“If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings.”
Says you.
If you had actually proven God, don’t you think someone would have noticed by now? I have never seen such a blatant display of arrogance. You claim not only that you are smarter than most but that you have knowledge that is exclusive to you. You say it’s only a matter of someone reading your book and they’ll have the knowledge you do, but that demonstrates that you don’t understand how knowledge works. If what you have in your head can’t be externally verified, it has no more value than a passing thought or a dream.
James Redford,
is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point.
In the above quote you equate the term “sapient” with human intelligence. IMO, this is a narrow and exclusive interpretation.
David Bohm also used the term “insight intelligence” but he did not mean any sentient, let alone sapient awareness.
The laws of nature are not intelligent, they are mathematically logical and constant, but that does not make them “wise”.
Fractals are expressions of a Trinity. It is clearly spelled out in CDT, (causal dynamical triangulation).
Three points are the fundamental minimum requirement for 2D representation (a plane). Add one more point and you have 3D (volume). Nothing mystical or intelligent, It’s BEAUTIFUL!
It is a triangular dynamical causality.
If only we had the wisdom to appreciate and respect its awesome mathematical powers, as well as the spiritual beauty which we all observe within our (confined space) mind as a subjective holographic mental (spiritual) image. Our minds create our present from old information, but in our imagination exists as our very present. We live in the future of what we believe to be our present, but we are always looking backward in time.
“If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings.”
Says you.
If you had actually proven God, don’t you think someone would have noticed by now? I have never seen such a blatant display of arrogance. You claim not only that you are smarter than most but that you have knowledge that is exclusive to you. You say it’s only a matter of someone reading your book and they’ll have the knowledge you do, but that demonstrates that you don’t understand how knowledge works. If what you have in your head can’t be externally verified, it has no more value than a passing thought or a dream.
Hi, Lausten. Bear in mind that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)
For much more on Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:
Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.
Hi, Lausten. Bear in mind that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, “one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem.” (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)
I don’t think you understand the term “peer-review”. It doesn’t mean that other scientists read it. They have to actually comment on it, critique it, say they can confirm it based on other data or theorems.
Actually, the expression is “where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.” Which kind of reminds me of this conversation, come to think of it. ;)
If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings. My below articles explain to people (1) theological ethics and soteriology in a comprehensive and logically-coherent manner; (2) how the known laws of physics prove God’s existence while demonstrating the exacting and extensive consilience of the New Testament with said physical laws; (3) the nature of God in light of said physical laws; (4) the End Time, the Tribulation, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Heaven on Earth, and the universal resurrection of the dead in light of said physical laws; and (5) the End Time in light of the history of the globalist oligarchy’s self-termed New World Order world government and world religion agenda.
And yet you can’t answer a relatively simple question, which I have asked twice. Hmmm….
Actually, the expression is “where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.” Which kind of reminds me of this conversation, come to think of it. ;)
If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings. My below articles explain to people (1) theological ethics and soteriology in a comprehensive and logically-coherent manner; (2) how the known laws of physics prove God’s existence while demonstrating the exacting and extensive consilience of the New Testament with said physical laws; (3) the nature of God in light of said physical laws; (4) the End Time, the Tribulation, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Heaven on Earth, and the universal resurrection of the dead in light of said physical laws; and (5) the End Time in light of the history of the globalist oligarchy’s self-termed New World Order world government and world religion agenda.
And yet you can’t answer a relatively simple question, which I have asked twice. Hmmm….
Allow me to ask you a very simple question.
Why is a sentient (sapient) intentional God necessary, when the very concept of God does not add any useful information to science?
Why is a sentient (sapient) intentional God necessary, when the very concept of God does not add any useful information to science?
You’re asking ME? Er… off the top of my head, the best answer I can come up with is that the idea of a sentient, intentional God is necessary to some people (although not to me) because they don’t like the idea of “random events” ruling their lives. They need to believe that some “higher power” is watching over them, setting things right when the go wrong, or at least watching the fall of every sparrow. How does that sound?
Why is a sentient (sapient) intentional God necessary, when the very concept of God does not add any useful information to science?
You’re asking ME? Er… off the top of my head, the best answer I can come up with is that the idea of a sentient, intentional God is necessary to some people (although not to me) because they don’t like the idea of “random events” ruling their lives. They need to believe that some “higher power” is watching over them, setting things right when the go wrong, or at least watching the fall of every sparrow. How does that sound?
Good rundown on Frank Tipler HERE in a 2008 review of his work by Martin Gardner.
Upshot: crackpot.
The Physics of Christianity by Frank Tipler, a mathematical physicist at Tulane University, is a sequel to The Physics of Immortality, a bestseller in Germany before it was published here in 1994 by Doubleday. In that book, Tipler argued that anyone who understands modern physics will be compelled to believe that at a far-off future date, which Tipler calls the Omega Point (borrowing the term from the Jesuit paleontologist Tielhard de Chardin), God will resurrect every person who lived, as well as every person who could have lived! Our brains will be preserved as computer simulations and given new spiritual bodies to live happily forever in the paradise described in the New Testament.
In his new book, published in 2007 by Doubleday, Tipler goes far beyond his previous one. ...
I got another one:
Delusional :sick:
_______________________________________
The real mystery for me is how people can find comfort in such contrived nonsense.
Actually, the expression is “where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.” Which kind of reminds me of this conversation, come to think of it. ;)
If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings. My below articles explain to people (1) theological ethics and soteriology in a comprehensive and logically-coherent manner; (2) how the known laws of physics prove God’s existence while demonstrating the exacting and extensive consilience of the New Testament with said physical laws; (3) the nature of God in light of said physical laws; (4) the End Time, the Tribulation, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Heaven on Earth, and the universal resurrection of the dead in light of said physical laws; and (5) the End Time in light of the history of the globalist oligarchy’s self-termed New World Order world government and world religion agenda.
And yet you can’t answer a relatively simple question, which I have asked twice. Hmmm….
I wrote a free book to answer everyone’s questions regarding this most important of question. Do you mean this question by you: “Seriously, what would an ‘immortal superintelligent human-mind computer’ look like in an equation? Where does that even come from? Can you just briefly give me the logic behind it, in words rather than mathematics?”
As far as I am aware, you did not ask that question twice. Further, you are acting irrationally here, since you are complaining that I have not answered something which of course I have answered. You act as if my “Physics of God” article is possessed by demons and that your soul will be overtaken if you so much as peek within it. It is not my fault if you are a superstitious person who is figuratively afraid of their own shadow. What am I to do, treat you as some mangy mutt and rub your nose in your own ignorant droppings, while yelling “Bad boy!”? It’s not up to me to force you into enlightenment. If one wishes to remain in ignorance, then no force can be applied to correct that.
Again, for the details of this mathematical theorem, see Sec. 3: “Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology”, Subsec. 3.1: “The Omega Point”, pp. 12-19 of my aforecited article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”.
[ Edited: 05 September 2015 12:49 AM by James Redford ]
