hebrew word gibbor ( ), itself meaning “mighty”. As well, “Everlasting Father” can
only be a title for God. The above Tanakh passage also affirms the Trinitarian doctrine
that the Father and the Son are One.103
7.4 The Theodicy of Existence
7.4.1 The Problem of Evil
It may be wondered why, since God can perform miracles using the electroweak quan-
tum tunneling mechanism allowed by the known laws of physics, He does not simply
materialize a fully-developed sapient self-replicating spacecraft, thereby doing an end-
run around the painful early stages of the evolutionary process. The reason God cannot
do this is because this would create a logically paradoxical strange loop whereby the
knowledge of good and evil doesn’t exist in existence, thereby setting the stage for the
destruction of existence due to evil being generated by a highly advanced society: as
the universe’s Taublike collapses in different directions require a high level of coop-
eration among the far-future sapient beings, and hence a highly complex free-market
economy, of which could not exist if evil were allowed to grow without restraint.104
The only reason God knows of evil is because evil actually exists in the early part of
the multiverse—that is to say, God knows of evil because God knows the beginning
to the end. Existence has no choice but to go through a stage of pain and suffering
103Cf. John 10:30; 14:6–13.
104Which is to say that existence itself selects which ethics is correct in order for existence to exist. In
mankind’s life on Earth, humanity can be at each other’s throats in large-scale internecine feuding, yet
so long as a genetically-viable breeding population continues on then mankind can survive. Whereas
during the Taublike collapses, if a significant portion of the population goes rogue then it would termi-
nally disrupt the collapse cycles, destroying existence itself. The closer the Omega Point is approached,
the greater the free-market cooperation will have to be. For this reason, the social ethics selected by
existence is that of the Golden Rule, which in the form of legal ethics is the Nonaggression Principle.
45
in its early period in order for existence to learn of good and evil before evil becomes
powerful enough to destroy existence itself.105
Accordingly, it appears that only the minimum of miraculous intervention is per-
formed by God—which can still be quite extensive—in order to ensure the universe’s
evolution into the Omega Point, and therefore to ensure the very existence of exis-
tence. Although ultimately existence is itself a divine miracle according to the known
laws of physics.106
7.4.2 God’s Relation to the Old Testament
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. While nonhuman animals don’t appear to hold much fallacious
mental content, this is due to them apparently not being able to form very much in the
way of abstract mental concepts. When the faculty of sapient reasoning and language
skills comes into being, this allows forming ideas on a wide range of subjects, but in
mankind’s history many of those ideas were quite destructively erroneous, with no
small amount of that error still with us today.
Such applies to religious knowledge, as well. For instance, the Torah is itself quite
evil in many places, such as requiring any Israelite107 picking up sticks on a Sabbath to
be stoned to death.108 No one alive today actually believes in much of the Torah laws,
and there is quite rightly no place on Earth where it would be legal to practice many
of them. These days no Jew is lethally stoning another Jew for gathering wood on
a Saturday. Again, this has to do with mankind’s evolution from fallacious ignorance
into knowledge: early Judaism is a derivation from prior paganism.
The pagan religion of the original Hebrews evolved in time to the monotheism of
what we now regard as modern Judaism, though the Torah reflects the strong polythe-
105See Romans 8:18–23.
106That is, according to the Big Bang cosmology, which is a subset of the Omega Point cosmology. For
the details on this, see Sec. 5 on p. 28.
107The Torah laws (also called the Law of Moses) were specifically given for only descendants of
Israel (the Biblical figure previously named Jacob) to follow; and, for some Torah laws, also for non-
Jews living in Israel to follow: see Exodus 31:16,17; 34:27,28; Leviticus 18:1,2; 20:1,2; Deuteronomy
4:1,44,45; Malachi 4:4. The Torah laws were never intended for non-Jews living outside of Israel to
follow. Within modern mainline (i.e., Talmudic) Judaism it is actually prohibited for non-Jews to be
taught the Torah: see the section “Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah”, p. 623, of the entry “Gentile”,
WebCite: 63PaeXLS2, <http://goo.gl/Orq9F>, in Ref. 218, Vol. 5, pp. 615–626.
108See Numbers 15:32–36; Exodus 31:12–17; 35:1–3.
46
ism of its roots: the plural elohim ( ), gods, became in time God.109 Yet the modern
Bible translations still preserve the polytheistic roots of Judaism: e.g., “Then God said,
‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness . . . ’ ”.110 Indeed, some forms
of human sacrifice for purely religious purposes were retained within Pentateuch Ju-
daism, i.e., human-sacrifice rituals can actually be found in the Torah and Nevi’im
Rishonim books, supposedly sanctified by God.111 But then, the actual prophets (prin-
cipally from Isaiah on, i.e., the Nevi’im Aharonim books) and Yeshua Ha’Mashiach
spoke out against much of the supposed Law of Moses. (For examples of this Prophetic
rejection just regarding the Torah laws on animal sacrifice, see Psalm 40:6–8; Isaiah
1:11–14; Jeremiah 7:21,22; 8:8; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21,22; Hebrews 10:4–7. See also
the second paragraph in footnote 137 on p. 56.)
7.4.3 Ha’Mashiach
The above matters bring up another issue. The teachings of Yeshua Ha’Mashiach’s
ministry themselves necessitate the involvement of a superintelligence, since they are
so spectacularly advanced beyond that age, and indeed this age: as mankind to this
date is of a barbaric and primitive nature, and still a long way from catching up with
Christ.
Albert Einstein said that “science without religion is lame, religion without science
is blind.”112 In an interview for the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein had the
following exchange regarding Jesus Christ:113
[SEP:] “To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”
[Einstein:] “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Tal-
mud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”
[SEP:] “Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?”
[Einstein:] “Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen
of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon
mot.”
109Some have contended that the plural elohim, meaning “gods”, was a presagement of the doctrine
of the Trinity. Yet Trinitarianism holds that there is one God (i.e., one substance), Who consists of three
Persons (i.e., hypostases)—not multiple Gods.
110Genesis 1:26, New King James Version; cf. Genesis 3:22.
111See Leviticus 27:28,29; Judges 11:29–40. Cf. Exodus 13:1,2,11–16; 22:29,30 for how this practice
of human sacrifice eventually evolved into substitution via animal sacrifice. Ritual human sacrifice
appears to be a universal cultural practice among mankind if one goes back far enough in time.
112Ref. 120, p. 211.
113Ref. 460, p. 117; p. 448 of the reprint. A written interjection has been omitted from the quoted
passage.
47
[SEP:] “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”
[Einstein:] “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the
actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled
with such life. . . . ”
And here is what Einstein wrote regarding Christianity in his book The World as I
See It:114
If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of
all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching
which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.
It is the duty of every man of good will to strive steadfastly in his own little
world to make this teaching of pure humanity a living force, so far as he can. If
he makes an honest attempt in this direction without being crushed and trampled
under foot by his contemporaries, he may consider himself and the community to
which he belongs lucky.
So authentic Christianity (i.e., the doctrine taught by Yeshua Ha’Mashiach), ac-
cording to Einstein, is “capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.” That bold and
clear statement is quite a strong endorsement of Christ’s ethical teachings.
In the previous displayed quote of Einstein, he is careful to separate the message
preached by Jesus Christ and the Prophets (i.e., the Latter Prophets of the Nevi’im
Aharonim books) from that of the Torah, which indeed is filled with much irrational-
ity (much of it derived from earlier pagan practices). But then Jesus Christ and the
Prophets spoke out against the irrational aspects of the Torah. Such was not lost on
Einstein, which is why he is careful in the above to specify which aspects of the Bible
he finds to be in conformance with the truth.
Unfortunately, the inversion of that organization popularly calling itself the Chris-
tian church occurred with the pagan Roman government’s takeover of said group un-
der Constantine I, himself a lifelong pagan, bloodthirsty tyrant, and unrepentant mur-
derer of his eldest son Crispus and his wife Fausta, to say nothing of all the plebeians he
murdered.115 Since that time, the organizations commonly calling themselves “Chris-
tian” have often acted in the role of intellectual bodyguards of the state, and hence
114Ref. 121, pp. 111–112.
115Historian and bishop Eusebius of Caesarea’s hagiography of his benefactor and friend Constantine I
purposely doesn’t mention anything that presents Constantine in a bad light. Mao Tse-tung, Joseph
Stalin and Adolf Hitler can all be made to seem like wonderful people if one simply declines to men-
tion their immoral actions. Yet even Eusebius relates the story that Constantine told to him about his
(Constantine’s) supposed “In hoc signo vinces” vision with some skepticism.
Eusebius wrote in his panegyrical Life of Constantine [128, Book 1, Ch. 28, p. 490] that Constantine
had a vision of the Chi Rho symbol (ibid., Ch. 31, pp. 490–491; i.e, the logogram , which was used
48
have been hostilely opposed to actually applying Jesus Christ’s teachings, since said
teachings are incompatible with government and its frequent activities, e.g., taxes,
war, the inversion of genuine moral understanding, the sowing of needless discord
and strife among the populace (i.e., divide et impera), etc.116
by pagan Greek scribes to mark, in the margin, a particularly valuable or relevant passage: the com-
bined letters chi and rho stand for χρηστ ν [chr¯eston], meaning “good”) with the phrase “ Εν το τω
ν κα” (“Conquer by this”) spelled out in the sky. Eusebius relates that Constantine told him this story
long after the event is said to have occurred, and given the surprise that Eusebius expresses at having
been told this story by Constantine, it’s clear that the claimed event was commonly unknown. However,
Eusebius also conveys that Constantine’s whole army saw the miracle in the sky, and had that been the
case it would have been widely known. Eusebius implies that this vision took place before Constan-
tine’s campaign against Maxentius began (ibid., Ch. 37, p. 492), and therefore well-before the Battle
of the Milvian Bridge, which took place on October 28, 312 between the Roman Emperors Constantine
and Maxentius at which Maxentius was defeated and killed. The Arch of Constantine, the triumphal
arch that Constantine had built to commemorate his victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, which
Constantine dedicated in summer 315, features a stone panel engraved with the depiction of a Roman
emperor sacrificing a hog (sus), a ram (ovis), and a bull (taurus) to the Roman god of war, Mars (a
ritual known as suovetaurilia, combining the three species’ names into one word); and statuettes of Sol
Invictus carried by standard-bearers appear in three places in reliefs on the arch. Yet there is no Chris-
tian symbolism on the arch (not even the Chi Rho, which at any rate had no connection to Christianity
in the popular mind or among common Christians at that time, as it only later came to be commonly
understood as a monogram for Χριστ σ [Christos], meaning “Christ”).
Eusebius in his earlier work Church History [128, Book 9, Ch. 9, pp. 363–364] promotes the idea
that God helped Constantine win the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, but does not mention any vision.
This implies that Eusebius at this time didn’t know of any such vision by Constantine (and hence that it
was commonly unknown), as given the profuse laudation that Eusebius heaps upon Constantine in this
passage, Eusebius surely would have mentioned the vision as demonstration of Constantine’s favor with
God, unless Eusebius himself found the story to be so dubious that he didn’t want to taint his Church
History with it (which, if so, itself implies that the purported event was popularly unknown).
Lactantius, a rhetorician who was an advisor to Constantine I, tells a different story from Eusebius’s
account of Constantine’s vision (which Eusebius is careful to emphasize was told to him directly by
Constantine). Lactantius wrote that in the night before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine was
commanded in a dream by an unspecified source to put a divine heavenly sign (described by Lactantius
as the Chi Rho symbol) on the shields of his soldiers, and that Constantine followed the command of his
dream and marked the shields with this sign (Ref. 358, Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, Ch.
44, p. 318). Lactantius died ca. 320, whereas Eusebius wrote his Life of Constantine after Constantine
died in 337. Thus, at best it appears that Constantine had a dream containing no specific Christian
content that he later conflated to something more.
Constantine’s official coinage continued to bear images of Sol Invictus, the official Sun god of the later
Roman Empire, until 325/326. Constantine retained until his death the office of Pontifex Maximus,
the high priest and head of the pagan state religion of Rome, as would his successors, with Gratian
(Emperor of Rome from 375–383) finally renouncing the title. Constantine was baptized as a Christian
on his deathbed.
116Yeshua anticipated the phenomenon of ersatz Christianity in Matthew 7:15–27; cf. Luke 6:46–49.
For more on this matter, see my article “Jesus Is an Anarchist” [349]; along with the article [281] on
49
7.4.4 The Soteriology of Existence
Yeshua Ha’Mashiach said that there are only two requirements for a person to receive
eternal life:117
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what
shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and
‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ”
And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
But these two requirements actually logically reduce to only one requirement: to
love your neighbor as yourself. As Jesus said anything that we do to any of the least
of His brethren we do to Him.118 So if we truly love each other then we automatically
love God as well.119
When Jesus said of Himself, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes
to the Father except through Me”,120 He was there being as literal as it is possible to
be. In other words, the Second Person of the Trinity is literally truth itself, i.e., the
Logos.121
One might point out the Mark of the Beast (see Revelation 13:16–18; 14:9–11;
15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4) as being an example of a possible exception to Jesus’s state-
ment in Luke 10:25–28, as Revelation states that all who accept the Mark of the Beast
shall be punished in the afterlife. But in addition to being required for all legal buying
and interview [280] of Rev. George B. Zabelka, the Catholic military chaplain who blessed the aircrews
who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A documentary film [149] has also been
made on Zabelka’s life.
117Luke 10:25–28, New King James Version. Cf. Matthew 19:19; 22:36–40; Mark 12:28–34. An equiv-
alent formulation of this is Jesus’s ethic of the Golden Rule which He commanded everyone to follow
(see Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31). Another equivalent formulation of this is Jesus’s Commandment that we
love one another as He has loved us (see John 15:12,17; 13:15,34,35; 1 John 3:11,12,23; 4:11,20,21).
Everything that Jesus ever commanded people to do can be logically reduced back to this one principle.
As John wrote in one of his letters (1 John 2:10, New King James Version): “He who loves his brother
abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him.” As Paul wrote, “Love does no harm to
a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” (Romans 13:10, New King James Version; cf.
Romans 13:8–10; Galatians 5:13,14; 1 Corinthians 13:1–13.) This is the Perfect Law of Liberty and the
Royal Law (see James 1:25; 2:8–12).
118See Matthew 25:31–46.
119Cf. 1 John 2:10; 4:20.
120John 14:6, New King James Version. Cf. John 11:25.
121See John 1:1–5.
50
and selling in the future cashless society, the Mark of the Beast will also be a loyalty
test by the worldwide governmental Beast system, and the masses who go along with
the Beast system will be used against those who refuse (such as acting as informants,
etc.122), which is a definite violation of the Golden Rule which Christ commanded as
the supreme law.123
However, it’s probable that all mentally-unimpaired mortal humans have violated
the Golden Rule (of which is sin) at some point,124 whether by outward action or by
thought,125 which is why genuine repentance—which includes a discontinuation of the
deeds which violated the Golden Rule126—is a necessary component of soteriology.127
According to many people’s so-called Near-Death Experiences,128 when we die we
must go through a life-review process before we can enter what is commonly known
as Heaven. This, in part, is what the light at the end of the tunnel is. But those who
have done evil or are ashamed of their actions in their previous life are afraid of the
light, because the light exposes what they have done: everything one has ever unjustly
done to others in their previous life they will experience from those people’s point of
view, and everything one has done in secret will be revealed. Thus, in the case of a
murderer, truth would literally hurt. And in the case of someone who acts in secret due
to shame, they will be averse to the light, for the light reveals their secrets for which
they are ashamed. As Jesus says in John 3:19–21:129
“And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone
practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should
be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be
clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
122See Matthew 24:9–13; Luke 21:16,17.
123See footnote 117 on p. 50.
124See Romans 3:23.
125See the discussion on abiding by the Golden Rule even in thought in Sec. 8.1.2 beginning on p. 55.
126See Matthew 7:21–23; Luke 6:46; John 5:14; 8:11.
127See Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32; 15:7; 24:47; 1 John 1:8–10. Given Matthew 6:14; Luke
6:37; Romans 8:1; 1 John 1:9, what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (see Matthew 12:31; Mark 3:29;
Luke 12:10) would have to be is never coming to repentance (cf. Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:26). The context
in which Jesus spoke of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit involved that of individuals who had so
hardened their minds against evidence that they would attribute miracles to Satan.
128Refs. 197, 245, 298, 300, 347, 348, 354, 355, 370. Within the Omega Point cosmology, such experi-
ences would be theopneusties if they are required in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point,
being caused by God (i.e., the Omega Point final singularity) imprinting the necessary brain states via
the Principle of Least Action.
129New King James Version. Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:11–15. Although keep in mind that in 1 Corinthians
3:15, Paul is talking about those mentioned in the context of 1 Corinthians 3:1–10 who are saved.
51
Hence, those who upon death are unwilling to come to the light—of which is truth
and life (see John 8:12,32; 11:25; 14:6)—will instead be choosing darkness for them-
selves.130
130“Hell” is a word of Anglo-Saxon descent which isn’t found in the Bible’s original Hebrew, Aramaic, or
Greek manuscripts. Christ as recorded in Matthew 25:46 does speak of what is sometimes translated as
“everlasting punishment”, which in the manuscripts’ original Greek is “κ λασιν α νιον”, transliterated
as kolasin ai¯onion. Ai¯onion can describe either an infinite duration; a very long unspecified duration; or
a very long finite duration.
Many people who have undergone a Near-Death Experience report a hellish afterlife, due to their
actions and mindset during their lifetime having condemned them. (See the references in footnote 128
on p. 51, particularly Refs. 347, 348.) Common features of this experience are the absence of love and
kindness, and being surrounded by hatred and malevolency, such as that from other condemned people.
It is often described as a place of darkness and unparalleled torment. Such experiences don’t appear
to be produced from inculcation or psychological suggestion. That is, the nonlearning and unbelief
in religion does not protect against such hellish Near-Death Experiences, as numerous thoroughgoing
atheists with irreligious upbringings have had such experiences.
What potential rewards or punishments individuals receive upon resurrection will be up to the society
performing the universal resurrection of the dead. If the punishment of eternal anguish is necessary in
order for existence to exist, then it would exist. One can imagine that the prospect of such punishment
might be necessary in order to prevent too many people from going rogue, such that a sapient species’
society degenerates to the point that it becomes incapable of advancing toward the Omega Point final
singularity: as the universe’s cycles of Taublike collapses require a high degree of cooperation within
the societies of the distant future, and consequently a highly intricate free-market economy, of which
could not exist if maleficence were allowed to grow without restraint. And it might be that the prospect
of, e.g., eternal individual extinction, or prolonged yet merely finite anguish, isn’t great enough to offset
such antisocial forces, hence requiring the punishment of eternal suffering.
If such a prospect is logically necessary in order for existence to exist, it would be irrational for a
person to be indignant over what they feel to be the injustice of such a situation. That would be akin
to being upset that 2 + 2 = 4. After all, it’s hardly condign that all the beneficent people would have
to forego eternal bliss because of the actions of the unloving. Although by the same token, if a person
concludes that the prospect of eternal anguish is intrinsically unjust and illogical, then if that person
is indeed correct, such a state won’t exist. The beings who constitute the society which performs the
universal resurrection will be superintelligent and ultrarational, with intellects many orders of magni-
tude beyond any mortal human. Howbeit, one should be careful when attempting to a priori reason
about the justness of such a prospect, since its ultimate justness would depend upon whether or not it
is necessary for existence to exist, and mortal humans simply don’t possess the requisite information to
know whether or not it is necessary in order to prevent the societies of sapient species from irretrievably
collapsing (including into the distant future).
Therefore, we should live our lives assuming it is true that we will experience eternal misery if we
violate the moral principles of the society which performs the universal resurrection. As mentioned
above in this note and previously elaborated upon in footnote 104 on p. 45, physical reality places strict
restraints upon what the content of this far-future morality can be. Due to the considerable fallibility of
mortal sapience, genuine repentance (i.e., having an authentic change of mind and ceasing the immoral
deeds) on the part of sapient mortal beings would be a necessary component of this morality, since it’s
probable that all sapient mortal beings have violated this morality.
52
8 The Societal Implications of the Omega Point Cos-
mology
8.1 Ethics
8.1.1 The Dysteleology of Life without God
The only thing that could give existence and life meaning is if God exists, since then a
state of infinite perfection would exist. Immortality per se is not a desirable goal. The
worst outcome possible would be eternal life spent suffering.
Anything less than full immortality would mean that living beings’ consciousnesses
eventually come to an end. Assuming a pleasurable life, nothing less than infinite
lifespan will do. Any finite lifespan, no matter how long the finite time is, will be
reached all too soon. This is particularly the case for superhuman beings, since the
recreational and entertainment resources available to them will be far vaster than
currently available to us.
As well, with the growth of mental resources, it would make 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.
The idea of endless agony might be thought of as theologically problematical, since it requires Satan’s
kingdom (i.e., pain and suffering) to be infinite, yet infinity in theology is typically considered a property
unique to God. However, the society which performs the universal resurrection can make it so that
the computational resources used to generate the pleasurable afterlife grow at a greater rate than the
anguished afterlife, and hence over time the joyous states would consume an increasingly larger relative
share of total computational resources, such that the set of God’s kingdom would have asymptotic
density 1, whereas the set of Satan’s kingdom would have asymptotic density 0. Thus, even though
such anguished states would be infinite, they would nevertheless be of infinitely smaller probability
(in the sense of random selection) than the heavenly experiences generated. (Asymptotic density is a
probability measure of how likely a randomly chosen element of a subset is within a countable set [78,
p. 45; 396, Ch. 2]. As two examples, the set of all prime numbers within the superset of natural numbers
has asymptotic density 0; and the set of all even numbers within
has asymptotic density 1/2.)
If the objection arises that those who make it into Heaven cannot be happy without being with their
loved-ones who are condemned, then the answer is that in the multiverse even the most evil of person
has an almost-exact analogue with the only difference being that this person chose to repent before
their death. And so everyone in Heaven will be able to reunite with all of their loved-ones.
Note that the foregoing matter pertaining to the multiverse isn’t dependent on any interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics, because the societies close in proper time to the Omega Point will have the
computational capacity to trivially render the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. And so the
multiverse will at any rate exist at that time.
53
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 a bacterium 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 (per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem) 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 toward perfection.
If it could be definitely proved that God and eternal life do not exist, then the
only rational course would be to commit suicide. The reason for this is because even
if one is presently enjoying one’s life, tragedy and horrific pain can strike at almost
any time, quite apart from how one lives one’s life. Since one can have no real control
over whether one ends up in a situation of horrific pain, the only rational course if
God and eternal life do not exist would be to commit a painless suicide. Since in such
a hypothetical scenario one’s eternal death is certain anyway, one might as well get
there in a manner which ensures the least pain.
The only reason for holding onto life in such a hypothetical reality would be out
of ignorance or superstition, i.e., one either hasn’t really understood the proof against
God and eternal life, or one can’t accept it out of pure delusion. Again, however great
one’s life is at the moment is no argument against suicide in such a world, since certain
eternal death is coming anyway, and one can’t actually fully control what pains may
come in the future. That is, the future of one’s life is an unknown variable, whereas a
painless suicide makes it certain.
Nor would having dependants, such as young children, be any excuse for not com-
mitting suicide in such a hypothetical world. For such feelings of attachment and con-
cern would themselves just be instinctual traits created by a pointless evolutionary
process.
Hence, if it could definitely be proved that God and eternal life do not exist, then
we should want to know the answer, as this would be valuable information to have.
For then we could finally stop going on like our lives have any point, and instead rest
in the inevitable eternal extinction that’s coming anyway.
54
8.1.2 Life with God
Thankfully, contra the previous section,131 according to the known laws of physics,
God and immortality do exist. What then are the implications of this for ethics?
For one, there is no such thing as a secret. Not even our own thoughts are secret,
which is why Christ stressed how essential it is that one abides by the Golden Rule
in one’s inner life as well as in one’s outward actions.132 The reason why this is so
essential is not due to murder beginning in the heart,133 but instead because upon
the resurrection we will have to stand before the light in order to receive eternal life,
and if we are ashamed of our thoughts then we will be averse to the light (see John
3:19–21). As Yeshua said: “For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything
hidden that will not be known and come to light.”134 During the universal resurrection
of the dead, everything that has ever happened will be known in perfect detail, right
down to the precise position of every elementary particle. Hence the reason Jesus over
and over again stressed the seriousness of not living in secrecy: viz., Matthew 5:14–
16; 10:26–31; Mark 4:21–23; Luke 8:16,17; 11:33–36; 12:1–7; John 8:12; 11:9,10;
12:44–48; 14:6.
Another reason why abiding by the Golden Rule even in thought is so crucial is be-
cause the future immortal superintelligent beings will be able to create worlds just by
thinking of them, including worlds inhabited by newly-created consciousnesses. Such
worlds would be torturously horrific beyond anything possible in the mortal sphere if
a superintelligent being did not abide by the Golden Rule in their own thoughts.
However, in opposition to the Messiah’s teachings, all the governments of the world
instill in their subjects fear and hatred of others, not only between the subjects of dif-
ferent governments but also among their own subjects. And regrettably, institutions
calling themselves Christian churches often act as propaganda-founts of the govern-
ment while vehemently rejecting Christ’s teachings, thereby worshiping the false god
of government instead of worshiping God.
131That is, Sec. 8.1.1.
132See Matthew 5:22,28,29. The earliest manuscripts state within verse 22 (in translation), “But I say
to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment . . . ” (English Standard
Version), and do not contain the “without a cause” proviso of later manuscripts (e.g., see the note to
this passage in the New King James Version). Thus, even the church scribes were sometimes unwilling
to accept Christ’s teachings, so contrary to human inclinations are they.
133Indeed, the popular paraphrases “murder begins in the heart” and “adultery begins in the heart” of
Matthew 5:22,28,29—while likely true in most such cases—nevertheless miss the point of the Messiah’s
teachings. Rather, one would not like it if another were thinking hateful thoughts about them. Nor
would one like it if in a monogamous relationship their partner were thinking about having a different
lover. The point is that we are to follow the Golden Rule in all things, even in our thoughts.
134Luke 8:17, New King James Version; cf. Luke 12:2; Matthew 10:26; Mark 4:22.
55
Government is a massive death-cult which requires gargantuan levels of human
sacrifice. The bloody human sacrifice is still regarded by mankind as the most sacred
of ritual, instead of being viewed as the depraved and ghoulish institution it is. The
human-sacrifice orgies in which throngs of lamentably deceived people kill and get
killed so that a relative handful of the most rich and powerful can become even more
rich and powerful are made holy by the secular priesthood of power which officiates
the state’s bloodstained pantheon that sits atop a mountain of rotting human corpses.
Truth is the most hated thing in the world.135 Willful ignorance is viewed as a virtue;
knowledge as a subversive vice. Beguiling and massively destructive fallacy is pro-
moted as the most learned intellectualism.
The state is the great butcher of language and coherent thought, as it twists the
very words which people use even to merely think to themselves. The breeding ground
of government is epistemological relativism, which is the idea that truth is either
infinitely malleable, utterly irrelevant, unknowable, or nonexistent. Moral relativism
(with legal positivism being its most prominent example) is a subset of epistemological
relativism. Going back in history, all governments have inculcated in their subjects var-
ious levels of commitment to epistemological relativism, since governments, in order
to simply exist qua government, must engage in activities that would be regarded as
a crime were a common person to do them.136 This unfortunately—or fortunately, for
those in power—has had other far-ranging consequences, as people have effectively
been trained since birth that if some fact about reality is upsetting enough to their
worldview, to either ignore it or pretend it’s something that it’s not. The corollary to
that is when it comes to issues with political implications, people have been condi-
tioned to let the government, and its false “experts” (in previous ages, this function
would have been upon the priestcraft), do their thinking for them.
Yet in stark contrast to the state’s unparalleled violence, its promotion of fear and
hatred, and its butchery of truth, Yeshua Ha’Mashiach commanded everyone to abide
by a very different way:137
135Cf. John 15:18–21; 14:6.
136Of course, all governments claim moral absolutism to their own benefit, such as when it comes to
the imperative they place upon their subjects to obey them. The point of the state’s epistemological
relativism is that its subjects must not scrutinize its actions, its claims, and the assumptions underlying
its existence, too carefully.
137Matthew 5:38–48, New King James Version; cf. Luke 6:27–37. Cf. Matthew 5:3–12; 6:9–15 (cf.
Luke 11:2–4); 26:52 (cf. Revelation 13:10); Mark 11:25,26.
Regarding the Cleansing of the Temple (see Matthew 21:12,13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45,46;
John 2:14–16—cf. Nehemiah 13:7–10 for a previous prophetic temple-cleansing): the temple and its
furnishings were dedicated to God, with the temple being regarded as the house of God (see Ezra 6:17),
and so God in His Sonship aspect (see Isaiah 9:6) was simply overturning His own tables inside His own
56
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right
cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your
tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile,
go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow
from you do not turn away.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your
enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to
those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the
evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love
those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the
same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others?
Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your
Father in heaven is perfect.”
And Paul wrote, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.”138 How
very different that is from the way of this world, which is why Christ’s message of
unconditional love strikes people as otherworldly.139 Due to this unconditional love of,
and physical nonresistance to, even those who bodily attack us, a genuine Christian
would rather be killed than to kill another.140 This means that an authentic Christian
cannot be a member of any police force or military force—or any other profession
which uses coercion, such as working in the legal system as a prosecutor, judge or
jailer—as the Messiah commanded everyone to abide in strict pacifism, even unto
death. As Yeshua said:141
“Fear them not [who persecute you], however; there is nothing veiled which
will not be uncovered, nor secret which will not become known. What I tell you
in the dark, speak in the light; and what is whispered into your ear proclaim upon
the roofs of the houses.
“And do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather
fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. Do not two
temple without laying a hand on anyone. And thus one cannot derive from this an exception to Yeshua’s
command not to physically resist evil persons. (The Messiah’s reason for cleansing the temple is due to
people being deceived in thinking that the animal sacrifices were saving them when such had no power
to do so, yet Yeshua’s very purpose for coming was to save people’s souls. See within Sec. 7.4.2 on p.
47 concerning animal sacrifices, and Ref. 349, Sec. 13: “The Cleansing of the Temple”.)
138Romans 12:14, New King James Version.
139Cf. 1 Corinthians 3:18,19.
140Cf. 1 Peter 2:21–24.
141Matthew 10:26–31, Weymouth New Testament [475]; cf. Luke 12:4,5.
57
sparrows sell for a halfpenny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without
your Father’s leave. But as for you, the very hairs on your heads are all numbered.
Away then with fear; you are more precious than a multitude of sparrows.”
Humans are social animals, and so the prospect humans tend to fear most is social
rejection, as humans rely on their standing in society for their livelihood. To prevent
the possibility of societal disapprobation, social approval is actively sought. This isn’t
necessarily always a conscious process for most, because as social creatures this is
human instinct, and so behavior humans are predisposed to without even thinking
about it. Another consequence of this instinct for social conformity is that when such
exists, humans tend to follow whatever they identify as the leader of society, which
governments work hard to position themselves as in the psyche of the public. Following
the society’s leader, and hence society, is an instinct humans have even to a suicidal
degree, because the tendency for most humans is to avoid thoughtfully contemplating
their own death—particularly the theological implications of it, even when nominally
religious—but to rather have an uncircumspect mortal fear of those the government
qua societal leader tells them to be afraid of. The government leads such people by the
nose in a never-ending series of mad attempts to avert one phantom cataclysm after
another. The result of this instinct for social conformity, and obliviousness to one’s best
interests on issues where sufficiently propagandized, is that no matter how deplorable,
mendacious and destructive of their own civilization the cause is, governments in their
rapine are often able to lead the greatest part of their country’s subjects astray in going
along with wars and other forms of enormously mortiferous mass-psychoses which
stand to benefit only those in power and the common populace nothing. In order
to have a willing stream of warm bodies to throw at their slaughters, governments
attempt to make their wars into sacrosanct rites of passage, and call the people who
fight for their wars “brave” and “courageous”. Yet if this be “bravery”, then bravery is
not only a thoroughly commonplace behavior, but one that is to be condemned.
Rather than going to one’s death out of conformity and fear of societal disapproval,
true bravery is simply living in truth, which includes a willingness to think for oneself
and to come to veridical conclusions contrary to that of the government potentates,
their cadre of opinion-gendarmes, and the afflicted society under their spell. As Christ
said, “Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right?”142 True brav-
ery entails a willingness to take ownership over one’s own mind, instead of letting it be
used as a weapon against one. Yet choosing to follow the truth is a frightful prospect
for most people due to their fear of social rejection, so most people are kowtowed into
142Luke 12:57, New King James Version; cf. Luke 12:14.
58
letting those in power do their thinking for them. Yet here is what the Messiah said
regarding social conformity, even as it concerns one’s own family:143
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace
but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against
her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s en-
emies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more
than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is
not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not
worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My
sake will find it.”
Christ is not talking about a literal sword in the above, i.e., as a metonym for actual
physical force, such as used by all the governments. Rather, Yeshua is talking about the
Word of God,144 which is the sword that He bears,145 and of which figurative sword is
none other than simply the truth. This is the only “sword” not borne in vain.146
The “peace” which Jesus said He came to disturb above is that of social conformity,
as Christ knew that abidance by His teachings will set even family members against
His followers. The Messiah’s point here is that one cannot use one’s family members,
not even young dependants, as an excuse for not abiding in Him, i.e., in the truth: as
Christ defined Himself as the truth.147
Yet humans are apt at coming up with a great abundance of excuses for continuing
to live in falsehood, particularly falsehoods that are popularly held. People worry about
social disapprobation, or having to quit an unrighteous job which they are currently
in, and what that would mean to their livelihoods, including their ability care for their
children. All these things people use as excuses for doing wrong. Yet Christ made
clear that there can be no excuse. Regarding the many worries that people have which
prevent them following His teachings, the Messiah had this to say:148
“Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or
what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more
than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they
neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them.
Are you not of more value than they? Which of you by worrying can add one cubit
to his stature?
143Matthew 10:34–39, New King James Version; cf. Matthew 10:21; Luke 12:49–53; 14:25–33.
144See Ephesians 6:17.
145See Hebrews 4:12; Revelation 1:16; 19:15,21.
146See Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10.
147See John 14:6; cf. John 1:1–5.
148Matthew 6:25–34, New King James Version; cf. Luke 12:22–34.
59
“So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how
they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in
all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Now if God so clothes the grass of
the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much
more clothe you, O you of little faith?
“Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’
or ‘What shall we wear?’ For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your
heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom
of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. There-
fore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things.
Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”
The Messiah’s point here is not that those who choose to follow Him won’t suffer,
as indeed Christ emphasized that they will suffer.149 Rather, His point is that one must
put one’s trust in that which cannot fail, instead of the things of this mortal coil which
are guaranteed to fail. As Yeshua said, “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the
whole world, and loses his own soul?”150 One may fight against others all one can,
and after all that one is still going to die, as will one’s loved-ones die. And so violence
is a delusion, as it has no power to save life or limb.151 Another reason for renouncing
all violence, including defensive and retributive coercion, was already given above by
the Messiah:152
“For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax
collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more
than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect,
just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
One of the aspects that made early Christianity an unstoppable force was that
others saw that the Christians were willing to be tortured and killed for their beliefs,
and that they did not physically resist their abusers in going to their deaths, but instead
returned love to those who hated them. This made people wonder what truth could
be so overwhelmingly powerful that they would act in such an otherworldly manner.
People wanted to know what truth could be so beautiful that they would act with such
149See Matthew 5:10,12; 10:26-31; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; 10:21; Luke 9:23–26; 12:4,5; 14:27;
John 15:18–21; cf. 2 Timothy 3:12.
150Matthew 16:26, New King James Version; cf. Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25.
151The objection might be raised that by the same token, neither can medical care save life or limb,
since we are still going to die. However, this objection misses the point here, as medical care can be
performed while still abiding by God’s love, and indeed as an expression of that love.
152Matthew 5:46–48, New King James Version.
60
perfect love. Yet had the early Christians used force in resisting their attackers, they
would have been behaving according to the way of this world, and hence on that count
not doing anything more so than others do. Further, such actions ignore that God is an
active participant in history, and so that ultimately His goal for existence cannot avoid
being achieved.
But in loving their enemies and not physically resisting their tortures and deaths,
the early Christians were showing others the truth of how much God loves every per-
son. For God in His Sonship aspect (see Isaiah 9:6) also sacrificed Himself in order
to save the world, so unconditional and perfect is His love.153 As Jesus said, “Greater
love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.”154 Here Jesus of
course isn’t talking about dying by fighting in wars, but rather that of being martyred
for speaking the truth.
As previously mentioned above, there is no excuse for violating Yeshua’s Com-
mandment of the Golden Rule, which includes strict pacifism. Jesus said that “If you
abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make you free.”155 Yet many people who think of themselves as Christians
mistakenly believe that so long as they regard Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior
that they will be saved, as if the invocation of Yeshua’s name is a form of talisman.
Howbeit, the Messiah said that salvation does not work this way:156
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven,
but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day,
‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name,
and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never
knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken
him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: and the rain descended, the
floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it
was founded on the rock.
“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be
like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: and the rain descended, the
floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great
was its fall.”
153Cf. Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45.
154John 15:13, New King James Version.
155John 8:31,32, New King James Version.
156Matthew 7:21–27, New King James Version; cf. Luke 6:46–49. Cf. Matthew 12:50; Mark 3:35; Luke
8:21; John 14:12,15,21,23,24; 15:10; 1 John 2:3–6; 5:2,3.
61
To reiterate the Messiah’s words: “And do not fear those who kill the body, but
cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in
Gehenna.”157 Jesus is quite clear that this is the worst outcome that could ever possi-
bly befall a person. There is nothing that can occur in this mortal life that could come
close to it.158 We should endeavor to warn others against that. And we should pray for
those who abuse us, because there is no abuse which they could possibly inflict upon
us which will match what is coming to them if they don’t repent. For the same reason,
there is no need to obtain retribution on this mortal coil, as the superhuman beings
who perform the universal resurrection of the dead can institute a perfect justice, as
they will learn everything about the past in perfect detail, right down to the quantum
level; though, as said, we should not take pleasure in the prospect of anyone’s pun-
ishment after resurrection, but instead earnestly hope that they repent. (However, as
pointed out in footnote 130 on p. 52, any such punishments would simply be done in
order for existence to exist, not as an exercise of sating the cruelty of the far-future
superintelligences.)
Thus within all the travails of mankind we can stand with the security which cannot
fail during the birth pangs as the Earth parturiates its first immortal sapient species.159
That unerring security simply being the truth. I will elaborate on a number of those
birth pangs, including the greatest ones to come, in Section 8.2.
Nor does the fact that God has been proven to exist according to the known laws
of physics leave no room for faith. Recall that Jesus Christ defined Himself as the truth
(see John 14:6). Hence, truth, particularly scientific truth, confirms the existence of
God and Yeshua Ha’Mashiach as the Second Person of the Trinity.
The word used in the New Testament for faith is pistis (π στισ), which means per-
suasion, as in persuaded by the evidence. It further carries the meaning of a ground of
belief, a guarantee, an assurance. Faith in the Christian sense is trust in the truth, even
when things seem hopeless. It does not mean a lack of rationality in coming to belief
in Jesus Christ. Indeed, Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20
that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God:160
because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it
to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead, so that they are without excuse, . . .
157Matthew 10:28, Weymouth New Testament [475]; cf. Matthew 10:26–31; Luke 12:4,5.
158See Matthew 5:29,30; 18:6–9; Mark 9:42–48.
159See Romans 8:19–23.
160New King James Version.
62
After all, some form of reason must be used in order for a person to convert in belief
from one religion to another; or from any belief to another belief, for that matter. It
can either be veridical reason, or false reason—but some process of reasoning must be
involved.
Having faith in God is having trust in the truth, since the Godhead in all Its fullness
is the highest obtainment of truth: said state is the infinite perfection of all knowledge.
As Paul wrote, “If God be for us, who can be against us?”161
8.2 Ponerology Vis-à-Vis Politics
8.2.1 The Beast
Government Is by Definition a Subset of Conspiracy and Terrorism: Governments
can only exist via a continuous violation of Jesus Christ’s Commandment of the Golden
Rule due to their coercive regional monopoly on the ultimate control of the law, which
is a practice they treat as a crime if their subjects attempt to engage in it.162
It is for this reason that governments are intrinsically conspiracies. A conspiracy is
simply when two or more people work together to do something improper to another
or others (of which actions may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a nec-
essary component for actions to be a conspiracy). The mere fact that governments set
for themselves legal double-standards is alone quite enough to logically demonstrate
that governments themselves consider their own actions improper, i.e., if their same
actions which they do to others are done to them they regard it as a crime. Thus,
the conclusion that government itself is the largest conspiracy to ever exist is logically
unavoidable.
Furthermore, the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies
are governments upon their own innocent citizens. More than six times the amount of
noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by
their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same timespan
from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to
over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The
Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects. The
communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. The
National Socialist German government murdered some 16 million of it own subjects.
161Romans 8:31, King James Version.
162For more details on this, see Ref. 349, Sec. 2: “The Golden Rule Unavoidably Results in Anarchism”;
also see Ref. 350.
63
And that’s only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant
subjects within the past century.163
All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely respon-
sible for promoting and causing nor even the wars committed by governments upon
the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is
directly responsible for committing against its own citizens—certainly not in amount
of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout
history has been the people’s very own government. (This is also historically true for
the US government, as no group has killed more US citizens than the US government:
e.g., with the Civil War; etc.)
Not only were all of these government mass-slaughters conspiracies—massive con-
spiracies, at that—but they were conspiracies of which, e.g., the 9/11 attacks are quite
piddling by comparison.
It’s not that conspiracies aren’t often successful, it’s just that we call the most suc-
cessful conspiracies governments. It’s via the addition of impunity and societal inculca-
tion whereby these conspiracies become culturally legitimized, not by the removal of
inherent criminality (malum in se). Government is organized crime on such an exten-
sive scale as to be largely impune.
Indeed, since generally speaking the entire point of a conspiracy is to gain power
over people and unearned wealth, virtually any conspiracy that managed to be truly
successful on a large scale would be called a government. Successful small-scale con-
spiracies, such as successful jewelry heists and the like, of course don’t obtain the
status of government, precisely because those conspiracies—though successful—were
on a small scale, and hence never obtained power over the masses.
So the irony is that if a conspiracy is successful on a large enough scale, it is not
called a conspiracy. Had the Nazis managed to take over the world, the masses would
not know them today as the criminal conspirators that they indeed are, but instead as
the legitimate legal authority to which the masses owe their loyalty.
Moreover, all modern definitions of terrorism inherently include government as
a subset. It’s only circular definitions of terrorism which by one means or another
specifically exclude government (such as explicitly designating the government—or
the “legitimate legal authority”, etc.—as being excluded from the definition) which
manage to avoid having government fall under their definitions. But even these cir-
cular definitions of terrorism inherently contain government as a subset of terrorism,
for the very reason that these definitions found it necessary to specifically exclude gov-
ernment from the definition. That is, all of these circular definitions of terrorism state
163The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel’s University of Hawaii website (Web-
Cite: 5x7A2YWRI, <http://goo.gl/PsZDW>). See also Refs. 97, 365.
64
(in words to the effect) that terrorism is the use of initiatory violence or the threat
thereof in order to achieve political aims, except for such actions by governments—
thereby admitting that governments, objectively speaking, inherently use the methods
of terrorism (and thus necessitating that government be specifically excluded from the
definition of terrorism, as otherwise it would naturally fall under the definition).
Indeed, the word “terrorism” originally referred exclusively to government actions:
i.e., the Reign of Terror in France against critics of the state, which was done according
to the law—and later on the word terrorism was used to refer to other governmental
systems [386].
Not only are all governments inherently terroristic, but they are by far the largest
and most murderous terrorist organizations in existence. Just within the last century
governments butchered over 200 million people, almost all of them innocent noncom-
batants.164
Duplicitous State Terrorism: Jesus Christ said that “the sons of this world are more
shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.”165 Besides overt terrorism being the
standard methodology of the state’s power, terrorism is the health of the state in other
ways, including deceitful, which is why so many governments throughout history have
manufactured duplicitous terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp
ever more power and control.
Christians ought to be especially skeptical of the government’s preternaturally con-
venient and auspicious claims regarding terrorism, given the history of the state falsely
accusing Christians of acts of terrorism, such as with Emperor Nero accusing the Chris-
tians of intentionally starting the Great Fire of Rome that began on the night between
July 18–19, 64 and which lasted for around a week. Contemporaneous Roman histo-
rian Tacitus records that many people thought Nero himself had ordered the fire set,
and that he blamed the Christians in an attempt to remove suspicion from himself:166
But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations
of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result
of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and in-
flicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called
Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered
the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procu-
rators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the
moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even
164For those statistics, see footnote 163 on p. 64.
165Luke 16:8, New King James Version.
166Ref. 414, Book 15, Ch. 44, pp. 304–305.
65
in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find
their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who
pleaded guilty;167 then, upon their information, an immense multitude was con-
victed, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts,
they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed
to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had
expired.
Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the
circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood
aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary
punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for
the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.
The Roman historian Suetonius records that Nero’s attendants were even caught
setting fire to Rome:168
When someone in a general conversation said:
“When I am dead, be earth consumed by fire,”169
he [Nero] rejoined “Nay, rather while I live,” and his action was wholly in accord.
For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the nar-
row, crooked streets, he set fire to the city170 so openly that several ex-consuls
did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them
on their estates with tow and firebrands, while some granaries near the Golden
House, whose room he particularly desired, were demolished by engines of war
and then set on fire, because their walls were of stone. For six days and seven
nights destruction raged, while the people were driven for shelter to monuments
and tombs. At that time, besides an immense number of dwellings,171 the houses
of leaders of old were burned, still adorned with trophies of victory, and the tem-
ples of the gods vowed and dedicated by the kings and later in the Punic and
167My note: Here “pleaded guilty” could simply refer to pleading guilty to being a Christian, as opposed
to a crime against person or property.
168Ref. 403, Book 6: “Nero”, Ch. 38, pp. 154–157. Footnote indicators have been changed in the quoted
text for clarity.
169Translator’s note: “A line put by Dio, 68. 23, into the mouth of Tiberius. It is believed to be from the
Bellerophon, a lost play of Euripides.”
170Translator’s note: “But cf. Tac. Ann. 15. 38.”
171Translator’s note: “Insulae here refers to blocks of houses, or tenements, in which rooms were rented
to the poorer classes; domus to detached houses or mansions.”
66
Gallic wars, and whatever else interesting and noteworthy had survived from an-
tiquity. Viewing the conflagration from the tower of Maecenas172 and exulting, as
he said, in “the beauty of the flames,” he sang the whole of the “Sack of Ilium,”173
in his regular stage costume. Furthermore, to gain from this calamity too all the
spoil and booty possible, while promising the removal of the debris and dead bod-
ies free of cost he allowed no one to approach the ruins of his own property; and
from the contributions which he not only received, but even demanded, he nearly
bankrupted the provinces and exhausted the resources of individuals.
The Roman historian Cassius Dio writes the following on the Great Fire:174
After this Nero set his heart on accomplishing what had doubtless always been
his desire, namely to make an end of the whole city and realm during his lifetime.
At all events, he, like others before him, used to call Priam wonderfully fortunate
in that he had seen his country and his throne destroyed together. Accordingly
he secretly sent out men who pretended to be drunk or engaged in other kinds
of mischief, and caused them at first to set fire to one or two or even several
buildings in different parts of the city, so that people were at their wits’ end, not
being able to find any beginning of the trouble nor to put an end to it, though
they constantly were aware of many strange sights and sounds. . . .
Many houses were destroyed for want of anyone to help save them, and many
others were set on fire by the same men who came to lend assistance; for the
soldiers, including the night watch, having an eye to plunder, instead of putting
out fires, kindled new ones. . . . There was no longer any grieving over personal
losses, but they [the Plebs] lamented the public calamity, recalling how once be-
fore most of the city had been thus laid waste by the Gauls. While the whole
population was in this state of mind and many, crazed by the disaster, were leap-
ing into the very flames, Nero ascended to the roof of the palace, from which there
was the best general view of the greater part of the conflagration, and assuming
the lyre-player’s garb, he sang the “Capture of Troy,” as he styled the song himself,
though to the enemies of the spectators it was the Capture of Rome. . . .
There was no curse that the populace did not invoke upon Nero, though they
did not mention his name, but simply cursed in general terms those who had set
the city on fire. And they were disturbed above all by recalling the oracle which
once in the time of Tiberius had been on everybody’s lips. It ran thus:
172Translator’s note: “A tower connected with the house and gardens of Maecenas on the Esquiline;
see Hor. Odes, 3. 29. 10, molem propinquam nubibus arduis. It was probably connected with the Palatine
by the domus transitoria; see chap. xxi. 2 and Tac. Ann. 15. 39, whose account, as well as that of Dio,
62. 18, differs from that of Suetonius.”
173Translator’s note: “Probably a composition of his own; cf. Juv. 8. 221 and Vitell. xi. 2.”
174Ref. 113, Book 62, Ch. 16–18, pp. 111–117.
67
“Thrice three hundred years having run their course of fulfilment,
Rome by the strife of her people shall perish.”
And when Nero, by way of encouraging them, reported that these verses could not
be found anywhere, they dropped them and proceeded to repeat another oracle,
which they averred to be a genuine Sibylline prophecy, namely:
“Last of the sons of Aeneas, a mother-slayer shall govern.”
And so it proved, whether this verse was actually spoken beforehand by some
divine prophecy, or the populace was now for the first time inspired, in view of the
present situation, to utter it. For Nero was indeed the last emperor of the Julian
line, the line descended from Aeneas. He now began to collect vast sums from
private citizens as well as from whole communities, sometimes using compulsion,
taking the conflagration as his pretext, and sometimes obtaining it by voluntary
contributions, as they were made to appear. As for the Romans themselves, he
deprived them of the free dole of grain.
Indeed, the cross is a device of overt government terrorism. Thus the Christian
symbolism of the cross represents not merely triumph over death, but also triumph
over government, even in death—making the Christian cross the ultimate anarchist
symbol.175
***
In an investigation published in 2001—which to date is the most thorough study
ever conducted into the matter—historian Alexander Bahar and physicist and psychol-
ogist Wilfried Kugel confirmed the common view that the Reichstag Fire was set by
the Nazis [8]. Enkindled on the night of February 27, 1933, the Reichstag Fire was
subsequently used by the Nazis as the pretext to pass the Reichstag Fire Decree and
the Enabling Act which, respectively, abrogated numerous human rights and cemented
Adolf Hitler as dictator.
The staged Polish invasion events on August 31, 1939 upon Germany—of which
the attack on the Sender Gleiwitz radio station that day is the most famous incident—
were used by Hitler as the casus belli for the Nazi invasion of Poland the next day
and hence the start of World War II.176 The Gleiwitz event was one of several staged
175For more on this, see Ref. 349, 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.
176As Adolf Hitler stated on September 1, 1939 in his address to the Reichstag [486] justifying his
invasion of Poland (in translation):
68
incidents that were a part of Operation Himmler, which was a false-flag campaign
conducted by the Nazis in order to make it appear as if Germany was under attack
from Poland. In the Gleiwitz and other Operation Himmler incidents, German locations
were attacked by Schutzstaffel (SS) and Sicherheitsdienst (SD) agents with the dead
bodies of German prisoners dressed in Polish uniforms left behind.177
So in the Operation Himmler affair we have the astonishing fact that history’s most
deadly war—to date—was unequivocally started by government false-flag staged ter-
rorism events. Thus, the importance of duplicitous state terrorism to history is beyond
But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for weak-
ness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided last night and informed the British Govern-
ment that in these circumstances I can no longer find any willingness on the part of the
Polish Government to conduct serious negotiations with us.
These proposals for mediation have failed because in the meanwhile there, first of
all, came as an answer the sudden Polish general mobilization, followed by more Polish
atrocities. These were again repeated last night. Recently in one night there were as many
as twenty-one frontier incidents: last night there were fourteen, of which three were quite
serious. I have, therefore, resolved to speak to Poland in the same language that Poland
for months past has used toward us. This attitude on the part of the Reich will not change.
...
This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our territory. Since 5.45
A.M. we have been returning the fire, and from now on bombs will be met by bombs.
Whoever fight with poison gas will be fought with poison gas. Whoever departs from the
rules of humane warfare can only expect that we shall do the same. I will continue this
struggle, no matter against whom, until the safety of the Reich and its rights are secured.
Hitler’s above passage of the “language that Poland for months past has used toward us” refers to the
Polish government’s policy at the time of Polonization, which put pressure on ethnic Germans and other
non-Polish ethnicities to either move out of Poland or to adopt the Polish language and customs.
In Hitler’s proclamation to the German Army on September 1,1939 [485], he stated that
The Polish State has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and
has appealed to arms. Germans in Poland are persecuted with bloody terror and driven
from their houses. A series of violations of the frontier, intolerable to a great Power, prove
that Poland is no longer willing to respect the frontier of the Reich.
In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to meet force with
force from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and the vital
rights of reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier, mindful
of the great traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that he is
a representative of the National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and our
Reich!
The counterfeit Polish attack upon Germany is again cited as justification for the invasion of Poland
in item No. 4 of the German government’s September 3, 1939 communication [487] in response to the
British government’s ultimatum (also given on the same day) that Germany retreat from Poland.
177Ref. 210, pp. 216–217, 242–244.
69
colossal: just going by the scale of horrors wrought by World War II alone, it would ap-
pear to quite possibly be the most important primum mobile of history vis-à-vis tyranny
and war.
***
The incident that was used as the pretext to usher the United States into World
War II was the Japanese government’s attack on the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor
on December 7, 1941. The attack upon Pearl Harbor was neither unprovoked nor
unexpected by the US government, as the US government had been engaged in a
series of actions intended to force Japan into attacking one of its imperial outposts. As
US Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson wrote in his diary on November 25, 1941,178
At the [White House] meeting were [Cordell] Hull, [Frank] Knox, [George] Mar-
shall, [Harold] Stark, and myself. There the President, instead of bringing up the
Victory Parade [a footnote here states, “This was an office nickname for the Gen-
eral Staff strategic plan of national action in case of war in Europe.”], brought up
entirely the relations with the Japanese. He brought up the event that we were
likely to be attacked perhaps (as soon as) next Monday, for the Japanese are no-
torious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we
should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of
firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.
On December 7, 1941, Stimson wrote in his diary that179
When the news first came that Japan had attacked us, my first feeling was of
relief that the indecision was over and that a crisis had come in a way which
would unite all our people. This continued to be my dominant feeling in spite
of the news of catastrophes which quickly developed. For I feel that this country
united has practically nothing to fear; while the apathy and division stirred by
unpatriotic men have been hitherto very discouraging.
Neither shock nor surprise was the emotion that Stimson felt upon being told of the
Japanese military’s attack on the US Navy base at Pearl Harbor, but rather “relief”—
including “relief” regarding the catastrophic way it happened: as the scale of the catas-
trophe provided the decisive push required to “unite” the country to go to war. While
Franklin Roosevelt’s “date which will live in infamy” certainly came as a surprise to
most of the American public, it came as no surprise to Roosevelt or Stimson, as in-
deed they were counting on it. The “indecision” Stimson refers to is the fact that by
178Ref. 90, p. 5433.
179Refs. 90, p. 5438; 397, p. 393.
70
far most Americans didn’t want to get involved in World War II, and the “unpatriotic
men” Stimson refers to are those who counseled the founding American principle of
noninterventionism which the same majority of Americans preferred to follow before
the attack on Pearl Harbor.
In the “Top Secret Report of Army Pearl Harbor Board” republished in the proceed-
ings of the official US Congressional Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl
Harbor Attack,180 the report concludes181 that
There, therefore, can be no question that between the dates of December 4
and December 6, the imminence of war on the following Saturday and Sunday,
December 6 and 7, was clear-cut and definite.
Up to the morning of December 7, 1941, everything that the Japanese were
planning to do was known to the United States except the final message instruct-
ing the Japanese Embassy to present the 14th part together with the preceding
13 parts of the long message at one o’clock on December 7, or the very hour and
minute when bombs were falling on Pearl Harbor.
For the extent of just how much was known by the US government and its strategy
to provoke the Japanese government into attacking, see References 20, 140, 159, 299,
398, 450, 459, 477, 479.
***
The event which escalated the United States’ involvement in Vietnam into a full-
scale war was the Gulf of Tonkin incident. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer-type
warship USS Maddox (DD-731) came under fire from three North Vietnamese Navy
torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin as it was conducting signals intelligence. The
US military sustained no casualties and only slight materiel damage, with four North
Vietnamese personnel killed. What provoked the North Vietnamese military to fire
upon the Maddox was that a day earlier, South Vietnamese raiders under the com-
mand of the US military attacked two islands off the North Vietnamese coast as part
of a highly-classified US program against North Vietnam that began in 1961, called
Operations Plan 34A (OPLAN 34A), which used South Vietnamese personnel trained,
supplied, and commanded by the Pentagon in order to insulate the extent of the US
government’s role in actions against North Vietnam.
In the August 3, 1964, 10:20 a.m. (Washington, DC time) telephone conversation
between US President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
180Ref. 91, pp. 221–230.
181Ibid., p. 230.
71
[220] pertaining to the August 2 incident, McNamara stresses to Johnson (1:54–2:31
min:sec182) that the prior OPLAN 34A actions were definitely involved in provoking the
North Vietnamese to fire upon the Maddox. Nevertheless, the American public were not
told of this connection by the US government in the publicity that surrounded the Gulf
of Tonkin affair, which was instead misrepresented by the presidential administration
as an unprovoked attack [223].
During the August 4, 1964, 9:43 a.m. phone call between Johnson and McNamara
[221], they discuss actions to be taken against North Vietnam concerning the August 2
event. They agree to a plan designed to create a staged incident that will provide the
US government a pretext to take direct military action against North Vietnam. Within a
section of the conversation where McNamara explains to Johnson why the part of the
already-devised staged-incident plan which involved placing US warships 11 miles off
the coast of North Vietnam should not be changed to eight miles off the coast as was
recommended by Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp, Jr.,183 McNamara states (2:20–2:33
min:sec) that
These orders are very precise; the tracks are laid down very clearly; they go
through three command channels to get out there; this ship is allegedly, uh, to
be attacked tonight—we don’t like to see a change in operation plan of this kind
at this time.
McNamara continues relating Admiral Sharp’s recommendations as they pertain to
the already-devised staged-incident plan (3:02–4:22 min:sec):
[McNamara:] Secondly, he [Sharp] recommends that the task force comman-
der be authorized to pursue any attacker and destroy the base of the attacker. In
this instance, if he were attacked by patrol boats, it would mean that he would
pursue the patrol craft into the shore line, uh, identify the base of the patrol craft
and destroy that base. Now this is an action that we might well wish to consider
after the second attack. But I think it would be inappropriate, and General [Earle]
Wheeler agrees, and Dean Rusk agrees, inappropriate to provide the task force
commander that authority. There will be ample time for us, after a second attack,
182Recording times given herein are for the digital audio files as downloaded on May 28, 2011 from the
website of the Presidential Recordings Program, Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia,
which come from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library & Museum, US National Archives and Records
Administration. For more on these recordings, see Ref. 260.
183North Vietnam recognized 12 miles from the coast and farther as being international waters, and
so the point of placing US warships closer than this was either to provoke a North Vietnamese attack
or to provide a plausible rationale as to why they would attack in the case of a completely fabricated
false-flag attack.
72
to bring this problem to your attention, and you can then decide how far you wish
to pursue the attacker into his base area.
[Johnson:] What objections do you have to pursuing it?
[McNamara:] With only the objection that if we give such authority, you have,
in a sense, lost control of, of the degree of our, uh, response to the North Viet-
namese. If you don’t know exactly what bases will be attacked, where they are
in relation to population centers, how much force will be applied to attack them,
when it will occur. I, I personally would recommend to you, after a second attack
on our ships, that we do retaliate against the coast of North Vietnam some way or
other. And we’ll be prepared . . .
The conversation later continues (4:59–5:30 min:sec):
[Johnson:] ... I wish we could have something [i.e., North Vietnamese tar-
gets] that we already picked out, and uh, and just hit about three of them damned
quick right after.
[McNamara:] We will have that, and, and I, I’ve talked to Mac [McGeorge]
Bundy a moment ago and told him that I thought that was the most important
subject we should consider today, and, and be prepared to recommend to you a
response, a retaliation move against North Vietnam in the event this attack takes
place within the next six to nine hours. And we—
[Johnson:] All right. Now we better do that at lunch. There’s some things I
don’t want to go in with these other—I want to keep this as close as I can. So let’s
just try to keep it to the two or three.
I have emphasized particular passages above to call one’s attention to the most
relevant sections of the conversation. Especially interesting is McNamara’s statement
in the first quoted passage that “this ship is allegedly, uh, to be attacked tonight”,
referring to a US military ship “allegedly” to be attacked, i.e., that it won’t actually
be attacked, but will instead only be alleged to have been attacked. McNamara here
might be referring to a contingency plan in case the North Vietnamese military refused
to take the bait that he and Johnson were setting.
As it so happened, McNamara’s statement in the last passage above regarding “in
the event this attack takes place within the next six to nine hours” didn’t have to
wait that long,184 as McNamara called Johnson back on August 4, 11:06 a.m.—about
one hour and 18 minutes later—and informed him that the destroyer (referring to
184Although to be precise to McNamara’s “next six to nine hours” statement, he was referring to
having recommendations ready to present to Johnson regarding North Vietnamese targets to strike if
the desired attack upon a US military ship came within (and, presumably, after) that period; he wasn’t
saying that the incident would occur within that time.
73
the Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin) was under attack by the North Vietnamese [222].
Howbeit, as it further happened, the North Vietnamese military had in fact not taken
the bait: the alleged attack on August 4, 1964 never happened.
Whatever the actual agency or mechanism of the phantom attack of August 4,
1964 upon the Maddox, had the North Vietnamese actually attacked the Maddox on
August 4, they would simply have been falling for an engineered provocation designed
for precisely that response in order to provide the US government a pretext for engag-
ing in direct action against North Vietnam. So even if immediately after the second
incident Johnson thought that the attack had taken place, he still knew it was a set-up
of his own machination: one in which he was willing to potentially sacrifice the lives
of the entire crew of the Maddox in order to obtain the pretext for escalating the war.
Even though the alleged attack on August 4, 1964 never occurred—and even had
the attack actually taken place, Johnson still would have known it was a treachery of
his own duplicity—this non-attack was trumpeted by the White House as demonstra-
tion of North Vietnam’s bellicosity toward the US [223], and the US Congress passed
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 7, 1964 in response to the August 4 alleged
attack, which authorized the US president to engage in direct military action against
the North Vietnamese [92]. It is this resolution which began America’s full-scale war
in Vietnam.
According to the US government’s casualty statistics on the Vietnam War, from
1956 through 1964, a total of 401 US military personnel were killed in Vietnam [304].
However, a total of 58,193 US military members were killed during the entire Vietnam
War, meaning that almost all of these people were killed due to US President Johnson
and the US government’s highest military leaders’ perfidy of deceitfully engineering
the US into direct warfare against North Vietnam185 while deliberately lying to the
American public about the nature of the Gulf of Tonkin incident [223].
Three months before the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in the telephone conversation on
April 30, 1964, 7:50 p.m.,186 Johnson requested of McNamara a way to escalate the
military actions being taken against North Vietnam by setting a “trap” for the North
Vietnamese (4:36–4:59 min:sec):
185The Paris Peace Accords to end the Vietnam War took effect on the beginning of January 28, 1973
Greenwich Mean Time [74]. Although a number of US forces stayed in Vietnam until the Fall of Saigon
on April 30, 1975. The Mayaguez Incident from May 12–15, 1975 between Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge
and the US was the last official battle of the Vietnam War.
186Ref. 219. From 3:01–3:31 min:sec of the recording the audio is censored as classified information
[284, p. 379]. From 4:07–4:25 min:sec the audio is censored under deed of gift restriction (ibid., p.
380). For more on this, see under the entry “Restriction” on p. 9 of Ref. 260.
74
[Johnson:] Well, what I want is somebody to lay up some plans to trap these
guys and, uh, whoop the hell out of ’em. Kill some of ’em. That’s what I want to
do. If this Army Chief of Staff is not going to do it, let’s get somebody else that’ll
do it.187
[McNamara:] I’ll try and bring something back that will meet that objective.
[Johnson:] Okay, Bob.
[McNamara:] Thanks. [Phone call ends.]
***
In 2009 a peer-reviewed paper [173] published in a mainstream chemical physics
journal and authored by nine scientists working in laboratories at multiple univer-
sities using state-of-the-art equipment confirmed the presence of large quantities of
metal iron spheres of reacted thermite, and flakes (chips) of unreacted (i.e., still ac-
tive) superthermite (also called nanothermite, which is thermite which has been made
even more reactive by decreasing the thermitic particle size down to the nanometer
range), in different dust samples from the World Trade Center (WTC) towers which
collapsed on September 11, 2001188 that were collected from multiple people at differ-
ent sites even before cleanup operations began. The physical and chemical properties
of these spheres and flakes were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning elec-
tron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential
scanning calorimetry (DSC), among other methods.
For more information on the background on this paper, including the extensive
research that went into it and the rigorous peer-review process that it underwent, I
highly recommend everyone listen to the interview of physicist Prof. Emeritus Steven
E. Jones, one of the paper’s authors, in Reference 481. Additionally available at the
aforecited reference are interviews of chemists Kevin R. Ryan and Prof. Niels H. Harrit,
who are also coauthors of the paper.
Two other peer-reviewed papers pertaining to the presence of large quantities of
thermite in the dust of the collapsed WTC towers have also been published in main-
stream science journals [231, 367]. See also References 168, 228–230, which are ad-
ditional articles on the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings.
187Army Chief of Staff Earle “Bus” Wheeler was promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
on July 2, 1964, when Maxwell Taylor (the previous Chairman) became the US Ambassador to South
Vietnam. Harold K. Johnson replaced Wheeler as the Army Chief of Staff on July 3, 1964.
188The three WTC buildings that collapsed on September 11, 2001 were 1 World Trade Center (North
Tower), 2 World Trade Center (South Tower)—which together were the Twin Towers—and 7 World
Trade Center.
75
Thermite is a mixture of a metal and an oxide capable of undergoing an exother-
mic reduction-oxidation (redox) reaction, which is known as the thermite reaction
[465].189 Usually the metal and the oxide are each in the form of powders, and the
oxide is typically a metal oxide. The elemental metal must have a greater chemical
affinity for oxygen than the metal element making up the metallic oxide, otherwise
the thermite reaction will not occur. A common form of thermite is a stoichiometric
mixture of aluminum (Al) powder and ferric oxide (Fe2O3) powder which, when ig-
nited, produces iron (Fe) as molten metal and aluminum oxide (Al2O3) as white ash
or smoke per the reaction
2Al + Fe2O3 → 2Fe + Al2O3, ∆rH⊖ = −850.187 kJ/mol,
(1)
which in the process can generate temperatures in excess of 2500 ◦C.
In addition to the presence of large amounts of nanothermite in the dust of the col-
lapsed WTC buildings, another truly vital piece of evidence that provides unambiguous
proof that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition are the videos
of the white-hot metal flame with the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the
South Tower (World Trade Center Tower 2) immediately before its collapse.190
That piece of evidence isn’t merely a smoking gun: it’s a smoking nuclear cannon.
Those videos, alone and by themselves, are irrefragable proof that the South Tower
(at the very least) had thermite-like (“like” in the sense of producing comparable tem-
peratures and having a similar energy density) incendiary demolition charges with the
ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent
explanation for what those videos record.
That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that
white-hot metal flame and the yellow-hot molten metal to cascade off the South Tower
before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely
powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the videos. Of which,
even if true, would be every bit as damning, since no such powerful incendiaries can
be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.
From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower,
it had to be at least over 1000 ◦C, with the literally white-hot metal flame being around
the temperature of a common light bulb’s lit filament of circa 2500 ◦C (as the temper-
ature of an incandescent object is exhibited by its color191), yet jet fuel burns in open
189Also called the Goldschmidt reaction, named after Johannes Wilhelm “Hans” Goldschmidt, who, in
addition to Claude Vautin, developed thermite (which Goldschmidt named Thermit) in the 1890s.
190Videos of the aforesaid yellow-hot molten metal can be viewed at Refs. 82, 83, 88, 139, 303. For
videos of the literally white-hot metal flame, read farther below in the main text.
191See the “Temperature Guide” [451] chart published by the Swedish steel-manufacturing company
Uddeholm. The left-hand side of the chart gives colors for graybody (e.g., steel, iron, aluminum, etc.)
76
air at a maximum of about 812 ◦C,192 nor can burning office, building, and plane ma-
terials explain the white-hot metal flame and yellow-hot molten metal.193 Thus, if it
wasn’t molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then
by necessity a reaction source with a temperature intensity and energy density very
much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the US government’s ac-
count that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there’s nothing innocent that could
explain it, since it requires a substantial amount of some form of extremely powerful
incendiary.
In the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) 2005 report Federal
Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, NIST states
that194
and blackbody incandescent objects. (The right-hand side of the chart can be ignored: it is used for
tempering, and gives the reflected-light colors of oxides formed on the surface of steel.) Note that the
names given to the colors in the chart don’t necessarily match the common names for colors, e.g.,
“White” in the chart is literally a light yellow, which is the highest color temperature the chart gives.
The literally white-hot metal flame filmed at the South Tower is far hotter than this.
FEMA [279, Ch. 2, p. 34] and NIST [306, Vol. 4, App. H, pp. 38–39, 43] mention the yellow-hot
molten metal, but suggest that it is molten aluminum, which is not physically possible. Different mate-
rials incandesce with different degrees of brightness. Aluminum incandesces faintly, and when poured
at this temperature appears silvery in daylight. This is due to aluminum’s low emissivity (ϵ) and ab-
sorptivity, and hence its high reflectivity, causing the daylight to overpower its weak colored glow. NIST
later claimed [310, Q&A No. 11] that the yellow incandescence of this molten metal was likely due to
burning organic materials entrained in molten aluminum. However, this doesn’t work either: see the ex-
periments on molten aluminum conducted by Jones et al. [226, 227, 258]. The antiphysical suggestion
of aluminum is at any rate a red herring, since even if we fancifully imagine that it is aluminum, the
only way it could have gotten to glow so brightly is with a considerable amount of extremely powerful
incendiary. Indeed, the suggestion that this is aluminum just makes the case all the more damning,
since it would require a much higher temperature to make aluminum glow so bright than it would
iron. Moreover, for aluminum to be at this level of brightness, due to its higher temperature its color
would be shifted higher on the Planckian locus (i.e., the falling molten metal which is yellow-hot would
instead be white-hot).
192According to fire-researcher Prof. Hayasaka’s experiments [191, p. 268], “the highest flame tem-
perature of kerosene is only 1085 K . . . ”, referring to a diffusion flame (i.e., open-air combustion where
the fuel has not been premixed with air or oxygen). Although this temperature is only reached in a
small area near the bottom of the flame (ibid.). Jet fuels A and A-1 are the common commercial grades
of jet fuel, which is kerosene with a small amount of additives to improve its stability [275, 276].
193NIST themselves realized that this yellow-hot molten metal is not something that can be explained
due to temperatures reached in the WTC buildings via the burning of office, building, and plane mate-
rials, otherwise there would have been no need for NIST to attempt to explain it away by resorting to
the antiphysical claim that this was likely molten aluminum with burning organic materials entrained.
For a discussion on this, see footnote 191 on p. 77.
194Page 344 of Ref. 309, Ch. 9: “Fire Behavior in World Trade Center 2”, pp. 297–415; cited photograph
on p. 345.
77
The intense fire in the northeast corner opening of the 81st floor is still present.
An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph in Figure
9-44 a very bright white flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange sur-
rounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out. The
intensity of this flame is considerably brighter than normal flames. It was easily
identified in numerous photographs and videos shot from long distances at which
the surrounding “normal” flames were not visible. The brightness of the flame,
along with the white smoke, suggests that some type of metal is burning. Metal
combustion is known to generate much higher flame temperatures than hydrocar-
bon combustion, and, as a result, to burn much brighter. It is difficult to identify
what type of metal is burning. Aluminum will burn, but in normal fires it usually
melts instead because the metal surface is protected by an oxide layer that must
be breeched before ignition can take place. Aluminum oxide melts at high temper-
atures that are not typically reached in normal fires. There were limited quantities
of other metals on the aircraft that might also burn. Whatever the metal, the ig-
nition of a metal fire is an indication of the significant heating of the debris that
took place in the northeast corner of the 81st floor due to the prolonged intense
burning in this area following the aircraft impact.
Videos of the white-hot metal flame which NIST refers to in the above passage can
be viewed in References 46–48.195 The video of Reference 48 shows molten metal
pouring from the metal flame.
So great was the production of molten iron on September 11, 2001 in the collapse
of the destroyed WTC buildings that iron spheres are a common component in the
195These videos were released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) under
a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by attorney James R. Gourley (who also holds a
Bachelor of Science degree in Chemical Engineering) of the International Center for 9/11 Studies, of
which Center posted them for free downloading via BitTorrent at <http://911datasets.org>. Following
several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the FOIA request, the Center
filed a lawsuit against NIST on May 28, 2009, upon which NIST began releasing videos and photographs
that recorded the 9/11 disaster. The release was done in batches in digital format in the form of DVDs
and external hard drives, which have now totaled circa 5 terabytes of data. NIST refused to release
their entire collection of 9/11 videos and photographs due to what NIST claimed are objections by some
copyright holders to NIST releasing their materials. A large set of videos released by NIST come from an
external hard drive labeled “NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips” and a digital folder named
“NIST Cumulus Video”, and so videos from this set are sometimes referred to as NIST Cumulus database
videos, with the NIST filenames and locations within the database sometimes given. (“Cumulus” means
heap or pile; in other words, a pile of videos. Oddly, the videos released by NIST are broken-up into small
sequential segments, which makes them inconvenient to work with or to share with others without first
recombining them, and which is not how they were originally recorded. There are other indicators of
additional modifications of these files by NIST, as well.) If one desires these videos in their highest
publicly-available quality, then see the aforementioned website. For the Cumulus set, see Ref. 311.
78
dust generated from the disaster. This cannot be explained due to cleanup operations,
because, (1) as mentioned above, the iron spheres are present in the dust from the
collapsed buildings which had been collected even before cleanup operations began;
and (2) even on a windy day the metal spheres generated from cutting metal with
cutting torches wouldn’t travel anywhere near as far as the dust that was generated
from the collapse of the buildings (nor do such metal spheres produced from cutting
torches match those generated in the WTC collapses196). Detection of iron spheres in
the dust found in Lower Manhattan and surrounding areas was even evaluated by the
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a method to uniquely identify the dust
from the 9/11 WTC collapse disaster.197
RJ Lee Group, Inc., a company specializing in chemical analysis (including that
of environmental forensics) for industry and the US government, was contracted by
Deutsche Bank to conduct environmental analysis on their Deutsche Bank Building,
the skyscraper formerly at 130 Liberty Street across said street from WTC Tower 2,
due to their insurers’ claim that the WTC dust contamination of the building (which
survived, with damage, the collapse of WTC Tower 2) was innocuous.198 In the RJ Lee
Group’s December 2003 report on the WTC dust signature, the report states that199
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event,
producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in
the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure
22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel).
Table 3 in the RJ Lee Group report gives a “Mean of Composition (%)” of the WTC dust
collected inside the Deutsche Bank Building, with the amount of iron spheres consti-
tuting 5.87% of the dust200—a truly staggering amount of melted iron considering the
massive volume of dust generated from the WTC collapses, necessitating a tremendous
amount of extremely powerful incendiary. The melting point of iron is 1538 ◦C. Accord-
ing to the Federal Emergency
0%
 
10%
 
20%
 
30%
 
40%
 
50%
 
60%
 
70%
 
80%
 
90%
 
100%