[late]

I'm going to regret this, it's like handing cave men a grenade.

But the idiocy is just infuriating...

Anyway, this is a video from Philosophy Tube. You will need to watch a number of her videos (used to be his videos, the older ones are his) to get a feel for how philosophy works.

This has been like watching a baseball game where most of the players don't know how to hit a ball, and even if they did, don't know where first base is.

But a couple of people just might learn something, so here goes:

[James Redford]

I'm going to regret this, it's like handing cave men a grenade.

But the idiocy is just infuriating...

Anyway, this is a video from Philosophy Tube. You will need to watch a number of her videos (used to be his videos, the older ones are his) to get a feel for how philosophy works.

This has been like watching a baseball game where most of the players don't know how to hit a ball, and even if they did, don't know where first base is.

But a couple of people just might learn something, so here goes:

Hi, Late. I watched the above April 22, 2022 video by Abigail Thorn entitled "Transhumanism: 'The World's Most Dangerous Idea'". Her presentation was rather muddleheaded by being mired with fallacious collectivist ideology.

For those who would like to know much more about transhumanism and where technology is ultimately headed, see my following articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090 ... of-God.pdf .

* 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/ ... 007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065 ... ebate.html , https://archive.is/V9njw .

* James Redford, "God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within Standard Physics", Theophysics: The Physics of God, May 16, 2022, https://jamesredford.substack.com/p/god ... by-several , https://www.minds.com/blog/view/1373133123700658189 , https://steemit.com/cosmology/@jamesred ... rd-physics .

* James Redford, "Immortality via Technology", Medium, July 18, 2018, https://medium.com/@jamesredford/immortality-via-technology-a0e449bc8352 , https://megalodon.jp/2018-0724-0609-53/medium.com/@jamesredford/immortality-via-technology-a0e449bc8352 , https://archive.is/8bwZV .

[late]

Hi, Late. I watched the above April 22, 2022 video by Abigail Thorn entitled "Transhumanism: 'The World's Most Dangerous Idea'". Her presentation was rather muddleheaded by being mired with fallacious collectivist ideology.

I did not see that coming.

So, thanks, but I am afraid I must disagree with your disagreement.

Inside academia, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist. The work is over a century old, and has never faced a serious challenge.

I found your comment 'collectivist ideology' mildly amusing. It says a great deal more about you than Abigail.

Btw, speaking of academic imperatives, you would need to show why her analysis was muddleheaded. I pretty much know where you have to go, so I am asking you to not go there. Let it be our little secret...

[James Redford]

I did not see that coming.

So, thanks, but I am afraid I must disagree with your disagreement.

Inside academia, you can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist. The work is over a century old, and has never faced a serious challenge.

I found your comment 'collectivist ideology' mildly amusing. It says a great deal more about you than Abigail.

Btw, speaking of academic imperatives, you would need to show why her analysis was muddleheaded. I pretty much know where you have to go, so I am asking you to not go there. Let it be our little secret...

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/20150927090 ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... 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/ ... 007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065 ... ebate.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", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), July 4, 2021 (orig. pub. May 29, 2018), 4 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.4500656, https://megalodon.jp/2023-0720-0523-07/ ... ochism.pdf , https://archive.org/download/Societal-S ... ochism.pdf , https://www.freezepage.com/1689798200YQSGMQCYTZ .

[late]

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/20150927090 ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... 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/ ... 007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065 ... ebate.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", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), July 4, 2021 (orig. pub. May 29, 2018), 4 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.4500656, https://megalodon.jp/2023-0720-0523-07/ ... ochism.pdf , https://archive.org/download/Societal-S ... ochism.pdf , https://www.freezepage.com/1689798200YQSGMQCYTZ

Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected, which is also why I asked you not to say it...

Popular science is a business, and 'new' work that proves what cannot be proven pops up every year, with a depressing regularity.

[James Redford]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected, which is also why I asked you not to say it...

Popular science is a business, and 'new' work that proves what cannot be proven pops up every year, with a depressing regularity.

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 details on this, see my aforecited "Physics of God" article, and my above-mentioned article on Profs. Tipler and Krauss's 2007 debate at Caltech.

[Robert Urbanek]

I would prefer that posters give a summary in their own words instead of demanding we sit through a long video. In any case, I am not going to be lectured to by a woman who looks like a villain from Barbarella.

[late]

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 details on this, see my aforecited "Physics of God" article, and my above-mentioned article on Profs. Tipler and Krauss's 2007 debate at Caltech.

Thanks for the laugh.

Russell showed how all arguments for the existence of a deity are flawed.

What you need, and do not have, is evidence.

Because you lack evidence, using logic, you wind up assuming your conclusion.. there's no magic.

Because god assertions are not falsifiable, they are not allowed in science.

[James Redford]

Thanks for the laugh.

Russell showed how all arguments for the existence of a deity are flawed.

What you need, and do not have, is evidence.

Because you lack evidence, using logic, you wind up assuming your conclusion.. there's no magic.

Because god assertions are not falsifiable, they are not allowed in science.

Bertrand Russell never gave a proof of God's nonexistence, which is logically impossible to give since God is defined as the being possessing infinite knowledge, and mathematics is infinite, i.e., it allows for infinite computation, i.e., infinite thought. As I pointed out, 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. In addition to the several proofs of this within General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that I already mentioned above, for more details on this, see my aforecited "Physics of God" article, and my above-mentioned article on Profs. Tipler and Krauss's 2007 debate at Caltech.

In addition to the other mathematical theorems within standard physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) proving God's existence as mentioned in a previous post in this thread, physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics and science journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed papers in physics and science journals and proceedings wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... tation.pdf . First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space", bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski, Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988), pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... of-God.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne (Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN 89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... Theory.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988: Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN 091758628X, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... nciple.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114, https://web.archive.org/web/20160804171 ... chaton.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode: 1992PhLB..286...36T, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... lation.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland, Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf.....H, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... iation.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug. 12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694, https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230 ... ockets.pdf . Full proceedings volume: https://web.archive.org/web/20100525230 ... 021520.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998), https://web.archive.org/web/20150819193 ... v03n02.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp. 629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode: 2007MNRAS.379..629T, https://megalodon.jp/2019-0920-0621-46/ ... 9-0629.pdf .

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant", arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, Apr. 1, 2001, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 . Published in J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Eds.), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, Texas, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN 2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (Oct. 15, 2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148, doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T, https://web.archive.org/web/20110712221 ... mology.pdf . Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .

* F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T, http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theo ... ything.pdf . Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007, http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276 .

* Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193, https://web.archive.org/web/20140812163 ... larity.pdf .

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theorem (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected 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." (See Richard Palmer [Publisher], "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website, ca. 2006, https://archive.is/pKD3y , https://megalodon.jp/2013-1120-1334-44/archive.is/pKD3y .)

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading 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 Reports) 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 impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers.

For much more on these matters, see the following two articles:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090 ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf .

* 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/ ... 007_Debate , https://web.archive.org/web/20190512065 ... ebate.html , https://archive.is/V9njw .

And see the following website:

* James Redford, Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist, https://archive.org/details/Theophysics , http://theophysics.epizy.com , http://theophysics.byethost31.com .

The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the aforestated known laws of physics, and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology. 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].)

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) required by the known laws of physics and that correctly describes and unifies all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and nonphysical (such as String Theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything crucially wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper and his other papers on the Omega Point Theorem is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing these papers could find nothing fundamentally wrong with them within their operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.