The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

Miscellaneous General
, , , ,
1

Below is an article that I recently wrote. It concerns the Omega Point cosmology by physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, which is a proof of God’s existence based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

This article further provides an examination of the globalist political power-elite: history is given on their organizational structure and their methods of accumulating power; and analysis is given on where they’re attempting to take the world, i.e., their self-termed New World Order world government and world religion.

The article furnishes documentation on what the globalist oligarchy’s ultimate goal is. This ultimate goal of theirs most popularly goes by the name of transhumanism: immortality through technology. However, I explain in the article that the coming radical life-extension technologies create a fundamental dilemma for the oligarchs, which is why they must dominate world society before such technology becomes a reality. The details of that dilemma are explained in Sec. 8.2.2: “The Mark of the Beast” of the article.

Thus, this article explains to people what is to occur and why it is to occur, so that they will not be in ignorance as to the events that are to unfold.

Below one can download the article for free. I encourage everyone to generously share this article with others. By all means, please save it to your hard-drive and give others copies of it. Also, feel free to share the text of this post. The article is in PDF format.

James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), December 30, 2011 (orig. pub. December 19, 2011), 185 pp. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708

Below is the abstract to my above article:

“”
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 cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic component 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 resources, 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 physically 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 haecceities claimed for God in the traditional religions.

From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology.
“”

Below are other places where this article can be downloaded:

Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
2,378,999 bytes
MD5: efd75944295f33510ce799662fb450c1

http://theophysics.chimehost.net/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf

http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/7A4APLVO/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf_links
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75TUO2BX
http://www.mediafire.com/?cdl8lcj6iyd16o5

http://www.multiupload.com/TPW9HJ6MQ4
http://www.filesonic.com/file/GjIgt5q
http://hotfile.com/dl/139200253/10c4d97/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf.html

Note that the above publication date, the total page count, the file byte size, and the MD5 checksum are subject to change with newer versions of the article, if I were to release such.

The URLs to my Theophysics websites should contain the latest version of the article. With the WebCite URLs ( http://www.webcitation.org ), one can look to see if there is a newer version of this article on the drop-down menu containing the date. Also look at the postings in this forum to see if I have published updated URLs to newer versions of this article, assuming I am unable to update this post.

The Electric Universe
2

Just to let everyone here know, my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, published at the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), has been ameliorated on January 13, 2012.

One can find links to this updated version in my previous post above: the SSRN link and the Theophysics links contain the latest version. The WebCite links also contain the latest version if one looks on the date drop-down menu for the latest date.

Below is the new file information for this updated version:

Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
2,391,502 bytes
MD5: 82d093dab0f71b8e5ff66827b9b2bee8

3

Dear lord, I stopped reading after page 9. Folks, do not waste your time.

4

I generally don’t read things that try to prove the existence of just one particular god, as well as things that state this;

For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.

If you’re trying to find life in equations, you’ve missed the point of life completely.

5

Start with the religions of modern physics and of course you can prove God. Religious thinking is alive and well in modern science departments.

6

Good Lord, this thread gonna be fun! As a closet christian homosexual I am very interested in such proofs.

7

“”
Dear lord, I stopped reading after page 9. Folks, do not waste your time.
“”

In other words, as far as you can tell, everything that I wrote is correct, hence your inability to come up with a single rational objection to it, but you nevertheless strongly disagree with it and therefore wish to swear everyone off of such verboten material.

8

“”
I generally don’t read things that try to prove the existence of just one particular god, as well as things that state this;

“”“”
For anyone who has ever wondered about such questions as what the meaning of life is, what the purpose of their own life is, whether there is life after death, whether God exists, what the future holds for humanity, and why anything exists at all as opposed to nothingness, then this article answers all of those questions using the known laws of physics.
“”“”

If you’re trying to find life in equations, you’ve missed the point of life completely.
“”

Rather than objecting to you know not what, actually read the article and then get back to me.

Your statement is at any rate a fallacy, as detailed in Sec. 7.2: “The Aseity of God”.

9

“”
Start with the religions of modern physics and of course you can prove God. Religious thinking is alive and well in modern science departments.
“”

While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (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.

10

“”
Good Lord, this thread gonna be fun! As a closet christian homosexual I am very interested in such proofs.
“”

You should come out of the closet, for the reasons detailed in Sec. 7.4.4: “The Soteriology of Existence” and Sec. 8.1.2: “Life with God”.

11

Rather than objecting to you know not what, actually read the article and then get back to me.

Your statement is at any rate a fallacy, as detailed in Sec. 7.2: “The Aseity of God”.

Define “god” and get back to me.

12

This is gonna be one of those threads.

13

To entice the readership to look into the article, here are some quotes:

1. 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…

  1. 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…

  2. …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…

OK, now that our apetites are whetted, here come a proof from the very laws of physics that God exists, in less than a hundred words:

  1. 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.

Let’s set this up in a syllogysm:

a. The laws of physics say there was a big bang.

b. the big bang is the First Cause.

c. all the Abrahamic religions hold that the definition of God is First Cause.

d. Therefore, the Big Bang is God.

e. But the big bang exists.

f. therefore God exists.

g. but we have used the laws of physics to reach this conclusion.

h. therefore the laws of physics prove that God exists.

I dunno, seems like he’s got a rock solid case here.

After all, the words First Cause are not used in two different senses inthis argument.

Nor is the word “exists”.

Gotta hand it to you, Mr Redford.

BTW, should the churches dump the symbolism of the cross and pray to a picture of a Big Bang instead?

14

…one of the ancient definitions of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

Yeah, and this is where I call b/s and lose my interest. This “God is real!” stuff where someone tries to use equations to prove the existence always comes from this narrow minded monotheistic end. What I mean by that? It only goes by their definition of what a god is which excludes all other ideas of what a god is or can be. Tell me, as a polytheist who believes in a demiurge like deity, where my gods fit in?

All religions have a creation myth, they could all in some way be proved by science. There’s a Big Bang in the Poetic Edda (the creation myth is strikingly similar in ways to the Big Bang, more so than what’s in the Bible, so take that). The point? That people 2,000-3,000 years ago if not longer had a good conception of how the universe works that became projected from their own minds into the religions they followed.

15

Sorry to lose you, Bert.

But I give you fair warning. The Big Bang will get you for this.

16

Defining “God” simply as “first cause” means that “God” cannot be defined as anything else. So it does not follow from the proof that the Big Bang is/was jealous of all other Big Bangs, or that the Big Bang parted the Red Sea to let the Hebrews escape from Pharaoh, or that the Big Bang gave up Its only son to die on the cross for our sins, etc.

Additionally, the laws of physics have not proved in any way that a “Big Bang” actually occurred. Mainstream cosmology hypothesizes that it did, and points to certain observations as empirical evidence in favor of this hypothesis. That’s in no way the same as a proof, which is necessarily logical.

17

  1. Reality exists →

  2. Causation exists →

  3. God exists!* →

  4. Give money!

460×569 65.1 KB

*doesn’t actually explain anything

18

That’s in no way the same as a proof, which is necessarily logical.

Disclosure: I believe in God. I don’t think He is the same as the Big Bang. I think the sylogysm I laid out, and therefore Mr Redford’s book, is very flawed in several places.

That said, I’m surprised you wrote that. Only logical proof is proof? Do you deny induction? Do you not live your life 24/7, and are even willing to gamble your life, on inductive reasoning? [=this bridge is built on the principles of newtonian physics, which are inductively true, therefore I will drive across it with no hesitation, even though I’ll fall off and die if Newton is wrong].

19

That’s fine. But in your earlier post, it didn’t sound to me like you thought the syllogism was flawed.

It’s an equivocation to use the word “proof” to refer to both inductive and deductive reasoning, so I use it to refer only to the latter. Inductive reasoning is never certain, and therefore neither is science.

20

I explicitly pointed out two flaws in the syllogysm in the very same post that contained it.