 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy - Tech Forum » God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Stafford... |
 Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 8/5/08 3:32 PM, in article l6eh941hv7bah4s0i67afe86a0j54o4g8d at (no spam) 4ax.com,
"James Redford" <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:e392489b2f]God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J.
Tipler's below paper, which among other things demonstrates that the
known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general
relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle
physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final
cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacit
[/quote:e392489b2f]
HERE IT COMES...
[quote:e392489b2f]identified as being God):
Yep. Jump to Miracle there.[/quote:e392489b2f]
[... Snip irrelevance ...] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonX... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:32:31 -0400, James Redford wrote:
[quote:0dbcefdfcc]state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God
[/quote:0dbcefdfcc]
Is this identification the same process used to identify something as
being a dog or snow?
Has god actively declared himself as such (e.g. "Ok, you found me, I am
God) or is God, for want of a better idea, a 'logical' conclusion?
If one where to call this 'the proof that Zaktor' exists would this be
equally valid?
NOTE: Zaktor is an all powerful being who created everything and who gave
me and a few special friends special and exclusive revelations one of
which is that all mathematics is a metaphorical circle jerk unless it is
used for things like carpentry, weighing out bread and knowing when the
train arrives.
POST NOTE: If he was wrong about any of this, does he still exist? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bigfletch8 at (no spam) gmail.com... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 6, 11:57 pm, ZerkonX <Z... at (no spam) X.net> wrote:
[quote:c19476ebe4]On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:32:31 -0400, James Redford wrote:
state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God
Is this identification the same process used to identify something as
being a dog or snow?
Has god actively declared himself as such (e.g. "Ok, you found me, I am
God) or is God, for want of a better idea, a 'logical' conclusion?
If one where to call this 'the proof that Zaktor' exists would this be
equally valid?
NOTE: Zaktor is an all powerful being who created everything and who gave
me and a few special friends special and exclusive revelations one of
which is that all mathematics is a metaphorical circle jerk unless it is
used for things like carpentry, weighing out bread and knowing when the
train arrives.
POST NOTE: If he was wrong about any of this, does he still exist?
[/quote:c19476ebe4]
Not if you substitute the word "life" for "god" (or Zaktor)
BOfL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Stephen Grossman... |
| Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <l6eh941hv7bah4s0i67afe86a0j54o4g8d at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:5126a6e9bf]God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
known laws of physics.
[/quote:5126a6e9bf]
Contemporary physics is guided by mysticism and subjectivism and thus is
worthless. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mrdilligent... |
| Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In a message dated 03/06/2009 3:02:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Stephen Grossman writes:
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Mar 5 2009 9:18 am
From: Stephen Grossman
In article <l6eh941hv7bah4s0i67afe86a0j54o4g8d at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:8572d207f9]God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
known laws of physics.
[/quote:8572d207f9]
<<Contemporary physics is guided by mysticism and subjectivism and
thus is
worthless.>>
Hey, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!
There is a GREAT deal wrong with contemporary physics, and
subjectivism may play its role in that, but there is also a great deal
right with contemporary physics. In my opinion, physics is the best
of the sciences; biology one of the worst.
But no science, and nobody else, has proven God to exist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dorayme... |
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <43d9r4t12c80rhsidao1f7pgmq5r8c7j88 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:770bce1ccf]While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is
anti-reality and non-physical
[/quote:770bce1ccf]
what, in your own words, with no appeals to authority or famous people
or papers, is the is idea of reality that you are assuming here?
--
dorayme |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James Redford... |
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:18:16 GMT, Stephen Grossman
<sdgross2 at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote:3fc6c09578]In article <l6eh941hv7bah4s0i67afe86a0j54o4g8d at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the
known laws of physics.
Contemporary physics is guided by mysticism and subjectivism and thus is
worthless.
[/quote:3fc6c09578]
While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is
anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates
the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever),
the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is
because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to
has been declared, and within their declared paradigm none of the
referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the
paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the
peer-reviewers could find nothing 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
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 this paper
could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e.,
the known laws of physics: the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general
relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle
physics.
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's aforesaid paper 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.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )
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. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in
Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters
since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as
defined by the latter journal.)
For that paper, see:
F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers," Reports
on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964.
http://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, April 24, 2007.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276
----------------------------------------
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," revised and expanded
edition, February 13, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001)
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory)
http://geocities.com/theophysics/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/omega-point/
http://www.myspace.com/theophysics |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dorayme... |
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <tmg9r4pqtmevjbfe6fd59iq1htum2s4baq at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:27ffed856f]On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:58:50 +1100, dorayme
doraymeRidThis at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:
In article <43d9r4t12c80rhsidao1f7pgmq5r8c7j88 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is
anti-reality and non-physical
what, in your own words, with no appeals to authority or famous people
or papers, is the is idea of reality that you are assuming here?
My previous post which you are here replying to is my own words. But
perhaps the originating post for this thread which I wrote is no
longer available for you, so below I reproduce its contents:
[/quote:27ffed856f]
Please no, I want just your own words and just about the view of reality
you have and no references at all. The original post does not fit that
criterion. Something that stands totally on its own two feet was the
request. It can be a summary.
(Early on in your OP are straight out appeals to authority, something I
expressly asked you not to do in reply.)
--
dorayme |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John J... |
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James Redford wrote:
[quote:2c25a284ad]On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:58:50 +1100, dorayme
doraymeRidThis at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:
In article <43d9r4t12c80rhsidao1f7pgmq5r8c7j88 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is
anti-reality and non-physical
what, in your own words, with no appeals to authority or famous people
or papers, is the is idea of reality that you are assuming here?
My previous post which you are here replying to is my own words. But
perhaps the originating post for this thread which I wrote is no
longer available for you, so below I reproduce its contents:
[...]
[/quote:2c25a284ad]
You did not answer the request. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Stephen Grossman... |
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <pan.2008.08.06.13.57.53 at (no spam) X.net>, ZerkonX <Z at (no spam) X.net> wrote:
NOTE: Zaktor is an all powerful being who created everything
If Zaktor created Paris Hilton, he's damned stupid... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dorayme... |
| Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <sdgross2-F77A9E.11175809032009 at (no spam) news.verizon.net>,
Stephen Grossman <sdgross2 at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote:c815c742cc]... Existence can exist ...
[/quote:c815c742cc]
This phrase tells me that you have no real idea what you are talking
about.
--
dorayme |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James Redford... |
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:39:09 +1100, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote:1bd20ee2b7]In article <tmg9r4pqtmevjbfe6fd59iq1htum2s4baq at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:58:50 +1100, dorayme
doraymeRidThis at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:
In article <43d9r4t12c80rhsidao1f7pgmq5r8c7j88 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is
anti-reality and non-physical
what, in your own words, with no appeals to authority or famous people
or papers, is the is idea of reality that you are assuming here?
My previous post which you are here replying to is my own words. But
perhaps the originating post for this thread which I wrote is no
longer available for you, so below I reproduce its contents:
Please no, I want just your own words and just about the view of reality
you have and no references at all. The original post does not fit that
criterion. Something that stands totally on its own two feet was the
request. It can be a summary.
(Early on in your OP are straight out appeals to authority, something I
expressly asked you not to do in reply.)
[/quote:1bd20ee2b7]
If you wish to write like that you can and I won't stop you. Whereas I
follow scholarly practice.
----------------------------------------
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," revised and expanded
edition, February 13, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001)
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory)
http://geocities.com/theophysics/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/omega-point/
http://www.myspace.com/theophysics |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James Redford... |
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:52:21 -0500, John J <nohj at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
[quote:a71a3ef522]James Redford wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:58:50 +1100, dorayme
doraymeRidThis at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:
In article <43d9r4t12c80rhsidao1f7pgmq5r8c7j88 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is
anti-reality and non-physical
what, in your own words, with no appeals to authority or famous people
or papers, is the is idea of reality that you are assuming here?
My previous post which you are here replying to is my own words. But
perhaps the originating post for this thread which I wrote is no
longer available for you, so below I reproduce its contents:
[...]
You did not answer the request.
[/quote:a71a3ef522]
I'm not aware that I'm under any obligation to do so.
If you wish to write like that you can and I won't stop you. Whereas I
follow scholarly practice.
----------------------------------------
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist," revised and expanded
edition, February 13, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001)
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/jrredford/anarchist-jesus.html
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory)
http://geocities.com/theophysics/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/omega-point/
http://www.myspace.com/theophysics |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dorayme... |
| Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <nulur45rcjvho858rv0gt26t8kjd0b20jg at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:722af108d3]On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:52:21 -0500, John J <nohj at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
James Redford wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:58:50 +1100, dorayme
doraymeRidThis at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:
In article <43d9r4t12c80rhsidao1f7pgmq5r8c7j88 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredford at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is
anti-reality and non-physical
what, in your own words, with no appeals to authority or famous people
or papers, is the is idea of reality that you are assuming here?
My previous post which you are here replying to is my own words. But
perhaps the originating post for this thread which I wrote is no
longer available for you, so below I reproduce its contents:
[...]
You did not answer the request.
I'm not aware that I'm under any obligation to do so.
If you wish to write like that you can and I won't stop you. Whereas I
follow scholarly practice.
[/quote:722af108d3]
This is not a scholarly forum and there is no way to know if people who
do a lot of quoting, understand anything themselves. I was curious what
JR thought in his own words. And would not press him too much how he
arrived at his view.
--
dorayme |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mollybmolly... |
| Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 17, 4:46 am, dorayme <doraymeRidT... at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote:b74d9f492a]In article <nulur45rcjvho858rv0gt26t8kjd0b2... at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredf... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:52:21 -0500, John J <n... at (no spam) droffats.ten> wrote:
James Redford wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:58:50 +1100, dorayme
doraymeRidT... at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> wrote:
In article <43d9r4t12c80rhsidao1f7pgmq5r8c7... at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James Redford <jrredf... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is
anti-reality and non-physical
what, in your own words, with no appeals to authority or famous people
or papers, is the is idea of reality that you are assuming here?
My previous post which you are here replying to is my own words. But
perhaps the originating post for this thread which I wrote is no
longer available for you, so below I reproduce its contents:
[...]
You did not answer the request.
I'm not aware that I'm under any obligation to do so.
If you wish to write like that you can and I won't stop you. Whereas I
follow scholarly practice.
This is not a scholarly forum and there is no way to know if people who
do a lot of quoting, understand anything themselves. I was curious what
JR thought in his own words. And would not press him too much how he
arrived at his view.
--
dorayme- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote:b74d9f492a]
Without defining what we mean when we say God, I do not know how we
can argue for or against. Cause, the mover, the thing before the
beginning, is a mystery and therefore will remain in debate. We know
more but we do not know all. Maybe we cannot know all. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:37 pm
|
|