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

On 2/21/2024 9:20 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 07:56:46 -0600, Dawn Flood
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/13/2024 12:06 PM, James Redford wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:59:05 -0000 (UTC), Dawn Flood
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/13/24 12:02 AM, James Redford wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 21:56:22 -0600, Dawn Flood
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/12/2024 3:37 PM, James Redford wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 11:54:58 -0800 (PST), JWS <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 12:32:45?PM UTC-6, James Redford wrote:
>>>>>>>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems
>>>>>>>> Do any of the so-called theorems point out
>>>>>>>> which curvature foliation of hypersurfaces
>>>>>>>> this supposed "god thing" is hiding within?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I stated in my originating post of this thread:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ""
>>>>>>> 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 .
>>>>>>> ""
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James Redford
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Author 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mr. Redford,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is a "singularity"?  My understanding is that singularities in the
>>>>>> real world do not exist, as they would be "points" of finite mass in a
>>>>>> zero volume of space.  As such, they are of infinite density, which is a
>>>>>> physical impossibility.  And, so, how could any singularity theorems
>>>>>> possible lead one to conclude that there is a God.  Seems to me that the
>>>>>> singularity theorems of Professor Penrose, Hawking, et al., are
>>>>>> indicative of new physics beyond General Relativity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dawn
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, Dawn. Your above questions are answered in my following articles
>>>>> cited in my originating post of this thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> * 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 .
>>>>>
>>>>> * 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 .
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> James Redford
>>>>>
>>>>> Author 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
>>>>
>>>> Why the Way Back Machine?  Can't you find a host server and create a live
>>>> web page??
>>>>
>>>> In any case, you're missing my point or refusing to address it.  A
>>>> "singularity" is an actual infinite.  How does a singularity transition
>>>> from an infinite density to a finite density??
>>>>
>>>> Please explain that, and I'll take the time to read your links.
>>>>
>>>> Dawn
>>>
>>> See above.
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>
>>> James Redford
>>>
>>> Author 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
>>
>> Yeah, you can't answer it, can you?  What is a singularity:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
>>
>> "Gravitational singularities are mainly considered in the context of
>> general relativity, where density would become infinite at the center of
>> a black hole without corrections from quantum mechanics, and within
>> astrophysics and cosmology as the earliest state of the universe during
>> the Big Bang. Physicists are undecided whether the prediction of
>> singularities means that they actually exist (or existed at the start of
>> the Big Bang), or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe
>> what happens at such extreme densities."
>>
>> Dawn
> 
> If one is willing to violate the known laws of physics, one can derive
> any fanciful physical results one desires, such as with physicist
> Prof. Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology, which violates
> Quantum Mechanics. As I pointed out in my originating post of this
> thread:
> 
> 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:
> 
> * James Redford, "Societal Sadomasochism", Social Science Research
> Network (SSRN), July 4, 2021 (orig. pub. May 29, 2018), 4 pp.,
> doi:10.2139/ssrn.4500656,
> https://megalodon.jp/2023-0720-0523-07/archive.org/download/Societal-Sadomasochism/Redford-Societal-Sadomasochism.pdf
> ,
> https://archive.org/download/Societal-Sadomasochism/Redford-Societal-Sadomasochism.pdf
> , https://www.freezepage.com/1689798200YQSGMQCYTZ .
> 
> * * * * *
> 
> Regarding your question on singularities and density: your struggle is
> with logic itself. But to humor you, this is how (in FriCAS notation):
> 
> limit(1/x, x=0) = [leftHandLimit = - infinity, rightHandLimit =  +
> infinity]
> 
> That is, going backward in time toward the singularity, the density of
> the universe goes to infinity. Hence, coming out of that singularity,
> going forward in time, the universe comes from a state of infinite
> density (which is the actual singularity) and goes to states of lesser
> density as the universe expands.
> 

Hi Jamie,

Assuming that a "something" exists that is truly infinite, how does that 
"something" go from being infinite to being finite?  In particular, what 
is the transition like between the boundary of infinite & finite?

Also, any consideration that maybe a better model of reality can be 
found someday, one without infinite singularities?

Dawn