Immortality via Technology

submitted by TetrahedronOmega from (self.technology)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Existence of god is neither provable nor deniable with current mathematics. Pascal already knew this. That is why he axiomized this statement in a very reasonable way rather than dying in complete despair about this concept.

Tell me: Are you squaring the circle again, young padawan ?

Physicists... tztztz... raping mathematics to try desperately to access virginity.

Feynman was your primus inter pares.

Start reading his stuff, instead of posting this kind of half-baked bullshit.

[–]TetrahedronOmega[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

[Continued from a previous post.]

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:

And see the following website:

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.

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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

STOP citing Tipler. Tipler is an experimental physicists. An IDIOT, basically. A fucking LAB RAT.

His books are only useful to heighten my laptop so the view-angle is better.

Or to torture some dumb-ass engineering students with. If they are too fucking stupid to also order his book with all his "solutions" to his "tasks".

And above that: The "grand" books of Tipler are boring.

And i agree you gotta believe bullshit first too prove it. But a mathematical proof in this context is pure nonsense. Because you can't prove axioms. That is their defining attribute. And all physical "laws" derived from observation are axioms in a mathematical sense. Of course.

E.g: You just can't prove Newton's laws mathematically. You can only infer on them by observation.

NOBODY can prove that the apple won't fly into space at the n-time eventhough everyone expects it to fall downwards.

And your theory of there being a contradiction with empirical science as a whole is also mathematical nonsense . Because almost all of the physical laws we got so far are mathematical axioms . The logic relation between them is only known for a few ( Noether symmetry constraints in Lagrange and Hamiltonian mechanics comes to mind, e.g.). But since they don't form a mathematical entity itself, we can grasp: You neither can prove or deny empirism or heuristics with it.

Because we just don't know what a fucking system they are:

Find a clever definition ! I encourage you ! Then we'll talk again. You got my word on this.

Just follow Pascal... he knew. And he tried really hard what you try again, young padawan.

I can't believe i'm really arguing with a physicist "believer" here. This starts to tickle my nuts. :)

[–]TetrahedronOmega[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You're confused, as physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler is not "an experimental physicists".

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.

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.

As I mentioned before, 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 Cosmological Singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. Hence, by definition, the Cosmological Singularity is God.

The only way these proofs of God's existence 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].)

That is, the "axioms" of these mathematical theorems are the known physical laws, i.e., what empirical science has always confirmed.

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:

⁂

Furthermore, I have made it as easy as possible for one to obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge 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.

Item No. 1 is important vis-à-vis salvation for those who maintain that they already believe in Jesus Christ's Godhead. Items Nos. 2-5 are important in letting atheists, believers in other religions, and nominal ersatz "Christians" know that God as described by the New Testament does exist and that the New Testament is true. Items Nos. 2-5 are additionally important in giving believers in Christ a much deeper understanding of God and of the End Time, so that they may be strengthened in their faith during the events to come.

My following articles distill all of the most important aspects of veridical human knowledge into a comprehensive, coherent and unified whole: from theology, physics, science, ethics, legal theory, political theory, economics, sociology, evolutionary psychology, epistemology to history.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Your back-reference still is mathematical nonsense. And they stay FUCKING axioms.

I don't give a shit which Tipler you're talking about: For me a² + b² = c² is "isomorphous" to e² = z² + f² . Names are variables, because i DID mathematics.

Even "modern" mathematics itself needs a critical axiom (you NEED to believe in first to use it):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

Are you retarded or what?

Wait... where is my opinion amplifier... where is it...

[–]TetrahedronOmega[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

As I said above, "That is, the 'axioms' of these mathematical theorems are the known physical laws, i.e., what empirical science has always confirmed." 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].)

And it is your demons that are making you literally mentally retarded. The evolutionary psychological reason for your above bizarre behavior of rejecting empirical science 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:

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It isn't. Because the system isn't graspable they way you believe to be. It isn't complete in a Banach-Tarski-sense.

It is paradox. PROOF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

It just doesn't get complete, because you believe it to be.

And Hawkings often went down erroneous ways with his theories. So don't cite him. Because he was a believer like you are.

Like Einstein was. Who omitted Quantum Theory even though he proposed one of its biggest laws.

Honestly: I feel very sad for guys like you. Because you want to prove something so hard with belief. Which isn't possible. Even when you believe it so fucking hard.

That is the cross every scientist has to bear:

When he stands before a door so big and doesn't know the spell that opens this sesame, even if he tries so hard. Because the gods hid its spell... :-(

I'm sorry, bro.

[–]TetrahedronOmega[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

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.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because it is modal logic, Gödel applied in his "existence proof" of god. Another kind of logic than classical predicate logic. That is incomplete in every apply-able case you can define a "taste" of it. And you simply want to prove the existence of God with a contradiction proof. This obviously is a method you don't understand because you fucked up your math-classes when simulating to understand physics. Like most physicists do.

Hawking's understanding of singularities, which he fucked up most of the times, made me completely loose my initial respect of him, e.g. .

I bet you never even read something conclusive about what predicate logic actually is.

And then you define your singularity to be god. What if i instead define it (which i obviously can) to be a banana instead ?

Just accept that it is pointless what you call a thing to be. You call it god, i call it a singularity or a banana maybe. Because it is pointless to "discuss" these definitions we can't judge because we can't back-infer on them with these methods and tools. Especially not through constructing a "pseudo"-contradiction to axioms (the physical laws) and then concluding bullshit like this.

Stop simulating understand different kinds of logic and proving your own completely divergent insanites through observation in confounding them.

I already did that long before i read your post. But since it is absolute bullshit i don't claim it to be god or the truth or something like that.

You felt the urge to run completely naked through this forum while shouting "I"m your prophet, i'm your prophet: Because some replaceable lab-rat and Hawking had a contradiction".

Not me.

Every church is founded on a lie big enough, so to say. And you won't have yours. I hereby promise. Nobody who actually understands because he read into this and took a pencil to do something like this, will believe this hardcore-bullshit of yours.

Tickle your own nuts instead of forcing me to debunk your beliefs. Which obviously is harder than it sounds.

Or watch some porn finally to get some relief.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Real programmers don't use Pascal