In the following forum thread occurred an interesting exchange on
April 22, 2024 regarding Edgar Allan Poe and his own proto-Tiplerian
Omega Point cosmology:

* James William Hall, "Is Tipler's Theory of Immortality Worth
Considering Without Religious Bias?", Physics Forums, Oct. 19, 2023,
https://web.archive.org/web/20240422213253/https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-tiplers-theory-of-immortality-worth-considering-without-religious-bias.1056575/
, https://ghostarchive.org/archive/EIMp4 , https://archive.today/xOgum
, https://www.freezepage.com/1713821470TXUQIEXXFN .

Said exchange is reproduced below within the pound signs:

####################

[QUOTE="James William Hall, post: 6958589, member: 692435"]
[B]TL;DR Summary:[/B] Had the universe been found closed instead of
open would Tipler's physics have some merit?

In 1994 Frank J. Tipler wrote a book titled: "The Physics of
Immortality" which appeared to suggest that physics and religion could
be united. Absent religious or anti-religious prisms, if the universe
were found to be closed (I know, it's not), is Tipler's physics
worthy of serious consideration?
[/QUOTE]

Hi, James William Hall. For much more on physicist and mathematician
Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the
Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of
Everything (TOE), see my following articles:

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

* James Redford, "God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical
Theorems within Standard Physics", Theophysics: The Physics of God,
May 16, 2022,
https://jamesredford.substack.com/p/gods-existence-is-proven-by-several
, https://www.minds.com/blog/view/1373133123700658189 .

[QUOTE="Ken G, post: 6963961, member: 116697"]
I think it will blow your mind that Poe had so much foresight.
Apparently the book had a lot more influence in Europe than in the US,
since the latter saw him as a horror story writer out of his element,
while the former saw him as a visionary (and Poe himself regarded
"Eureka" as his magnum opus). I believe it is unknown if Lemaitre was
directly influenced by Poe, but he was aware of Poe's work so it does
seem likely. Poe (based on remarkable intuition) thought all matter
in the universe came from a single origin, which he called the
"Particle", and Lemaitre (based on scientific measurements) proposed
that it all came from a single origin, which he called the "Primeval
atom." Most of the rest of their pictures are also remarkably close,
which is notable given that Hubble himself did not even think of the
universe as expanding from a single origin. Maybe Hubble wasn't a Poe
reader?
[/QUOTE]

Hi, Ken G. Below is what I've written on this matter:

And now here comes one of the strangest creations ever published, by
one of the strangest people who ever lived. Edgar Allan Poe considered
his following nonfiction book to be his magnum opus--and he was quite
correct in considering it so.

* Edgar A. Poe, Eureka: A Prose Poem (New York: Geo. P. Putnam, 1848),
https://archive.org/details/eurekaprosepoem00poeerich ,
https://archive.org/download/eurekaprosepoem00poeerich/eurekaprosepoem00poeerich.djvu
, https://webcitation.org/6AdUPRmzN .

(The best format to get the above book is DJVU, although it is also
available in PDF at the first link. DJVU files can be viewed with the
free and open-source, cross-platform program DjView:
https://djvu.sourceforge.net/djview4.html .)

In his above book, Poe gives an excellent description of essentially
the entire Tiplerian Omega Point cosmology, from its Big Bang
beginning to its Big Crunch end. Poe describes the universe starting
at a "primordial Partictle" (i.e., an atom in the ancient Greek sense
of indivisible unity), then expanding and evolving, and then
collapsing into Godhead and unity in a state of infinite complexity. I
wonder if Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was influenced by Poe, since Poe
was very popular in France.

Throughout the book, Poe is at pains in attempting to describe the
3-sphere topology of the universe, but doesn't possess the technical
mathematical terminology. On p. 29, he describes creation from
nothing. On p. 100, he solves Olbers's Paradox. On pp. 102-103, he
describes the parallel universes of Quantum Mechanics, i.e., the
multiverse. On p. 117, he even gives an accurate summation of Special
Relativity, that "Space and Duration are one." That is, space and time
are actually different aspects of the same thing, i.e., spacetime. On
pp. 84 and 122-123, he speaks of the existence of nonluminus
stars--what are nowadays called neutron stars and black holes. Indeed,
on pp. 122-123, he predicts the existence of a giant nonluminous star
at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. And that is just a few of the
surprising gems to be found throughout this work. Poe isn't completely
correct in everything he presents here, though he gets far, far more
correct than wrong, and all his major conclusions are correct.

Poe knew that he would be laughed-at and derided in presenting this
information--that he would be thought of as quite mad. Yet Poe also
had not the slightest doubt that he would get the last laugh in the
end. And Poe was right. How did Poe know? In publishing this work, Poe
presented to mankind a deep riddle, a preposterous enigma. The
commonly-credited inventor of the detective genre wrote a real-life
nonfiction mystery for mankind to unriddle.

####################

Cf.:

* Jamie Michelle, "Jamie Michelle's Greatest Sissy School Hits",
Internet Archive, Dec. 21, 2023 (orig. pub. Sept. 2, 2022),
ark:/13960/s26t45wxbtx,
https://web.archive.org/web/20231221085053/http://jamiemichelle.freevar.com/Jamie-Michelle-Sissy-School.html
, https://perma.cc/DJ4W-EH7M ,
https://megalodon.jp/2023-1221-1754-52/jamiemichelle.freevar.com/Jamie-Michelle-Sissy-School.html
, https://ghostarchive.org/archive/CEC2f , https://archive.today/uieBH
; download website:
https://archive.org/download/Jamie-Michelle/Jamie-Michelle-Biographical-Multimedia-2023-12-21.zip
, https://files.catbox.moe/uszbck.zip .

* James Redford, "The Problem of Qualia Solved, and Other Theological
Vignettes", Politics Forum, Feb. 10, 2023,
https://web.archive.org/web/20230211045154/https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=183289
, https://ghostarchive.org/archive/rNBil , https://archive.is/jB25Q ,
https://megalodon.jp/2023-0211-1352-27/www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=183289
, https://www.freezepage.com/1709529398KFZNRFYENT .

----------------------------------------

Jamie Michelle

Author, under the nom de plume of James Redford, of The Physics of God
and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything: And Other Selected Works
(Chisinau, Moldova: Eliva Press, 2021), 268 pp., ISBN-10: 1636482775,
ISBN-13: 9781636482774. See my curriculum vitæ (ark:/13960/t6g19878v):
https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford-Curriculum-Vitae.pdf ,
https://archive.org/download/JamesRedford/Redford-Curriculum-Vitae.pdf

Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.

However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
a sea of speculation.

And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.

As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
is still out on that. There have been recent worries
that the markers used to judge expansion might not
be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".

In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
groups.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
wrote:

>Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>
>However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>a sea of speculation.
>
>And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>
>As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>
>In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>groups.

God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
Standard Physics

Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point
cosmology is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that
sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent
human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required
by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all
matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse
of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe
(in terms of both processor speed and memory storage) to diverge to
infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed
the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic
component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard
Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all
the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself mathematically forced by
the aforesaid known physical laws.

Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been extensively
peer-reviewed and published in a number of the world's leading physics
and science journals, such as Reports on Progress in Physics (the
leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main
professional organization for physicists), Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics
journals), the International Journal of Theoretical Physics (a journal
that Nobel Prize in Physics winner Richard Feynman also published in),
and Physics Letters, among other journals.

Prof. Tipler's Ph.D. is in the field of Global General Relativity,
which is the field created by Profs. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose
during the formulation of their Singularity Theorems in the 1960s.
Global General Relativity is General Relativity applied on the scale
of the entire universe as a whole, and is the most elite and rarefied
field of physics. Tipler is also an expert in quantum field theory
(i.e., Quantum Mechanics combined with special-relativistic particle
physics) and computer theory. Moreover, to here point out, said
Singularity Theorems are themselves completely valid proofs of God's
existence in the First Cause aspect of God.

The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties
(quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much
more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it
uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described
in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses
the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of
Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012
(orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708,
https://web.archive.org/web/20150927090439/http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf
, https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god .

Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which
contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to
multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and
the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's
Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", God and
Physics Wiki, May 12, 2019 (orig. pub. Apr. 3, 2013),
https://megalodon.jp/2019-0512-1524-14/godandphysics.fandom.com/wiki/Tipler-Krauss_2007_Debate
, https://web.archive.org/web/20190512062421/https://godandphysics.fandom.com/wiki/Video_of_Profs._Frank_Tipler_and_Lawrence_Krauss%27s_Debate_at_Caltech:_Can_Physics_Prove_God_and_Christianity%3F
, https://archive.is/V9njw .

As said, Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical
theorem per the aforementioned known laws of physics, of which have
been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to
avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof.
Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem."
(From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of
Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

Indeed, in the Feynman path integral formulation of Quantum Mechanics
(i.e., sum-over-paths; sum-over-histories) a singularity is even more
inevitable than in the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems,
since the Singularity Theorems assume attractive gravity, whereas the
Feynman sum-over-histories get arbitrarily close to infinite
curvature. In other words, the multiverse has its own singularity.

Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't
matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any
physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating
Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the
mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an
initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and
Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities
are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D.
Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature,
Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J.
Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in
Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th
Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986
[Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut
d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

* * * * *

Unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to
abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're
uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the
antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which
greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years),
due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the
traditional theological position of *creatio ex nihilo*, and also
because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e.,
quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no
form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity
at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical
operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond
creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary
of space and time.

In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book The Grand Design (New York, NY: Bantam
Books) coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in
2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that
God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no
observational evidence confirming it.

With String Theory and other nonempirical physics, the physics
community is reverting back to the epistemological methodology of
Aristotelianism, which held to physical theories based upon *a priori*
philosophical ideals. One of the *a priori* ideals held by many
present-day physicists is that God cannot exist, and so if rejecting
the existence of God requires rejecting empirical science, then so be
it.

For details on this rejection of physical law by physicists if it
conflicts with their distaste for religion, see Sec. 5: "The Big
Bang", pp. 28-33 of my "Physics of God" article cited above.

The evolutionary psychological reason for the above-described bizarre
behavior of physicists rejecting physical law when it demonstrates
God's existence is due to the naturally-evolved Jaynesian gods of
old--i.e., the demons--seeking to distance people from genuine
knowledge of God so that the demons may instead falsely present
themselves as God. Among many permutations of this, it often manifests
as various forms of etatism: the state becomes God. Demons are quite
real, they however exist as naturally-evolved Minskian agent subset
programs operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. For more on
this, see my following article:

On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>
>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>> a sea of speculation.
>>
>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>
>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>
>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>> groups.
>
> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
> Standard Physics

Um ... no. Get over it.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:

> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>
>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>
>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>
>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>
>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>> groups.
>>
>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>> Standard Physics
>
>
> Um ... no. Get over it.

Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why we
have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as such, we
currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would just result
in god being reduced to something in the world.

Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined
as such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are
being _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe
the world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond" the
world, it is impossible to prove him.

That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily
towards there being no god however.

Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god,
hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers as
a kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.

On 5/1/24 5:53 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>>
>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>>
>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>>
>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>>> groups.
>>>
>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>>> Standard Physics
>>
>>
>>  Um ... no. Get over it.
>
> Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why
> we have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as
> such, we currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would
> just result in god being reduced to something in the world.
>
> Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined
> as such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are
> being _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe
> the world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond"
> the world, it is impossible to prove him.
>
> That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily
> towards there being no god however.
>
> Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god,
> hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers
> as a kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.

GIGO ... Garbage IN = Garbage OUT. Reason and math
require solid axioms, and theists often start
assuming some castle in the sky is a solid axiom.

Like any language, math can be used to help find
organize and confirm facts - or be used to spin
episodes of Harry Potter and Hobbit adventures.

As usual, alas, 'the faithful' are only interested
in a sub-set of facts, a sub-set of reason, only
that which seems to confirm their beliefs. I've
learned not to argue with them very much, just
give them hints to where they can find better info.
They will have to go there on their own.

As to what the OP said about Poe - he really IS
worth looking into ... a remarkably bright and
intellectually diverse guy and in some ways ahead
of his time. BUT, as said, his cyclic Big Bang
theory was nothing but a notion - there were no
hard facts at the time, he did not reason it out
from evidence ... it just "seemed reasonable".

On Wed, 1 May 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:

> On 5/1/24 5:53 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>>>> groups.
>>>>
>>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>>>> Standard Physics
>>>
>>>
>>>  Um ... no. Get over it.
>>
>> Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why we
>> have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as such, we
>> currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would just result in
>> god being reduced to something in the world.
>>
>> Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined as
>> such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are being
>> _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe the
>> world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond" the
>> world, it is impossible to prove him.
>>
>> That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily towards
>> there being no god however.
>>
>> Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god,
>> hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers as a
>> kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.
>
>
> GIGO ... Garbage IN = Garbage OUT. Reason and math
> require solid axioms, and theists often start
> assuming some castle in the sky is a solid axiom.
>
> Like any language, math can be used to help find
> organize and confirm facts - or be used to spin
> episodes of Harry Potter and Hobbit adventures.
>
> As usual, alas, 'the faithful' are only interested
> in a sub-set of facts, a sub-set of reason, only
> that which seems to confirm their beliefs. I've
> learned not to argue with them very much, just
> give them hints to where they can find better info.
> They will have to go there on their own.
>
> As to what the OP said about Poe - he really IS
> worth looking into ... a remarkably bright and
> intellectually diverse guy and in some ways ahead
> of his time. BUT, as said, his cyclic Big Bang
> theory was nothing but a notion - there were no
> hard facts at the time, he did not reason it out
> from evidence ... it just "seemed reasonable".
>

Amen! ;)

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:24:28 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
wrote:

>On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>
>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>
>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>
>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>
>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>> groups.
>>
>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>> Standard Physics
>
>
> Um ... no. Get over it.

The only way to avoid physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J.
Tipler's 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. As
Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a
mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated
A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed.,
1988].)

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

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.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega
Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical
laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International
Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp.
617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230026/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf
.. First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space",
bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller
and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski,
Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow
Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988),
pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230043/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving
God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne
(Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A
Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd
ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN
89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230038/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for
Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988:
Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing,
Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN
091758628X,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230020/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to
Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion &
Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253,
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The
Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to
Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning
with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.:
Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256,
LCCN 97000114,
https://web.archive.org/web/20160804171818/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which
undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23,
1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode:
1992PhLB..286...36T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230031/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a
Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in
B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General
Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland,
Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode:
1993dgr2.conf.....H,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230050/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future
of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop
Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999,
pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held
at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug.
12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report
Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230148/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-ultrarelativistic-rockets.pdf
.. Full proceedings volume:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100525230359/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990023204_1999021520.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical
Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998),
https://web.archive.org/web/20150819193439/http://www.tkpw.net/tcr/volume-03/number-02/v03n02.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua
Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black
Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole
Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp.
629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode:
2007MNRAS.379..629T,
https://megalodon.jp/2019-0920-0621-46/academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/379/2/629/3385142/mnras0379-0629.pdf
..

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International
Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148,
doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20110712221042/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf
.. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .

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

On Wed, 1 May 2024 11:53:41 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>
>
>On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>>
>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>>
>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>>
>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>>> groups.
>>>
>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>>> Standard Physics
>>
>>
>> Um ... no. Get over it.
>
>Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why we
>have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as such, we
>currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would just result
>in god being reduced to something in the world.
>
>Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined
>as such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are
>being _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe
>the world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond" the
>world, it is impossible to prove him.
>
>That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily
>towards there being no god however.
>
>Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god,
>hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers as
>a kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.

The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical
theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch
Singularity Theorems which proved that the Big Bang initial
singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given
attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg
quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics are correct. General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the
only way to avoid the Omega Point quantum gravity 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, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't
matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any
physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating
Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the
mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an
initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and
Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities
are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D.
Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", *Nature*,
Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J.
Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in
*Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th
Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986*
[Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut
d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

The only way to avoid physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J.
Tipler's 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. As
Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a
mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated
A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed.,
1988].)

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

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.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega
Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical
laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International
Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp.
617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230026/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf
.. First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space",
bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller
and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski,
Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow
Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988),
pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230043/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving
God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne
(Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A
Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd
ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN
89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230038/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for
Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988:
Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing,
Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN
091758628X,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230020/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to
Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion &
Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253,
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The
Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to
Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning
with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.:
Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256,
LCCN 97000114,
https://web.archive.org/web/20160804171818/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which
undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23,
1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode:
1992PhLB..286...36T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230031/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a
Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in
B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General
Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland,
Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode:
1993dgr2.conf.....H,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230050/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf
..

On Wed, 1 May 2024 11:56:15 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
wrote:

>On 5/1/24 5:53 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>>>> groups.
>>>>
>>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>>>> Standard Physics
>>>
>>>
>>>  Um ... no. Get over it.
>>
>> Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why
>> we have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as
>> such, we currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would
>> just result in god being reduced to something in the world.
>>
>> Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined
>> as such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are
>> being _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe
>> the world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond"
>> the world, it is impossible to prove him.
>>
>> That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily
>> towards there being no god however.
>>
>> Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god,
>> hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers
>> as a kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.
>
>
> GIGO ... Garbage IN = Garbage OUT. Reason and math
> require solid axioms, and theists often start
> assuming some castle in the sky is a solid axiom.
>
> Like any language, math can be used to help find
> organize and confirm facts - or be used to spin
> episodes of Harry Potter and Hobbit adventures.
>
> As usual, alas, 'the faithful' are only interested
> in a sub-set of facts, a sub-set of reason, only
> that which seems to confirm their beliefs. I've
> learned not to argue with them very much, just
> give them hints to where they can find better info.
> They will have to go there on their own.
>
> As to what the OP said about Poe - he really IS
> worth looking into ... a remarkably bright and
> intellectually diverse guy and in some ways ahead
> of his time. BUT, as said, his cyclic Big Bang
> theory was nothing but a notion - there were no
> hard facts at the time, he did not reason it out
> from evidence ... it just "seemed reasonable".

The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical
theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch
Singularity Theorems which proved that the Big Bang initial
singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given
attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg
quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics are correct. General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the
only way to avoid the Omega Point quantum gravity 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, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't
matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any
physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating
Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the
mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an
initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and
Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities
are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D.
Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", *Nature*,
Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J.
Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in
*Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th
Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986*
[Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut
d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.)

The only way to avoid physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J.
Tipler's 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. As
Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a
mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated
A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed.,
1988].)

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

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.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega
Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical
laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International
Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp.
617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230026/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf
.. First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space",
bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller
and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski,
Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow
Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988),
pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230043/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving
God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne
(Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A
Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd
ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN
89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230038/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for
Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988:
Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing,
Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN
091758628X,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230020/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf
..

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
wrote:

>Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>
>However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>a sea of speculation.
>
>And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>
>As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>
>In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>groups.

Oh, this has everything to do with politics:

The problem with the so-called Christians and libertarians is that
they are not even trying to win. They're trying to lose, and in the
most gory ways possible. Though I quite get it that they are
consciously unaware of that fact--although their demons are aware, as
it is their demons which are imparting their sincere and earnest
seeking after their and their families' own gory slaughter.

The reason the world is in the despicable state that it's in is
because the world detests God--i.e., the Truth. And that's the case
even with the "Christians". If even a couple of percent of those who
call themselves Christian were actual Christians, then we would
already be living in a mortal paradise.

Almost all of modern world society has been inducted to some extent by
their respective governments into a completely misanthropic and
nihilistic antitheist Weltanschauung, a Godless worldview of eternal
death. It is the sine qua non of the serial-killer ethos.

Even nominal mass-Christianity has been to a large degree inducted
into this worldview by buying into the God-haters' mendacious
propaganda regarding there being a conflict between science and
religion. But it is a lie: for ever since Newton's physics, and
especially with General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (either
separately or combined), God's existence has always been a
mathematically-unavoidable result.

If God in the literal sense of the infinite sapient being does not
exist, then all is permissible. Even if one can prove that, say,
libertarianism is apodictically true in the same degree that 2+2 = 4
is true, so what? In the end, we're all dead anyway. The only thing
that could give life any meaning beyond mere delusion is if God
exists, since then an infinite computational state would exist,
thereby allowing finite minds to endlessly grow in complexity toward
infinite perfection (per the Quantum Recurrence Theorem). Only then
would one's life-work avoid coming to naught. Only then would what one
does now actually matter in the end.

Whereas traditional Christianity has been at the forefront of using
the latest science of the day to prove God's existence, such as with
Anselm's *Proslogion* and Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways. Indeed, natural
science as a systematic discipline is the invention of Christendom, as
is the university system.

Christians in this Godless age continuously cut their own feet out
from under themselves before they even bother standing up. They've
made the proverbial Faustian bargain with this world--in this case,
what evolutionary biologist Prof. Stephen Jay Gould termed the
"non-overlapping magisteria": that if they just cede ground regarding
scientific matters to the God-haters, that said theophobes won't
interfere with the Christians' theological concerns.

Though Satan must always betray in his pacts. The God-haters have come
to lie, steal, enslave, torture, rape and murder--and all that on a
mass-scale. Attempts to appease them result in mass-horrors.

Yet why would Christians believe the same God-hating intelligentsia
that gave us the horrors of Communism and Nazism (and other forms of
socialism), to name a few of their many horrific societal gifts? Once
one buys into their false premise, one has already lost. And I'm not
talking about merely debates. One has lost society. One has lost
souls. This false premise is straight out of the pit of Hell. So stop
believing it, those who dare call themselves Christians. Stop
believing the serial-killers of societies. They set-up a trap, and
naïve Christians willingly fall into it. The consequences are rotting
corpses stacked as far as the eye can see. Stop being a participatory
party to your own rape and slaughter. Stop fashioning your own noose.

Christians in this age have been entranced by this demonic spell. For
the antidote to mankind's gore-seeking hatred of God, see my following
article:

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

----------------------------------------

Jamie Michelle

Author, under the nom de plume of James Redford, of The Physics of God
and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything: And Other Selected Works
(Chisinau, Moldova: Eliva Press, 2021), 268 pp., ISBN-10: 1636482775,
ISBN-13: 9781636482774. See my curriculum vitæ (ark:/13960/t6g19878v):
https://jamesredford.github.io/Redford-Curriculum-Vitae.pdf ,
https://archive.org/download/JamesRedford/Redford-Curriculum-Vitae.pdf

On Wed, 1 May 2024, Jamie Michelle wrote:

> On Wed, 1 May 2024 11:53:41 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>>>> groups.
>>>>
>>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>>>> Standard Physics
>>>
>>>
>>> Um ... no. Get over it.
>>
>> Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why we
>> have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as such, we
>> currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would just result
>> in god being reduced to something in the world.
>>
>> Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined
>> as such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are
>> being _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe
>> the world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond" the
>> world, it is impossible to prove him.
>>
>> That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily
>> towards there being no god however.
>>
>> Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god,
>> hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers as
>> a kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.
>
> The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical
....
> theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch

You are just stating things and linking to papers. You have not offered
any proofs are counter argument to my position, which is basically
accepted by todays science as the only logical position.

Granted, you might have a point, but unless you are able to state that
point in a way that I understand, our conversation is meaningless.

And no, I will not read through 100 papers without you first showing
that my meta-argumetn is invalid, which no one has managed to do in
about 2500 years of philosophical history, so consider me highly
skeptical.

On Wed, 1 May 2024, Jamie Michelle wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>
>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>> a sea of speculation.
>>
>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>
>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>
>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>> groups.
>
> Oh, this has everything to do with politics:

There is a haping hole in all of this, and that is that there is no god,
unless god is proved, and no one has managed to do that.

So without a god, the rest of yoru argument falls. Sorry. =(

On 5/2/24 6:16 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2024, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>
>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>
>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>
>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>
>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>> groups.
>>
>> Oh, this has everything to do with politics:
>
> There is a gaping hole in all of this, and that is that there is no god,
> unless god is proved, and no one has managed to do that.

For the most part, "godS" ...

So, they were ALL wrong ??? :-)

Anyway, if you create a huge, ultra-complex, theology
it's on YOU to PROVE it - not on anyone else to disprove.

> So without a god, the rest of your argument falls. Sorry. =(

But they *believe* - and that fills in all the gaps
dontchaknow ...

Still waiting for some Hobbits to show up :-)

On Thu, 2 May 2024 12:16:00 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>
>
>On Wed, 1 May 2024, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>
>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>
>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>
>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>
>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>> groups.
>>
>> Oh, this has everything to do with politics:
>
>There is a haping hole in all of this, and that is that there is no god,
>unless god is proved, and no one has managed to do that.
>
>So without a god, the rest of yoru argument falls. Sorry. =(

What is "haping"?

The only way to avoid physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J.
Tipler's 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. As
Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a
mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated
A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed.,
1988].)

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

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.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega
Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical
laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International
Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp.
617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230026/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf
.. First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space",
bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller
and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski,
Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow
Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988),
pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230043/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving
God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne
(Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A
Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd
ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN
89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230038/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for
Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988:
Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing,
Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN
091758628X,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230020/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to
Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion &
Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253,
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The
Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to
Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning
with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.:
Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256,
LCCN 97000114,
https://web.archive.org/web/20160804171818/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which
undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23,
1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode:
1992PhLB..286...36T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230031/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a
Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in
B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General
Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland,
Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode:
1993dgr2.conf.....H,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230050/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future
of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop
Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999,
pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held
at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug.
12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report
Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230148/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-ultrarelativistic-rockets.pdf
.. Full proceedings volume:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100525230359/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990023204_1999021520.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical
Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998),
https://web.archive.org/web/20150819193439/http://www.tkpw.net/tcr/volume-03/number-02/v03n02.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua
Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black
Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole
Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp.
629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode:
2007MNRAS.379..629T,
https://megalodon.jp/2019-0920-0621-46/academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/379/2/629/3385142/mnras0379-0629.pdf
..

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International
Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Apr. 2003), pp. 141-148,
doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20110712221042/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf
.. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, Mar. 31, 2007,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058 .

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

On Thu, 2 May 2024 12:14:15 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

>
>
>On Wed, 1 May 2024, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 May 2024 11:53:41 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>>>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>
>>>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>>>>> Standard Physics
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Um ... no. Get over it.
>>>
>>> Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why we
>>> have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as such, we
>>> currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would just result
>>> in god being reduced to something in the world.
>>>
>>> Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined
>>> as such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are
>>> being _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe
>>> the world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond" the
>>> world, it is impossible to prove him.
>>>
>>> That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily
>>> towards there being no god however.
>>>
>>> Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god,
>>> hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers as
>>> a kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.
>>
>> The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical
>...
>> theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch
>
>You are just stating things and linking to papers. You have not offered
>any proofs are counter argument to my position, which is basically
>accepted by todays science as the only logical position.
>
>Granted, you might have a point, but unless you are able to state that
>point in a way that I understand, our conversation is meaningless.
>
>And no, I will not read through 100 papers without you first showing
>that my meta-argumetn is invalid, which no one has managed to do in
>about 2500 years of philosophical history, so consider me highly
>skeptical.

The only way to avoid physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J.
Tipler's 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. As
Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a
mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated
A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed.,
1988].)

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

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.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega
Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical
laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International
Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp.
617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230026/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf
.. First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space",
bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller
and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski,
Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow
Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988),
pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230043/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving
God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne
(Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A
Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd
ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN
89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230038/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for
Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988:
Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing,
Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN
091758628X,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230020/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to
Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion &
Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253,
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The
Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to
Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning
with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.:
Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256,
LCCN 97000114,
https://web.archive.org/web/20160804171818/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which
undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23,
1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode:
1992PhLB..286...36T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230031/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a
Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in
B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General
Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland,
Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode:
1993dgr2.conf.....H,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230050/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future
of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop
Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999,
pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held
at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug.
12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report
Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230148/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-ultrarelativistic-rockets.pdf
.. Full proceedings volume:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100525230359/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990023204_1999021520.pdf
..

On Fri, 3 May 2024 23:07:21 -0400, "68hx.1807" <68hx.1806@g5t9x.net>
wrote:

>On 5/2/24 6:16 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 1 May 2024, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>>
>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>>
>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>>
>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>>> groups.
>>>
>>> Oh, this has everything to do with politics:
>>
>> There is a gaping hole in all of this, and that is that there is no god,
>> unless god is proved, and no one has managed to do that.
>
> For the most part, "godS" ...
>
> So, they were ALL wrong ??? :-)
>
> Anyway, if you create a huge, ultra-complex, theology
> it's on YOU to PROVE it - not on anyone else to disprove.
>
>> So without a god, the rest of your argument falls. Sorry. =(
>
> But they *believe* - and that fills in all the gaps
> dontchaknow ...
>
> Still waiting for some Hobbits to show up :-)

The only way to avoid physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J.
Tipler's 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. As
Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a
mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated
A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed.,
1988].)

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

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.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega
Point Theorem and found it correct according to the known physical
laws (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

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

* Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation", International
Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp.
617-661, doi:10.1007/BF00670475, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230026/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Cosmological-Limits-on-Computation.pdf
.. First paper on the Omega Point cosmology.

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Sensorium of God: Newton and Absolute Space",
bibcode: 1988nnds.conf..215T, in G[eorge]. V. Coyne, M[ichal]. Heller
and J[ozef]. Zycinski (Eds.), "Message" by Franciszek Macharski,
Newton and the New Direction in Science: Proceedings of the Cracow
Conference, 25 to 28 May 1987 (Vatican City: Specola Vaticana, 1988),
pp. 215-228, LCCN 88162460, bibcode: 1988nnds.conf.....C,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230043/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Sensorium-of-God.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory: A Model of an Evolving
God", in Robert J. Russell, William R. Stoeger and George V. Coyne
(Eds.), message by John Paul II, Physics, Philosophy, and Theology: A
Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory, 2nd
ed., 2005; orig. pub. 1988), pp. 313-331, ISBN 0268015775, LCCN
89203331, bibcode: 1988pptc.book.....R,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230038/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Omega-Point-Theory.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for
Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988:
Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing,
Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN
091758628X,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230020/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Anthropic-Principle.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to
Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists", Zygon: Journal of Religion &
Science, Vol. 24, No. 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253,
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. Republished as Chapter 7: "The
Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to
Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Eds.), Beginning
with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.:
Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194, ISBN 0812693256,
LCCN 97000114,
https://web.archive.org/web/20160804171818/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which
undergo inflation", Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Nos. 1-2 (July 23,
1992), pp. 36-43, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W, bibcode:
1992PhLB..286...36T,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230031/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/Tipler-Life-in-universes-which-undergo-inflation.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a
Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in
B[ei]. L. Hu and T[ed]. A. Jacobson (Eds.), Directions in General
Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland,
Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode:
1993dgr2.conf.....H,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230050/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-constant-mean-curvature-foliation.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future
of the Universe", NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop
Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Jan. 1999,
pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held
at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, Aug.
12-14, 1997; doi:2060/19990023204, Document ID: 19990023204, Report
Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694,
https://web.archive.org/web/20120823230148/http://theophysics.host56.com/pdf/tipler-ultrarelativistic-rockets.pdf
.. Full proceedings volume:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100525230359/http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990023204_1999021520.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical
Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Sept. 23, 1998),
https://web.archive.org/web/20150819193439/http://www.tkpw.net/tcr/volume-03/number-02/v03n02.pdf
..

* Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua
Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black
Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole
Information Problem", arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, Mar. 20, 2000,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 . Published in Monthly Notices of
the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, No. 2 (Aug. 2007), pp.
629-640, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x, bibcode:
2007MNRAS.379..629T,
https://megalodon.jp/2019-0920-0621-46/academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/379/2/629/3385142/mnras0379-0629.pdf
..

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