​
Welcome • ToS • User Guide
Privacy • API • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2022 Poal.co

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory storage) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory. Moreover, to here point out, said Singularity Theorems are themselves completely valid proofs of God's existence in the First Cause aspect of God.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

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.

As said, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the aforementioned known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. 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].)

Indeed, in the Feynman path integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics (i.e., sum-over-paths; sum-over-histories) a singularity is even more inevitable than in the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems, since the Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas the Feynman sum-over-histories get arbitrarily close to infinite curvature. In other words, the multiverse has its own singularity.

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

⁂

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 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.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam Books) coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, 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.

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.

For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my "Physics of God" article cited above.

The evolutionary psychological reason for the above-described bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article:

↓ expand content
Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory storage) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws. Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals, such as *Reports on Progress in Physics* (the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional organization for physicists), *Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society* (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), the *International Journal of Theoretical Physics* (a journal that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in), and *Physics Letters*, among other journals. Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity, which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s. Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) and computer theory. Moreover, to here point out, said Singularity Theorems are themselves completely valid proofs of God's existence in the First Cause aspect of God. The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology: * James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", *Social Science Research Network* (*SSRN*), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090439/http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf . Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", *God and Physics Wiki*, May 12, 2019 (orig. pub. Apr. 3, 2013), https://megalodon.jp/2019-0512-1524-14/godandphysics.fandom.com/wiki/Tipler-Krauss_2007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065553/http://theophysics.freevar.com/Tipler-Krauss_2007_Debate.html , https://archive.is/V9njw . As said, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the aforementioned known laws of physics, of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. 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].) Indeed, in the Feynman path integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics (i.e., sum-over-paths; sum-over-histories) a singularity is even more inevitable than in the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems, since the Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas the Feynman sum-over-histories get arbitrarily close to infinite curvature. In other words, the multiverse has its own singularity. Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", *Nature*, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in *Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986* [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.) ⁂ 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 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. In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book *The Grand Design* (New York, NY: Bantam Books) coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, 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. 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. For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my "Physics of God" article cited above. The evolutionary psychological reason for the above-described bizarre behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of old--i.e., the demons--seeking to distance people from genuine knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on this, see my following article: * James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", *Internet Archive*, July 4, 2021 (orig. pub. May 29, 2018), 4 pp., ark:/13960/t2r59ws9q, https://web.archive.org/web/20211105203423/http://theophysics.freevar.com/Redford-Societal-Sadomasochism.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1625455548IKATDLJYGP , https://megalodon.jp/2021-0705-1226-07/archive.org/download/Societal-Sadomasochism/Redford-Societal-Sadomasochism.pdf .
[–] typhoon8 • 3 pts 2d ago

Physics : everything has a cause.

Atheists: Nothing caused everything to happen.

[–] privacy_first • 1 pt yesterday

we (the people) have a wildly different definition of what "proven" means

the definition I use is one that can predict the outcome of an "experiment", so, a theory is "proven" if I can devise an experiment that I can predict the outcome in advance and then, after performing the experiment I can verify the outcome.

All of this happens in the so called "real world" (yes, I know, it may all be a fictions, whatever), not in one mind.

Also, Goedel theorem clearly state that math is incomplete, meaning that it cannot "prove" itself (whatever that means), so.... we are back to faith. Not that it is a bad thing, just saying.

Logic has limits, eg: is this sentence telling the truth or a lie ? "An italian say that all italians are liars, is he telling the truth or a lie ? "

It is an interesting matter, far from being "settled"

[–] TetOmeg
[OP] • 0 pt 21h ago (edited 12h ago)

Actually, what I presented above are proofs of God's existence in the strongest sense of "proof": they are mathematical theorems, i.e., logical proofs.

The only way they could be wrong is if the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) are wrong. However, these known physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the above physics theorems is to reject empirical science. As Prof. 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].)

Moreover, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the following resource:

Pertaining to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, your above comment on them is a misstatement. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems apply to finite-length proofs. Even with finite-length proofs, valid logical systems can never show a contradiction of themselves--if they did, then everything and its contradiction could be proven to be both true and false at the same time in those systems. Standard arithmetic and Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory would be completely worthless. Rather, given finite-length proofs, the logical system itself cannot be shown to be logically consistent--which is not the same as showing it to be inconsistent. However, if a proof of infinite length is allowed, then logical systems powerful enough to embed arithmetic can be shown to be logically consistent. This is a proviso that is often not mentioned in discussions of the Incompleteness Theorems.

So Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems are actually an a priori logical proof of the unavoidability of Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity (which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology), since the Incompleteness Theorems force the universe to be infinite, and also force the mathematical description of the universe to be of infinite length. Thus by your own acceptance of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems, if you are to be logically consistent, then you are also forced to accept the logical unavoidability of the Omega Point cosmology.

Regarding the Liar's Paradox: it amounts to the statement "This sentence is false." This is the core of the Liar's Paradox. Yet this statement is inherently meaningless. To understand its meaninglessness, consider its opposite statement, "This sentence is true." With this sentence, no paradox is produced, i.e., no infinite recursion of flipping truth-values is produced. Yet what does it even mean? The answer is that it doesn't mean anything. It's logically equivalent to saying "This stone is true." What about this stone is true? A stone, in and of itself, doesn't have a truth-value. Likewise, the two-word phrase "this sentence", considered as an entity in and of itself, doesn't have a truth-value, no more so than "this stone".

↓ expand content
[–] privacy_first • 0 pt 11h ago

As I said, we have a different "definition" of proof

it is ok, this is life

[–] ardvarcus • 0 pt yesterday

Trying to prove the existence of God with science is like trying to compose poetry with a hammer. It ain't the right tool for the job, bub.

[–] TetOmeg
[OP] • 0 pt 21h ago

Traditional Christianity has been at the forefront of using the latest science of the day to prove God's existence, such as with Anselm's Proslogion and Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways. Indeed, natural science as a systematic discipline is the invention of Christendom, as is the university system. For more on this, see Sec. 6: "Science Comes Home", pp. 33-35 of my above-cited "Physics of God" article.

Christians in this Godless age continuously cut their own feet out from under themselves before they even bother standing up. They've made the proverbial Faustian bargain with this world--in this case, what evolutionary biologist Prof. Stephen Jay Gould termed the "non-overlapping magisteria": that if they just cede ground regarding scientific matters to the God-haters, that said theophobes won't interfere with the Christians' theological concerns.

Though Satan must always betray in his pacts. The God-haters have come to lie, steal, enslave, torture, rape and murder--and all that on a mass-scale. Attempts to appease them result in mass-horrors.

Yet why would Christians believe the same God-hating intelligentsia that gave us the horrors of Communism and Nazism (and other forms of socialism), to name a few of their many horrific societal gifts? Once one buys into their false premise, one has already lost. And I'm not talking about merely debates. One has lost society. One has lost souls. This false premise is straight out of the pit of Hell. So stop believing it, those who dare call themselves Christians. Stop believing the serial-killers of societies. They set-up a trap, and naïve Christians willingly fall into it. The consequences are rotting corpses stacked as far as the eye can see. Stop being a participatory party to your own rape and slaughter. Stop fashioning your own noose.

Christians in this age have been entranced by this demonic spell. But it is a lie: for ever since Newton's physics, and especially with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (either separately or combined), God has always been a mathematically-unavoidable result. For some of the details on this, see Sec. 5: "The Big Bang", pp. 28-33 of my aforecited "Physics of God" article; and see my above-mentioned article on Profs. Tipler and Krauss's 2007 debate at Caltech.