Immortality via Technology

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology, which has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals, 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.
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, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 .
    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?”, alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo .

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 Prof. 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, Apr. 14, 2015, <a href=“https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divinization_(Christian)&oldid=656379874”> . 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 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).

Silly Theo-whatchamacallit-physicist, There’s all kind of evidence that evolution is limited. Species have become extinct consistently, and are doing so at a high rate, right now. A big enough meteor hits us, and we’re all dust.
Sorry you’ve been wasting your time and brainpower on this claptrap, but hey, maybe you are making some money off of the superstitious who want to become God. And hey, maybe it is inevitable that somewhere in our universe something will or has evolved to the point of being what we would consider God-like, but it ain’t gonna be us anytime soon, and we’re not likely to run into them. Throwing beliefs about Jesus into it, is the really silly part.

" published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals, "
Really? Yet you cite none of them. Curious.
A common misunderstanding of evolution is that it somehow improves things. It has no mind and no morality and no sense of good or bad, only survival. Humans therefore, from a universal perspective, could be seen as a huge mistake, a mutation that will kill itself off. It is much more likely than that we are the result of any intelligent manipulation or that we will evolve into anything intelligent enough to have an affect on anything beyond our galaxy or even our solar system.

Silly Theo-whatchamacallit-physicist, There's all kind of evidence that evolution is limited. Species have become extinct consistently, and are doing so at a high rate, right now. A big enough meteor hits us, and we're all dust. Sorry you've been wasting your time and brainpower on this claptrap, but hey, maybe you are making some money off of the superstitious who want to become God. And hey, maybe it is inevitable that somewhere in our universe something will or has evolved to the point of being what we would consider God-like, but it ain't gonna be us anytime soon, and we're not likely to run into them. Throwing beliefs about Jesus into it, is the really silly part.
Hi, TimB. Humans will also become extinct, yet the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) mathematically require immortal superintelligence in general 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. These aforesaid known physical laws 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. 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].) Further, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics is also mathematically required by the aforesaid known physical laws, and the Omega Point cosmology is an inherent component of said quantum gravity TOE. Regarding how physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, Christian theology: The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God. The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions. As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221). The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime. So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it. Quite literally, the cosmological 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. And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources. Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain. Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse. Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions. For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything"; and my article "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", also previously cited within this thread.

A delusion that is stated in highly technical terms of physics, is still a delusion. But you are polite. So that’s a plus.

" published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals, " Really? Yet you cite none of them. Curious.
Hi, Lausten. My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which is 186 pages in 8.5*11 inch format, uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes. And physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been 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 laws of physics (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. The following papers are all available online for free. * 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. (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. * 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. * 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. * 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. * 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. * 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. * 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. * Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998). * 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. 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. * 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. 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. * 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. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, Apr. 24, 2007. * Frank J. Tipler, "Inevitable Existence and Inevitable Goodness of the Singularity", Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 19, Nos. 1-2 (2012), pp. 183-193. 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.) 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 my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything"; and my article "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", also previously cited within this thread. The only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), 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.
A common misunderstanding of evolution is that it somehow improves things. It has no mind and no morality and no sense of good or bad, only survival. Humans therefore, from a universal perspective, could be seen as a huge mistake, a mutation that will kill itself off. It is much more likely than that we are the result of any intelligent manipulation or that we will evolve into anything intelligent enough to have an affect on anything beyond our galaxy or even our solar system.
Actually, it's a common fallacy that evolution in general does not complexify things, which in the only empirical example of biological evolution that we have--that of this Earth's biosphere--is observably false. But indeed there is no logical limit to the complexification of evolution other than infinite complexity, and there exists no empirical evidence that there is finite bound to the complexity which evolution is capable. Thus, to believe that evolution has a finite cut-off in the complexity which it is capable of producing would be to hold a belief without evidence, and thus it would be an irrational belief. Moreover, as pointed out above, the known laws of physics--which have been confirmed by every experiment to date--actually logically force the universe to increase to infinite computational power (both in terms of processor speed and memory storage).
My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which is 186 pages in 8.5*11 inch format, uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes.
I went for a walk with a 4 year old yesterday. I taught her the rhyme "See you later alligator, in a while crocodile". Later, she said, "bye bye alligator" and "see you later crocodile.... joke". She gets that there is some pattern to how jokes go, but she hasn't figured out how to repeat it. Having a bibliography and footnotes doesn't make something scientific. I'll look into the rest. I've heard of Tipler though and doubt what you say is accurate. Are you familiar with this little gem?]

Smart kid, Lausten, she just probably doesn’t have the concept of rhyming down, yet. I didn’t at age 4.
But, James, this statement for example:
“… the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.
Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.”
Really? In regular person English, you are saying that since somebody came up with a concept of a three part “cosmological singularity”, and since Christianity has a 3 in one deity, Christianity, is therefore the correct religion amongst all of mankind’s religions.
You can dress crap up in an extremely erudite looking and scholastically formatted apparel, but it continues to be, dressed-up crap. I realize that I am sounding harsh, but if you have convinced yourself of all this, take a break, do something useful (or fun) with your formidable intelligence.

My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which is 186 pages in 8.5*11 inch format, uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes.
I went for a walk with a 4 year old yesterday. I taught her the rhyme "See you later alligator, in a while crocodile". Later, she said, "bye bye alligator" and "see you later crocodile.... joke". She gets that there is some pattern to how jokes go, but she hasn't figured out how to repeat it. Having a bibliography and footnotes doesn't make something scientific. I'll look into the rest. I've heard of Tipler though and doubt what you say is accurate. Are you familiar with this little gem?] Hi, Lausten. This is already covered in Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26-28 of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything". In his review which you cite (see Lawrence Krauss, "More dangerous than nonsense", New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53) of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss repeatedly commits the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss gives no indication that he followed up on the endnotes in the book The Physics of Christianity and actually read Tipler's physics journal papers. All that Krauss is going off of in said review is Tipler's mostly nontechnical popular-audience book The Physics of Christianity without researching Tipler's technical papers in the physics journals. Krauss's review offers no actual lines of reasoning for Krauss's pronouncements. His readership is simply expected to imbibe what Krauss proclaims, even though it's clear that Krauss is merely critiquing a popular-audience book which does not attempt to present the rigorous technical details. Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.)
Smart kid, Lausten, she just probably doesn't have the concept of rhyming down, yet. I didn't at age 4. But, James, this statement for example: "... the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse. Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions." Really? In regular person English, you are saying that since somebody came up with a concept of a three part "cosmological singularity", and since Christianity has a 3 in one deity, Christianity, is therefore the correct religion amongst all of mankind's religions. You can dress crap up in an extremely erudite looking and scholastically formatted apparel, but it continues to be, dressed-up crap. I realize that I am sounding harsh, but if you have convinced yourself of all this, take a break, do something useful (or fun) with your formidable intelligence.
Humans can discover physical laws, but they are not responsible for them. In classical relativistic cosmology, the Initial Singularity and the Final Singularity are permanently separate and distinct singularities. But in quantum relativistic cosmology, the Initial and the Final Singularities are connected by a third singularity: the All-Presents Singularity, since all sizes of universes are obtained in the multiverse, which means that there are a class of universes which don't expand out from the Big Bang singularity at all, but remain as a singularity. These three distinct aspects to which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse: the Cosmological Singularity, of which consists eternally of three hypostases in a homoousian triune, i.e., three distinct entities of the same substance (ousia). Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Cosmological Singularity within the Omega Point cosmology, which is deselective of all other major religions. And the Cosmological Singularity has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions. For more on the inherently triune nature of the Cosmological Singularity, see Sec. 7.3: "The Trinity of God", pp. 43-45 of my previously-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which also gives many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament; additionally on this topic, see my article "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", also previously cited within this thread.

I see you’ve been publishing this stuff all over the place for years. These posts look look about the same as posts from 2012. It is more likely that this is some sort of automated response than a real person. He, or whatever he is, has been shown articles many times that refute FAP, so his statement that it has never been refuted is ridiculous. Tipler has done other work and been recognized for it, but his stuff about theology gets ignored in the world of physics.Which is what anyone else reading this should do.

James Redford. What did Tipler’s apparently uninformed opponent, Lawrence Krauss, have to say? You barely mentioned him. I guess he doesn’t count. Just a guy who wandered in off the street, I guess.
Nothing like a load of confirmation bias.
Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and director of its Origins Project, He is known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, of public policy based on sound empirical data, of scientific skepticism and of science education and works to reduce the impact of what he opines as superstition and religious dogma in pop culture.He is also the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing.
Krauss mostly works in theoretical physics and has published research on a great variety of topics within that field. His primary contribution is to cosmology as one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as “dark energy”. Furthermore, Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from “nothing,” as outlined in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing. He explains that certain arrangements of relativistic quantum fields might explain the existence of the universe as we know it while disclaiming that he “has no idea if the notion [of taking quantum mechanics for granted] can be usefully dispensed with”. As his model appears to agree with experimental observations of the universe (such as of its shape and energy density), it is referred to as a “plausible hypothesis”.
Initially, Krauss was skeptical of the Higgs mechanism. However, after the existence of the Higgs boson was confirmed by CERN, he has been researching the implications of the Higgs field on the nature of dark energy.
Krauss is one of the few living physicists described by Scientific American as a “public intellectual” and he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics. In 2012, he was awarded the National Science Board’s Public Service Medal for his contributions to public education in science and engineering in the United States.
Arizona State University
Australian National University
New College of the Humanities
Yale University
Case Western Reserve University
Harvard University
Alma mater
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (PhD)
Carleton University (BSc)
Thesis Gravitation and phase transitions in the early universe (1982)
Known for
Dark energy
Zero-energy modeling
Notable awards
Andrew Gemant Award (2001)
Lilienfeld Prize (2001)
Science Writing Award (2002)
Oersted Medal (2004)
Books
Krauss, Lawrence M. (1989). The fifth essence. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465023752.
Fear Of Physics: A Guide For The Perplexed. 1994. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02367-3
The Physics of Star Trek. 1996. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00559-4
Beyond Star Trek. 1998, Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0060977573
Quintessence The Search For Missing Mass In The Universe. 2000. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-03741-0
Atom: An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth…and Beyond. 2002. Black Bay. ISBN 0-316-18309-1
Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond. 2005. Viking. ISBN 0-670-03395-2
Quantum Man: Richard Feynman’s Life in Science. 2011. Norton and Co. ISBN 978-0-393-06471-1
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. 2012. Atria Books. ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8
Contributor
100 Things to Do Before You Die (plus a few to do afterwards). 2004. Profile Books.
The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? 2009. Yale Press.
Articles
THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN’T ZERO. 2006. Edge.org
A dark future for cosmology. 2007. Physics World.
The End of Cosmology. 2008. Scientific American.
The return of a static universe and the end of cosmology. 2008. International journal of modern physics.
Late time behavior of false vacuum decay: Possible implications for cosmology and metastable inflating states. 2008. Physical Review Letters.
Krauss, Lawrence M. (June 2010). “Why I love neutrinos”. Scientific American 302 (6): 19. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0610-34.
MediaEdit
Documentary films
The Unbelievers (2013)
The Principle (2014)
TelevisionEdit
How the Universe Works (2010–)
FilmsEdit
London Fields (2015) (cameo)
Awards
Gravity Research Foundation First Prize Award in the 1984 Essay Competition
Presidential Investigator Award (1986)
American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Award for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology (2000)
Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize (2001)
Andrew Gemant Award (2001)
American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award (2002)
Oersted Medal (2003)
American Physical Society Joseph P. Burton Forum Award (2005)
Center for Inquiry World Congress Science in the Public Interest Award (2009)
Helen Sawyer Hogg Prize of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the Astronomical Society of Canada (2009)
Physics World Book of the Year 2011 for Quantum Man
National Science Board 2012 Public Service Award and Medal (2012)
Premio Roma “Urbs Universalis”, Rome (2013)
Elected as Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism (2013)
AFO (Academia Film Olomouc) Award for Outstanding Personal Contribution to the Popularization of Science, 49th Annual AFO Festival April 19, 2014. Olomouc, Czech Republic
Gravity Research Foundation First Prize Award in the 2014 Essay Competition
Humanist of the Year, 2015, American Humanist Association.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

Are you familiar with this little gem?]
That suffices for me. Spares me a lot of time. Thanks, Lausten.

Nice find, Lausten. Thanks for the link. Krauss did an excellent job deconstructing Tipler’s BS.

In school I only got as far as Algebra II and Geometry, and that’s pretty much the extent of my familiarity with mathematics. Yet you claim to have a mathematical proof “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”. whew!
I’m sorry but that’s bit hard to swallow. Intelligence, as far as I know, is just an accident of evolution. Even if I accept the idea that of all the billions of planets in the universe, intelligence had to evolve on one of them, that doesn’t guarantee that it will survive for very long without exterminating itself (look at the news; we seem to be doing a damn good job of it!), let alone evolve into some “immortal human-mind computer”. I’m afraid to ask for the logical steps in this idea, because you’ll probably tell me to read one of these long-winded papers and I’ll get buried in mathematics.

Smart kid, Lausten, she just probably doesn't have the concept of rhyming down, yet. I didn't at age 4. But, James, this statement for example: "... the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse. Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions." Really? In regular person English, you are saying that since somebody came up with a concept of a three part "cosmological singularity", and since Christianity has a 3 in one deity, Christianity, is therefore the correct religion amongst all of mankind's religions. You can dress crap up in an extremely erudite looking and scholastically formatted apparel, but it continues to be, dressed-up crap. I realize that I am sounding harsh, but if you have convinced yourself of all this, take a break, do something useful (or fun) with your formidable intelligence.
Humans can discover physical laws, but they are not responsible for them. In classical relativistic cosmology, the Initial Singularity and the Final Singularity are permanently separate and distinct singularities. But in quantum relativistic cosmology, the Initial and the Final Singularities are connected by a third singularity: the All-Presents Singularity, since all sizes of universes are obtained in the multiverse, which means that there are a class of universes which don't expand out from the Big Bang singularity at all, but remain as a singularity. These three distinct aspects to which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse: the Cosmological Singularity, of which consists eternally of three hypostases in a homoousian triune, i.e., three distinct entities of the same substance (ousia). Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Cosmological Singularity within the Omega Point cosmology, which is deselective of all other major religions. And the Cosmological Singularity has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions. For more on the inherently triune nature of the Cosmological Singularity, see Sec. 7.3: "The Trinity of God", pp. 43-45 of my previously-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which also gives many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament; additionally on this topic, see my article "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", also previously cited within this thread. Wow. I guess all of the other trinity-god religions throughout history, were selected and then de-selected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity#List_of_triple_deities Or more, likely, you are a victim of the human proclivity for seeing patterns and interpreting them to conveniently fit your worldview.

Seriously, what would an “immortal superintelligent human-mind computer” look like in an equation? Where does that even come from? Can you just briefly give me the logic behind it, in words rather than mathematics?

Pretty sure he’s moved on. He has posted the same thing all over the internet for years. I haven’t found once where he responds to any feedback in any reasonable manner. It’s not discussion, it’s just marketing for his book.

I see you've been publishing this stuff all over the place for years. These posts look look about the same as posts from 2012. It is more likely that this is some sort of automated response than a real person. He, or whatever he is, has been shown articles many times that refute FAP, so his statement that it has never been refuted is ridiculous. Tipler has done other work and been recognized for it, but his stuff about theology gets ignored in the world of physics.Which is what anyone else reading this should do.
Hi, Lausten. I am very much a real person. Nor has the Omega Point cosmology ever been refuted. The Omega Point cosmology was formulated as a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) in 1997. These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology 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].) And rejecting empirical science is precisely how the physics community is handling this matter. 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 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 ff. 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, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 . 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?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo .
James Redford. What did Tipler's apparently uninformed opponent, Lawrence Krauss, have to say? You barely mentioned him. I guess he doesn't count. Just a guy who wandered in off the street, I guess. Nothing like a load of confirmation bias. Lawrence Maxwell Krauss (born May 27, 1954) is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and director of its Origins Project, He is known as an advocate of the public understanding of science, of public policy based on sound empirical data, of scientific skepticism and of science education and works to reduce the impact of what he opines as superstition and religious dogma in pop culture.He is also the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing. Krauss mostly works in theoretical physics and has published research on a great variety of topics within that field. His primary contribution is to cosmology as one of the first physicists to suggest that most of the mass and energy of the universe resides in empty space, an idea now widely known as "dark energy". Furthermore, Krauss has formulated a model in which the universe could have potentially come from "nothing," as outlined in his 2012 book A Universe from Nothing. He explains that certain arrangements of relativistic quantum fields might explain the existence of the universe as we know it while disclaiming that he "has no idea if the notion [of taking quantum mechanics for granted] can be usefully dispensed with". As his model appears to agree with experimental observations of the universe (such as of its shape and energy density), it is referred to as a "plausible hypothesis". Initially, Krauss was skeptical of the Higgs mechanism. However, after the existence of the Higgs boson was confirmed by CERN, he has been researching the implications of the Higgs field on the nature of dark energy. Krauss is one of the few living physicists described by Scientific American as a "public intellectual" and he is the only physicist to have received awards from all three major American physics societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics. In 2012, he was awarded the National Science Board's Public Service Medal for his contributions to public education in science and engineering in the United States. Arizona State University Australian National University New College of the Humanities Yale University Case Western Reserve University Harvard University Alma mater Massachusetts Institute of Technology (PhD) Carleton University (BSc) Thesis Gravitation and phase transitions in the early universe (1982) Known for Dark energy Zero-energy modeling Notable awards Andrew Gemant Award (2001) Lilienfeld Prize (2001) Science Writing Award (2002) Oersted Medal (2004) Books Krauss, Lawrence M. (1989). The fifth essence. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465023752. Fear Of Physics: A Guide For The Perplexed. 1994. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-02367-3 The Physics of Star Trek. 1996. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00559-4 Beyond Star Trek. 1998, Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0060977573 Quintessence The Search For Missing Mass In The Universe. 2000. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-03741-0 Atom: An Odyssey from the Big Bang to Life on Earth...and Beyond. 2002. Black Bay. ISBN 0-316-18309-1 Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions, from Plato to String Theory and Beyond. 2005. Viking. ISBN 0-670-03395-2 Quantum Man: Richard Feynman's Life in Science. 2011. Norton and Co. ISBN 978-0-393-06471-1 A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. 2012. Atria Books. ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8 Contributor 100 Things to Do Before You Die (plus a few to do afterwards). 2004. Profile Books. The Religion and Science Debate: Why Does It Continue? 2009. Yale Press. Articles THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO. 2006. Edge.org A dark future for cosmology. 2007. Physics World. The End of Cosmology. 2008. Scientific American. The return of a static universe and the end of cosmology. 2008. International journal of modern physics. Late time behavior of false vacuum decay: Possible implications for cosmology and metastable inflating states. 2008. Physical Review Letters. Krauss, Lawrence M. (June 2010). "Why I love neutrinos". Scientific American 302 (6): 19. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0610-34. MediaEdit Documentary films The Unbelievers (2013) The Principle (2014) TelevisionEdit How the Universe Works (2010–) FilmsEdit London Fields (2015) (cameo) Awards Gravity Research Foundation First Prize Award in the 1984 Essay Competition Presidential Investigator Award (1986) American Association for the Advancement of Science's Award for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology (2000) Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize (2001) Andrew Gemant Award (2001) American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award (2002) Oersted Medal (2003) American Physical Society Joseph P. Burton Forum Award (2005) Center for Inquiry World Congress Science in the Public Interest Award (2009) Helen Sawyer Hogg Prize of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada and the Astronomical Society of Canada (2009) Physics World Book of the Year 2011 for Quantum Man National Science Board 2012 Public Service Award and Medal (2012) Premio Roma "Urbs Universalis", Rome (2013) Elected as Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism (2013) AFO (Academia Film Olomouc) Award for Outstanding Personal Contribution to the Popularization of Science, 49th Annual AFO Festival April 19, 2014. Olomouc, Czech Republic Gravity Research Foundation First Prize Award in the 2014 Essay Competition Humanist of the Year, 2015, American Humanist Association. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss
Hi, LoisL. Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss is a particle physicist. Whereas physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler is not only an expert in quantum field theory (i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle physics) but also an expert in Global General Relativity and computer theory. Global General Relativity (which is General Relativity applied on the scale of the universe as a whole) is the field created by Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems, and it is the most elite and rarefied field of physics. Further, Prof. Krauss's criticism of Prof. Tipler is already covered in Sec. 4: "Criticisms of the Omega Point Cosmology", pp. 26-28 of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything". In his review (see Lawrence Krauss, "More dangerous than nonsense", New Scientist, Vol. 194, No. 2603 [May 12, 2007], p. 53) of Prof. Tipler's book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), Prof. Krauss repeatedly commits the logical fallacy of bare assertion. Krauss gives no indication that he followed up on the endnotes in the book The Physics of Christianity and actually read Tipler's physics journal papers. All that Krauss is going off of in said review is Tipler's mostly nontechnical popular-audience book The Physics of Christianity without researching Tipler's technical papers in the physics journals. Krauss's review offers no actual lines of reasoning for Krauss's pronouncements. His readership is simply expected to imbibe what Krauss proclaims, even though it's clear that Krauss is merely critiquing a popular-audience book which does not attempt to present the rigorous technical details. Ironically, Krauss has actually published a paper that greatly helped to strengthen Tipler's Omega Point cosmology. Some have suggested that the current acceleration of the universe's expansion due to the positive cosmological constant would appear to obviate the Omega Point. However, Profs. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out that "there is no set of cosmological observations we can perform that will unambiguously allow us to determine what the ultimate destiny of the Universe will be." (See Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner, "Geometry and Destiny", General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [Oct. 1999], pp. 1453-1459.)