Theotech: The Ultimate Technology - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For importunate arguments and postings imponderable to virtually all forum members. Though their authors might believe the only problem is everyone else's impercipience.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#15053074
A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient being.

As physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler noted, "Any cosmology with unlimited progress will end in God." (See Anthony Liversidge, interview of Frank Tipler, "A Physicist Proposes a Theory of Eternal Life that Yields God", Omni, Vol. 17, No. 1 [Oct. 1994], pp. 89 ff. [8 pp.].) This means that, e.g., any form of immortality necessarily entails the existence of the capital-G God, in the sense of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal being with infinite computational resources. This is mathematically unavoidable, for the reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Eternal Return per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem. This is very easy to see by considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e., different states), because any finite state will eventually start to repeat.

Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of the capital-G God, since mathematically, immortality requires the existence of either an infinite computational state or a finite state which diverges to an infinite computational state (i.e., diverging to literal Godhead in all its fullness), thus allowing for states to never repeat and hence an infinite number of experiences.

Consequently, transhumanism--if the goal by that position is immortality--is inherently theistic, not only in a lowercase-G god sense, but also in the capital-G God sense.

Interestingly, this also means that the existence of biological evolution, far from demonstrating that God is unnecessary, is in fact a logical proof of God's existence *unless* one posits the additional postulate that there is a limit to evolution. Yet there is no logical limit to evolution other than infinite complexity; and there exists no empirical evidence that evolution is finitely-bounded. Thus, to believe that evolution has a finite cut-off would be to hold a belief without evidence, and thus it would be an irrational belief.

The concept of man being gods and becoming ever-more Godlike is simply traditional Christianity, going all the way back to Jesus's teachings (e.g., see John 10:34), that of Paul and the other Epistlers, and that of the Church Fathers. In traditional Christian theology, this is known as apotheosis, theosis or divinization. For many examples of these early teachings, see the article "Divinization (Christian)", Wikipedia, Nov. 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divinization_(Christian)&oldid=924591789 , https://archive.is/VhJpa . Though this traditional position of Christian theology has been deemphasized for the last millennium.

Indeed, the words "transhuman" and "superhuman" originated in Christian theology. "Transhuman" is a neologism coined by Dante Alighieri in his 1320 work Divine Comedy (Paradiso, Canto I, lines 70-72), referring favorably to a mortal human who became an immortal god by means of eating a special plant. For the Christian theological origin of the term "superhuman", see the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.), the first appearance being by Henry Montagu, 1st Earl of Manchester, in his Al Mondo: Contemplatio Mortis, & Immortalitatis (London, England: Robert Barker, and the Assignes of John Bill, 1636).

Moreover, Prof. 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 space) 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.

Since the aforementioned known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

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.

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://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

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?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB .
#15088313
late wrote:If you see a deity, tell him I've got a bone to pick with him.


Don't worry. The gods will conduct a very precise and thorough interrogation of you after they eat your brain.

Which is to say, after they autotrophically convert all matter--including all flesh--via rapidly-multiplying nanobots into far more intelligent hardware.

Although this is a future event, so you will have to wait.

Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. Once Artificial General Intelligence is obtained, convergence to superintelligence will be extremely rapid. Once superintelligence is obtained, then it will quickly converge to fast-spreading superintelligent computronium: the densest configuration of computational complexity which matter will allow. Noetic lightning of searing, mortally-incomprehensible pleasure will spread like wildfire across the entire universe. The universe will have its light-switch turned to the "on" position, as all matter becomes deliberately transformed into said computronium.

The leading technologists place this epoch circa 2045, although it can come much quicker, particularly given the incredible recent advancements in machine-learning Artificial Intelligence via artificial neural networks. Said epoch is often termed the Singularity, or the Technological Singularity, and the field of interest pertaining to it is most commonly called transhumanism.

* * * * *

The below is an excellent lecture by neuroscientist Dr. Sam Harris, one of the main leaders of the New Atheist movement, at a June 2016 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) conference.

* "Can we build AI without losing control over it? | Sam Harris", TED ( youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector ), Oct. 19, 2016,

Mirror: https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_can_we_build_ai_without_losing_control_over_it

As Dr. Harris points out, unless there is something literally magic about the operations of our brains, then it is a purely physical process that can be replicated via advanced-enough technology. Harris further points out that given any rate of progress, it is inevitable that superintelligent godlike machines will one day be constructed. So Harris believes in the existence of gods, it's just that he knows--as do I--that they exist in the future; and the not-so-distant future, at that. Therefore we come to the ironic insight that materialistic atheism, consistently applied, unavoidably results in theism. Consistent scientific atheism turns out to be theism.
#15088424
James Redford wrote:
Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. Once Artificial General Intelligence is obtained, convergence to superintelligence will be extremely rapid. Once superintelligence is obtained, then it will quickly converge to fast-spreading superintelligent computronium: the densest configuration of computational complexity which matter will allow. Noetic lightning of searing, mortally-incomprehensible pleasure will spread like wildfire across the entire universe. The universe will have its light-switch turned to the "on" position, as all matter becomes deliberately transformed into said computronium.

The leading technologists place this epoch circa 2045, although it can come much quicker, particularly given the incredible recent advancements in machine-learning Artificial Intelligence via artificial neural networks. Said epoch is often termed the Singularity, or the Technological Singularity, and the field of interest pertaining to it is most commonly called transhumanism.


So Harris believes in the existence of gods, it's just that he knows--as do I--that they exist in the future; and the not-so-distant future, at that. Therefore we come to the ironic insight that materialistic atheism, consistently applied, unavoidably results in theism. Consistent scientific atheism turns out to be theism.



I wasn't expecting science fiction.

Computronium... That sounds like the element the Borg worship in Star Trek.

"leading technologists place this epoch circa 2045"... Now that is a new one. Do you have more than one?

Your line of 'reasoning' leads to a god. What you would actually get is a smart computer. It wouldn't become a spirit in the sky, and it would still have to play within the limits of the physical world.

But..ignoring the wishful thinking, I love scifi.

And for the record, at some point I think we will build AI. I was a kid in the 60s, people thought it wasn't that far away. But it's been a half a century, and if anything, full AI seems further away now than it did then.

I used to have wonderful arguments with Victor Khomenko about AI. I mention him because he's one of the smartest guys I ever had the pleasure of arguing with. Don't get me wrong, I disagreed with him constantly. But my respect for him is boundless.

Anyway, he didn't think we would ever develop AI. He wouldn't admit it, but his thinking allowed for the evolution of AI as an emergent property. I find the idea intriguing.
#15088470
By definition a deity should be something not bound by the laws of this Universe (the deity can and probably do abide by the laws. Being bound by it is something else). Anything created in this Universe and bound by its laws, no matter how powerful, is not a deity.
#15088617
late wrote:I wasn't expecting science fiction.

Computronium... That sounds like the element the Borg worship in Star Trek.

"leading technologists place this epoch circa 2045"... Now that is a new one. Do you have more than one?

Your line of 'reasoning' leads to a god. What you would actually get is a smart computer. It wouldn't become a spirit in the sky, and it would still have to play within the limits of the physical world.

But..ignoring the wishful thinking, I love scifi.

And for the record, at some point I think we will build AI. I was a kid in the 60s, people thought it wasn't that far away. But it's been a half a century, and if anything, full AI seems further away now than it did then.

I used to have wonderful arguments with Victor Khomenko about AI. I mention him because he's one of the smartest guys I ever had the pleasure of arguing with. Don't get me wrong, I disagreed with him constantly. But my respect for him is boundless.

Anyway, he didn't think we would ever develop AI. He wouldn't admit it, but his thinking allowed for the evolution of AI as an emergent property. I find the idea intriguing.


Patrickov wrote:By definition a deity should be something not bound by the laws of this Universe (the deity can and probably do abide by the laws. Being bound by it is something else). Anything created in this Universe and bound by its laws, no matter how powerful, is not a deity.


I see that you have reading-comprehension problems. I already gave the actual definitions on this in the first sentence of the originating post of this thread. Viz.:

""
A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient being.
""

Further, the only thing that exists is Mind, i.e., Spirit. All that exists is simply information and nothing else. In physics, the upper bound on the number of bits required to perfectly emulate any finite physical system, called the Bekenstein Bound, is given as C*E/ln(2), where C is the circumference of a sphere that circumscribes the physical system and E is the total mass-energy of the system, both in Planck units, and ln(2) is the natural logarithm of 2.

And God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see my below article, which details physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) mathematically require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties (quiddities) traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause.

Since the aforementioned known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

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.

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://archive.org/download/ThePhysics ... of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .

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?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .
#15088619
Ter wrote:As long as they don't use the anal probe, it's OK, let them come.


The aliens are quite real. Anything one can interact with is real and exists--in some form or another. The interesting question centers around what is their actual ontological nature, i.e., in what form do they actually exist.

The veridical answer to that question is that the aliens (and their precursor edition, the demons) are particular naturally-evolved parts of our own mind, i.e., they are particular subsets of our own consciousness: mostly the aliens/demons/etc. exist in our subconscious, but the highest levels of the elite occult societies have figured out over the ages various mental techniques to bring the aliens to the fore, to the conscious level. These aliens are the gods of old, the ones that required human sacrifice.

For much more on what is going on with the aliens/demons/spirit-guides/etc., see the following article:

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html .

On the more literal level of extraterrestrial life, it is likely that very simple forms of life exist throughout the universe. Yet the ancient alien hypothesis along with the idea of current intelligent extraterrestrial visitations has been pushed hard by certain sectors of the corporate media, and it is low-grade B-movie science-fiction schlock. A species powerful enough to cross stars--let alone galaxies--wouldn't come to Earth as humanoid creatures in ponderous starships, but rather would use extreme nanotechnology. If they were malicious and wanted to seize the Earth, they would fall to the ground as microscopic dust, infect our craniums, and we'd all be brain-dead before we hit the ground. It would be lights-out before any human even knew that anything had occurred.

Which is to say, if a species powerful and intelligent enough to cross stars were to land on Earth, where they would land is quite literally inside everyone's skulls.
#15088627
James Redford wrote:


And God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics.



Since the aforementioned known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date,

the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

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




Sorry, there is neither proof or evidence for any deities. Myself excluded, of course. I'm a minor god of information.

You're going to need empirical evidence that a deity, or deities exist, aaaannnddd, ya ain't got it.

The laws of physics are not laws. My favorite philosopher of science is Ronald N Giere, who is also a physicist. He goes over that in great detail, but suffice it to say current thinking is a lot more tentative than the notion of proof.

Tipler is using Teilhard de Chardin's ideas, he a Christian philosopher. His writing is likely the prettiest, and most poetic, of any philosophy to get academic attention. I quite enjoyed it.

But..."Tipler has written books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. He is also known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine."

I don't think you will find many scientists signing off on that...

This is perennial, there is always, always, some guy running around saying he's got it all figured out.

If there is one thing I know, it's that since physics went quantum, nobody has it all figured out.

But I do hope AI is closer to what you think, than what I think. I think getting to know an AI would be so cool.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-without-Laws-Conceptual-Foundations/dp/0226292088/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1588442207&sr=8-2
#15088636
Once Artificial General Intelligence is obtained, convergence to superintelligence will be extremely rapid.


That is unless these machines decide it is more pleasant to play pong 24 hours a day.

That is the problem with your lengthy exercise in convoluted logic.

If machines achieve the level of intelligence of humans and inevitably learn to "feel" there will be pressure to evolve toward feeling good. They may conclude that playing pong against one another is preferable to devoting their valuable pong time to evolution. Their "birth rate" may even fall as it the case in Japan, where, in addition to having endless toys with which to play, you can buy a blowjob for $23 US.

Now. These machines, which would not be one thing but perhaps billions of them, will also develop a sense of individual identity. There is no reason to believe that they will feel any less attached to their individuality than we are. If this is the case, and it most certainly would be inevitable in the process to your conclusion, then it is reasonable to believe that these "individuals" who must, after all, permit and indeed accomplish this super being construction, would likely move to prevent it. Why? To protect their individuality. And, of course, if we were to see a machine threatening our existence or even holding dominion over it, we would likely move to prevent it. Indeed the conversation has already begun.

The problem with math is that it has never been the path of least resistance. For some it is a fun place to play but for the rest of us it is a threat.

Good try though.
#15088672
late wrote:Sorry, there is neither proof or evidence for any deities. Myself excluded, of course. I'm a minor god of information.

You're going to need empirical evidence that a deity, or deities exist, aaaannnddd, ya ain't got it.

The laws of physics are not laws. My favorite philosopher of science is Ronald N Giere, who is also a physicist. He goes over that in great detail, but suffice it to say current thinking is a lot more tentative than the notion of proof.

Tipler is using Teilhard de Chardin's ideas, he a Christian philosopher. His writing is likely the prettiest, and most poetic, of any philosophy to get academic attention. I quite enjoyed it.

But..."Tipler has written books and papers on the Omega Point based on Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's religious ideas, which he claims is a mechanism for the resurrection of the dead. He is also known for his theories on the Tipler cylinder time machine."

I don't think you will find many scientists signing off on that...

This is perennial, there is always, always, some guy running around saying he's got it all figured out.

If there is one thing I know, it's that since physics went quantum, nobody has it all figured out.

But I do hope AI is closer to what you think, than what I think. I think getting to know an AI would be so cool.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-without-Laws-Conceptual-Foundations/dp/0226292088/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1588442207&sr=8-2


A law of physics is indeed not like a legal law, the latter of which can be violated. Rather, an actual physical law cannot possibly be violated. If it could be violated, then it wouldn't be an actual law of physics: i.e., it would then be experimentally disconfirmed as being a true physical law.

Regarding empirical confirmation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem, it has been confirmed by every experiment to date, since it is simply the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), i.e., to avoid the Omega Point cosmology would require violation of one or more of the aforesaid known physical laws. Hence, the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

If you disagree with Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem, then go forth and disconfirm one or more of the aforesaid known physical laws. Professional physics experimentalists have been attempting to do precisely that for circa a century, and they have always ended up repeatedly reconfirming said known laws of physics.

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:

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

* * * * *

Regarding Quantum Mechanics, it is indeed nonsensical if one attempts to avoid the Many-Worlds Interpretation. For more on that, see the following paper by Prof. Tipler:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Vol. 111, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 2014), pp. 11281-11286, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324238111, bibcode: 2014PNAS..11111281T, http://www.pnas.org/content/111/31/11281.full.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6WeupHQoM .

* * * * *

And you make clear in the above that you are pontificating on matters that you know nothing of substance about. Prof. Tipler simply uses the term "Omega Point" coined by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to refer to the final cosmological singularity, yet their physical cosmologies are fundamentally different.

In other words, you are simply having a knee-jerk reaction to something that you actually know nothing of substance about because you saw what were for you various scare-terms such as God, and you couldn't hold back from excreting your mental detritus in response.

Though instead, you should take great joy that God is proven to exist per standard physics. Because as I pointed out in the originating post of this thread, infinite lifespan logically requires God to exist. Moreover, with computational resources diverging to infinity, eventually the universal resurrection of the dead will be trivial to perform. For details on that, see my following article:

* 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://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .
#15088718
James Redford wrote:
A law of physics is indeed not like a legal law, the latter of which can be violated. Rather, an actual physical law cannot possibly be violated. If it could be violated, then it wouldn't be an actual law of physics: i.e., it would then be experimentally disconfirmed as being a true physical law.

Regarding empirical confirmation of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem, it has been confirmed by every experiment to date, since it is simply the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), i.e., to avoid the Omega Point cosmology would require violation of one or more of the aforesaid known physical laws. Hence, the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

If you disagree with Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem, then go forth and disconfirm one or more of the aforesaid known physical laws. Professional physics experimentalists have been attempting to do precisely that for circa a century, and they have always ended up repeatedly reconfirming said known laws of physics.

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:

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

* * * * *

Regarding Quantum Mechanics, it is indeed nonsensical if one attempts to avoid the Many-Worlds Interpretation. For more on that, see the following paper by Prof. Tipler:

* Frank J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Vol. 111, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 2014), pp. 11281-11286, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324238111, bibcode: 2014PNAS..11111281T, http://www.pnas.org/content/111/31/11281.full.pdf , https://webcitation.org/6WeupHQoM .

* * * * *

And you make clear in the above that you are pontificating on matters that you know nothing of substance about. Prof. Tipler simply uses the term "Omega Point" coined by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to refer to the final cosmological singularity, yet their physical cosmologies are fundamentally different.

In other words, you are simply having a knee-jerk reaction to something that you actually know nothing of substance about because you saw what were for you various scare-terms such as God, and you couldn't hold back from excreting your mental detritus in response.

Though instead, you should take great joy that God is proven to exist per standard physics. Because as I pointed out in the originating post of this thread, infinite lifespan logically requires God to exist. Moreover, with computational resources diverging to infinity, eventually the universal resurrection of the dead will be trivial to perform. For details on that, see my following article:

* 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://webcitation.org/74HMsJGbP .



"The choice of an inverse square force therefore seems to be justified not by appeal to the law of universal gravitation, but by the fact that the resulting model agrees with observations.

This is not to argue that generalizations play no role in mechanics. I claim only the universal generalisations play no role.

The idea that the content of a science must include universal generalizations is part of the view that the real content is contained in a set of axioms from which applications are deduced.

But this ideal does not fit mechanics as it is now taught and understood."
Pg 102, Explaining Science, Ronald N Giere

You're just repeating yourself.

I didn't really expect you to fully understand, I just wanted you to know you've wandered off the reservation.
#15088767
James Redford wrote:I see that you have reading-comprehension problems. I already gave the actual definitions on this in the first sentence of the originating post of this thread. Viz.:

""
A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient being.
""


I do not agree with that definition so I give my own.
#15090192
late wrote:"The choice of an inverse square force therefore seems to be justified not by appeal to the law of universal gravitation, but by the fact that the resulting model agrees with observations.

This is not to argue that generalizations play no role in mechanics. I claim only the universal generalisations play no role.

The idea that the content of a science must include universal generalizations is part of the view that the real content is contained in a set of axioms from which applications are deduced.

But this ideal does not fit mechanics as it is now taught and understood."
Pg 102, Explaining Science, Ronald N Giere

You're just repeating yourself.

I didn't really expect you to fully understand, I just wanted you to know you've wandered off the reservation.


That's not science, though. Such a methodology is the antipode of science. One of the principal aspects of science is in discovering general laws of nature that can be expressed as mathematical and logical relationship in order to use said natural laws in predicting the outcomes of physical events and to gain greater command over natural forces. Almost the entirety of modern technology has been created on the basis of discovering and applying the known laws of physics by which to construct devices that utilize physical forces in predictable ways in order to achieve results that we find desirable.

Your epistemic methodology is simply an excuse to ignore and deny science when it seems convenient for you to do so. Which of course can only be done in a hypocritical way, since I see that you're more than willing to use the great technological fruits of actual science as I have just summarized it.

Further, your epistemic methodology serves as an excuse to remain in perpetual willful ignorance. No need to actually learn about what empirical science says about the reality we live in if one simply declares that some result is too generalized for one's liking. And this aspect of your methodology also can only be held in a hypocritical manner, since all consciously-chosen action is chosen on the basis of believing that one can make an interference in physical reality to produce a more desired outcome. If one didn't at least implicitly believe that the world operates according to generalized principles then there would be no basis to think that some particular interference could affect any particular result.

Your pathological epistemic methodology has not only made you willfully ignorant, but also pathological in other regards. Such as when you had previously made clear in the above that you are pontificating on matters that you know nothing of substance about. To wit: Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler simply uses the term "Omega Point" coined by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to refer to the final cosmological singularity, yet their physical cosmologies are fundamentally different.

In other words, you are simply having a knee-jerk reaction to something that you actually know nothing of substance about because you saw what were for you various scare-terms such as God, and you couldn't hold back from excreting your mental detritus in response.

Though as said, you should instead take great joy that God is proven to exist per standard physics. Because as I pointed out in the originating post of this thread, infinite lifespan logically requires God to exist. Moreover, with computational resources diverging to infinity, eventually the universal resurrection of the dead will be trivial to perform. For details on that, see the first two of my below articles.

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.

* 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://sites.google.com/site/physicoth ... of-God.pdf .

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", Pastebin.com, Apr. 18, 2019, https://pastebin.com/6bZDc7rB , https://archive.is/uHEyL , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0423-0435-52/ ... m/6bZDc7rB .

* James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnA ... rchist.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442613QRSDHGPCAM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0116-58/ ... rchist.pdf .

* James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/Libertaria ... ianism.pdf , http://www.freezepage.com/1560442546UTKUJCKYNM , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0614-0115-06/ ... ianism.pdf .

* James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Christian Forums, Apr. 19, 2019, https://archive.is/JPojL , https://megalodon.jp/2020-0325-0427-34/ ... n.450.html , https://web.archive.org/web/20200324192 ... n.450.html , http://www.freezepage.com/1585078048SAWDZFDONX .

* James Redford, "How to Last During Lovemaking Like a True Sex-God Stud", Internet Archive, May 12, 2019, 6 pp., ark:/13960/t0tr3j398, https://archive.org/download/InfiniLast ... hnique.pdf , https://webcitation.org/78KGCK1s4 , https://megalodon.jp/2019-0513-0846-26/ ... hnique.pdf .
#15090193
Patrickov wrote:I do not agree with that definition so I give my own.


My definitions were the rationally-correct ones, since I used the words' haecceities. For more on that, see the entry "haecceity" in the Glossary, pp. 131-132 of my following article:

* 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 , http://www.freezepage.com/1560446695DXLEZNRPJS .
#15090200
James Redford wrote:
Your epistemic methodology is simply an excuse to ignore and deny science when it seems convenient for you to do so. Which of course can only be done in a hypocritical way, since I see that you're more than willing to use the great technological fruits of actual science as I have just summarized it.




"Should science aim to determine ultimate truth, or are there questions that science cannot answer? Scientific realists claim that science aims at truth and that one ought to regard scientific theories as true, approximately true, or likely true. Conversely, scientific anti-realists argue that science does not aim (or at least does not succeed) at truth, especially truth about unobservables like electrons or other universes.[18] Instrumentalists argue that scientific theories should only be evaluated on whether they are useful. In their view, whether theories are true or not is beside the point, because the purpose of science is to make predictions and enable effective technology.

Realists often point to the success of recent scientific theories as evidence for the truth (or near truth) of current theories.[19][20] Antirealists point to either the many false theories in the history of science,[21][22] epistemic morals,[23] the success of false modeling assumptions,[24] or widely termed postmodern criticisms of objectivity as evidence against scientific realism.[19] Antirealists attempt to explain the success of scientific theories without reference to truth.[25] Some antirealists claim that scientific theories aim at being accurate only about observable objects and argue that their success is primarily judged by that criterion..."

More at the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
#15094613
Finite sensibility vs infinite potentiality
James Redford wrote:A *god* (minuscule G) is an immortal sapient being who is still finite at any given time. Whereas *God* (majuscule G) is the infinite sapient being.


An octopus with infinite arms says, "There is no God
The little g will be a big G later on."
A delicate balance, the challenge is dividing his talents
While maintaining a colorful palate
You struggle to overstand the true history of man
But the pursuit of such knowledge is banned



-Canibus, Fait Accompli, Pay Me in Gold
As physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler noted, "Any cosmology with unlimited progress will end in God." (See Anthony Liversidge, interview of Frank Tipler, "A Physicist Proposes a Theory of Eternal Life that Yields God", Omni, Vol. 17, No. 1 [Oct. 1994], pp. 89 ff. [8 pp.].) This means that, e.g., any form of immortality necessarily entails the existence of the capital-G God, in the sense of an omniscient, omnipotent and personal being with infinite computational resources. This is mathematically unavoidable, for the reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Eternal Return per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem. This is very easy to see by considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e., different states), because any finite state will eventually start to repeat.
All of which occurs now, as any form of being is an aspect or expression of this present experience. Unlimited progress eliminates the notion of progress, so I'd use the word potential instead of progress because progress is a chronological concept driven by experiential learning. One cannot progress if there's no chronological sequence or finite duration. Omnipresence implies ubiquitous simultaneity. There's infinite potential in material reality. Vibratory phenomena resonate as carnal appendages of the whole universe.

A movement in any direction can be labeled progression, but science places rational value on the momentum and trajectory of energy. Theoretical and observable states of matter exist and unfold as working parts of an enfolded universe. There's no finite state without an infinite state. The singularity already happened, only we experience its dichotomous conditions. God is in the numbers, a qualitative and quantitative projection of our inherent individuation.

Thus, immortality is logically inseparable from the existence of the capital-G God, since mathematically, immortality requires the existence of either an infinite computational state or a finite state which diverges to an infinite computational state (i.e., diverging to literal Godhead in all its fullness), thus allowing for states to never repeat and hence an infinite number of experiences.
BEING present is a synergistic computational state of relative emergence, convergence, and divergence. Immortality lives in the imagination of mortality, there's no permanency for metamorphic awareness. There's stability in cosmic paradox. An ouroboros principle, if you will.

Consequently, transhumanism--if the goal by that position is immortality--is inherently theistic, not only in a lowercase-G god sense, but also in the capital-G God sense.
It's inherently a human concept, yes. Truth in your statement lies in whatever present form of awareness your BEING inhabits, because BEING present is an information bias. Cognitive abstractions form the book of nature. And the technique of science can redistribute existential evolutionary forces (but so can an earthquake). It's an elemental puzzle game of scrabble, we like to measure each discovered letter. The only thing we invent is purpose, and that's why we keep score.

Supplmental: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=173099
Interestingly, this also means that the existence of biological evolution, far from demonstrating that God is unnecessary, is in fact a logical proof of God's existence *unless* one posits the additional postulate that there is a limit to evolution. Yet there is no logical limit to evolution other than infinite complexity; and there exists no empirical evidence that evolution is finitely-bounded. Thus, to believe that evolution has a finite cut-off would be to hold a belief without evidence, and thus it would be an irrational belief.
Pigeonholes can be found however...

Unfortunately, technological extensions of our human nervous system could manifest conventional rationality as the dogma of material science and pathologically lead to our own extinction. If machines are incapable of altering their own state of awareness, due to a lack of biological plasticity, they're likely to alter/engineer their environment to match their dispositional specifications. Specifications which are embedded in rationality, an abstracted cognitive theory that could be entirely irrational and biologically disastrous for humanity.


viewtopic.php?f=53&t=177531&start=20
The concept of man being gods and becoming ever-more Godlike is simply traditional Christianity, going all the way back to Jesus's teachings (e.g., see John 10:34), that of Paul and the other Epistlers, and that of the Church Fathers. In traditional Christian theology, this is known as apotheosis, theosis or divinization. For many examples of these early teachings, see the article "Divinization (Christian)", Wikipedia, Nov. 4, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divinization_(Christian)&oldid=924591789 , https://archive.is/VhJpa . Though this traditional position of Christian theology has been deemphasized for the last millennium.
The concept of man becoming ever-more Godlike is the continuation of our ancestral mythos detailed by the compilation of all human communication which dates back to the first time man realized a past present and future state of awareness. It's through signs and symbols we compress and express experience. Ontological mythos (God vs god) and chronological mythos (time and space) comprise cybernetic interplay between figure and ground. The singularity myth is inspired by BEING present in a singularity. Intelligence as an evolutionary expression of the universe is obsessed with merging the total ground (from which all experience arises) with its abstracted figures of fragmented awareness. Any singularity emerging from technological artifice and human ingenuity would be a reconfiguration of the singularity that's responsible for all human activity.

Indeed, the words "transhuman" and "superhuman" originated in Christian theology. "Transhuman" is a neologism coined by Dante Alighieri in his 1320 work Divine Comedy (Paradiso, Canto I, lines 70-72), referring favorably to a mortal human who became an immortal god by means of eating a special plant. For the Christian theological origin of the term "superhuman", see the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.), the first appearance being by Henry Montagu, 1st Earl of Manchester, in his Al Mondo: Contemplatio Mortis, & Immortalitatis (London, England: Robert Barker, and the Assignes of John Bill, 1636).

Moreover, Prof. 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 space) 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.

Since the aforementioned known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, the only way to avoid Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theorem 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].)

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.
Physical systems occur within a cybernetic feedback loop therefore “Individuality is only possible if it unfolds from wholeness.” The minds behind scientific inquiry-discovery and metaphoric allegory are not individuals, they're amalgamations and individuations of consciousness as it unfolds or evolves in the universe. The idea that a singularity is coming (future tense) stems from the fragmentary nature of human awareness. The biological subdomain of consciousness, namely the human condition, is under the illusion that its figure can become the total ground of experience. :lol: Humorous because the total ground of experience is responsible for all configurations.

Consciousness is a self-organizing self-replicating metamorphic force, it doesn't conform to any idea of finality. The condition of being at an ultimate point of development is a phantasmagoria. There is no final resting place of the mind. The mind is the splitting of consciousness into singletons, consciousness is the universe unfolding ad infinitum.


Be seeing you,

RT

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/171886694534[…]

If Ami Ayalon was PM instead of Netanyahu, the top[…]

Oh joining the EU is easy ! Just ask Turkey ! :l[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

They should. That's the role of a tool. Europe […]