Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Societal Sadomasochism

  1. #1

    Lightbulb Societal Sadomasochism

    *The* great age-old social problem that has faced mankind, and still very much does, is that most people do not love themselves, but instead actually hate themselves. Human beings tend to be extreme gluttons for punishment. This can unmistakably be seen in the extreme systems of mass-horror that humans continuously construct for themselves. It's not as if we don't have essentially the entirety of civilizational human history that pointedly warns against such social systems, yet humans are utterly fascinated and enchanted by them, like moths to a flame. Obviously these systems of mass-horror are serving some deep-seated need within the human psyche.

    Now, of course, this is not a conscious realization for most people, but rather is a psychological imperative which they are subconsciously controlled by. This has to due with evolutionary psychology, particularly after the Neolithic Revolution and the breakdown of the bicameral mind discussed by psychologist Julian Jaynes in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1976). It was the widespread belief among the ancients circa three millennia ago and before that they actually directly interacted with the gods. Jaynes's crucial insight was that before the breakdown of the bicameral mind around said era, during the evolution of humans out of an animalistic mental state, that humans were not actually conscious, but rather had no choice but to obey the commands of the gods, of which gods were actually one part of the brain communicating with a different part--the sensate, action-response part--via human language that would be heard as actual voices. In other words, our ancestors of circa that era and before were an especially extreme form of schizophrenics.

    I haven't heard supporters of Jaynes mention this as an item in Jaynes's favor before, but muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists, such as scopolamine, provide strong evidence for Jaynes's theory--indeed, perhaps the strongest, since it makes the voice-command state Jaynes wrote about completely reproducible. Sociologist Lloyd deMause's work on psychohistory also fits well the Jaynes theory.

    Jaynes's theory is also reinforced by Artificial Intelligence researcher Marvin Minsky's concept of the Society of Mind (see Marvin Minsky, illustrations by Juliana Lee, The Society of Mind [New York: Touchstone, 1988; 1st ed., 1986]). And both Jaynes and Minsky's ideas on this are restatements and elaborations on Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39 involving the Messiah's interaction with a demon-possessed man. When Jesus asked the demon what its name was, the entity replied, "My name is Legion; for we are many." Indeed there are a host of these entities within us all. It's amazing to think that the key to cracking the code of Artificial General Intelligence was given some 2000 years ago within these passages.

    The Jaynesian demons can be usefully defined as those subset of Minskian agents which impel people to untowardness, e.g., self-destruction and social destruction.

    What a demon is in actuality is a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. Demons are utterly real, but they exist in the exact same ontological manner which the human mind exists, as the human mind is itself a particular type of computer-program operating on the wet-computer of the human brain. The demons are the destructive subsets of the human mind. Science has identified the spiritual realm, and it is the living brain--the living human brain in particular, since that brain is the most complex at present. The spiritual realm exists!

    And it's not that these demons actually wish to end life's existence, i.e., that they impel humans toward suicide and social suicide. Mere nonexistence is not what they seek for us. The actual case of the matter is far, far worse than that. For what these demons actually seek is to send their host and everyone else to Hell for all eternity. The demons are infuriated that they do not have the same level of control they once had over their hosts, when they could issue what was perceived as voice-commands and the host had no choice but to obey--that they are not quite the gods they once were. Via the breakdown of the bicameral mind, the Jaynesian gods of old have more or less been relegated to Tartarus (see 2 Peter 2:4, Young's Literal Translation; Weymouth New Testament; or the note to this passage in the English Standard Version), though they still exercise great control over the subconscious mind and compel humans toward systems of extreme mass-horror.

    As I said, these demonic entities are utterly real--as real as any human being, as they ontologically exist in the sameself way as the essence of what a human being is, i.e., the human personality, i.e., the human mind. If one should ever doubt the real existence of these entities, then there are psychological techniques one can use to summon them, such as Astral Projection, as what often follows attempts at Astral Projection is demon-visitation during episodes of sleep paralysis. And one's interaction with these entities can be perceived as being as real as interacting with any other person in external physical reality--nay, sometimes even more real. One can actually have sex with these entities, such as with the succubi and incubi--or what is perceived as such, seemingly every bit as real as sex with any human. Though I only recommend summoning these entities under conditions of actual scientific research, as they are not to be trifled with.

    In actuality, what elite occultism is is principally three-pronged: (1) methods of contacting these entities using various mental techniques, including coming into full possession by them; (2) getting people within important social control-sectors to engage in blackmailable behavior so as be able to control them for life; and (3) to provide a spiritual justification for extreme psychopathy. Esoterica at the top echelons is not hokum, but rather utterly practical methods of power. And the demons are outrageous liars who will present themselves as extraterrestrials, departed humans, spirit guides, etc.--though the clandestine scientific psychologists of the deep state, such as with Project MKULTRA, undoubtedly know what the actual ontological nature of these entities are.

    If most people actually were to love themselves, then essentially all the major social problems of the world would be solved, for then people would not tolerate improper impositions upon themselves; but rather seek freedom for themselves, and thus also for others, for one cannot be free while living in a slave-pit. Yet societies are continuously impelled into various hellpits by subconscious psychological forces whereof most people know not--by the demons lurking within them, whispering into their ear, promising Heaven but delivering Hell. World society is quite literally under demonic control, and the demons have nothing nice in store for anyone, let alone those who make a point of consciously summoning them for power.

    Here's a nice music video about the foregoing matters:


    * "SNOG - Everything Is Under Control", Richard Grant ( youtube.com/user/rgrant ), Mar. 19, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFaqsc4lNyk . Mirrors: MP4, 75509084 bytes, MD5: 20e8ea0ab2708bad5d8d1d5e29f41be0, https://wayback.archive.org/web/2016...er_Control.mp4 , https://openload.co/f/Z6QyytNiACQ/ .

    For more on what the above video by our good friends at Snog is about, consult the section "The New World Order: Government's Attempt at Autoapotheosis", pp. 87-98 of my following article, paying close attention to the footnotes, since much of the information on this is within said footnotes:

    * 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/ThePhys...ics-of-God.pdf , https://purl.org/redford/physics-of-god , https://sites.google.com/site/physic...ics-of-God.pdf .



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Nonsense with a little truth mixed in.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Nonsense with a little truth mixed in.
    Hi, Swordsmyth.

    Actually, it makes perfect sense. Indeed, it's the only explanation that makes any sense of the phenomena that I described, unless one posits that we already exist within a powerful computer simulation and the beings running the simulation are purposefully toying with us.

    The ancient alien hypothesis is low-grade B-movie science-fiction schlock which violates the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. A species powerful enough to cross stars--let alone galaxies--wouldn't come to Earth as humanoid creatures in ponderous starships, but rather would use extreme nanotechnology. If they were malicious and wanted to seize the Earth, they would fall to the ground as microscopic dust, infect our craniums, and we'd all be brain-dead before we hit the ground. It would be lights-out before any human even knew that anything had occurred.

    The interdimensional hypothesis--or equivalently, the external spiritual-realm hypothesis--also violates the aforementioned laws of physics. There is simply no way one one can derive the existence of these other dimensions or realms that support beings within them and which also allow these beings to interact with us per the above-described phenomena using the known physical laws.

    As I said, one can actually contact these entities if one should doubt their existence. So *something* quite real is going on here. The issue is what is the actual ontological nature of the phenomena. I gave the only explanation that actually matches all of the data; again, unless one posits the computer-simulation hypothesis--but that hypothesis has its own extreme failings.

    The Jaynesian solution is utterly counterintuitive, but it's the only one that actually matches all of the data. Again, science has identified the real spiritual realm. We've been focusing our eyeballs outside of ourselves for the answer, when the answer is behind our eyeballs. The solution has been behind our noses all along.
    Last edited by LexEtLibertas; 05-30-2018 at 08:39 AM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by LexEtLibertas View Post

    The interdimensional hypothesis--or equivalently, the external spiritual-realm hypothesis--also violates aforementioned laws of physics. There is simply no way one one can derive the existence of these other dimensions or realms that support beings within them and which also allow these beings to interact with us per the above-described phenomena using the known physical laws.
    Physics is never violated in this world. But it can be overruled by the Creator of Physics,, as it was purpose created for this Temporal plane of existence.
    The machine world was created by those that were created.. within this realm.

    But Druids of old had the same error.. They worshiped the creation more than the Creator.

    Don't fall into AI worship..

    and I do believe that trick will be tried.
    The second beast was permitted to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image would also speak and cause all who refused to worship it to be killed.
    Last edited by pcosmar; 05-30-2018 at 08:39 AM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Physics is never violated in this world. But it can be overruled by the Creator of Physics,, as it was purpose created for this Temporal plane of existence.
    The machine world was created by those that were created.. within this realm.

    But Druids of old had the same error.. They worshiped the creation more than the Creator.

    Don't fall into AI worship..

    and I do believe that trick will be tried.
    Hi, Pcosmar. What you are proposing is actually a Christian heresy, known as the Gnostic heresy: that the Creation is debased and that there exists alongside it a loftier spiritual realm. Yet the New Testament is clear that the New Earth and the New Heavens are future events that are to take place in actual physical reality; that our actual physical reality will be radically transformed in order to create the spiritual Heaven. The known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) actually mathematically unavoidably produce God--or equivalently, God *is* simply physics itself, i.e., mathematics itself, i.e., logic itself, i.e., the Logos. Proposing more realms with their own unknown yet peculiar physics gives no explanatory power, but just serves to diminish the reality of God, for then we could willy-nilly propose physics for these realms which do not produce God (although, actually, this is not even logically possible, as explained farther below). If the known laws of physics--of which are infinite in their full description--unavoidably mathematically produce God and Heaven, what need is there for anything more? One cannot get more than what is logically and infinitely everything.

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

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

    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.

    For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:

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

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

    * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

    Further, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

    For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the foregoing July 30, 2013 resource.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by LexEtLibertas View Post
    Hi, Swordsmyth.

    Actually, it makes perfect sense. Indeed, it's the only explanation that makes any sense of the phenomena that I described, unless one posits that we already exist within a powerful computer simulation and the beings running the simulation are purposefully toying with us.

    The ancient alien hypothesis is low-grade B-movie science-fiction schlock which violates the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. A species powerful enough to cross stars--let alone galaxies--wouldn't come to Earth as humanoid creatures in ponderous starships, but rather would use extreme nanotechnology. If they were malicious and wanted to seize the Earth, they would fall to the ground as microscopic dust, infect our craniums, and we'd all be brain-dead before we hit the ground. It would be lights-out before any human even knew that anything had occurred.

    The interdimensional hypothesis--or equivalently, the external spiritual-realm hypothesis--also violates the aforementioned laws of physics. There is simply no way one one can derive the existence of these other dimensions or realms that support beings within them and which also allow these beings to interact with us per the above-described phenomena using the known physical laws.

    As I said, one can actually contact these entities if one should doubt their existence. So *something* quite real is going on here. The issue is what is the actual ontological nature of the phenomena. I gave the only explanation that actually matches all of the data; again, unless one posits the computer-simulation hypothesis--but that hypothesis has its own extreme failings.

    The Jaynesian solution is utterly counterintuitive, but it's the only one that actually matches all of the data. Again, science has identified the real spiritual realm. We've been focusing our eyeballs outside of ourselves for the answer, when the answer is behind our eyeballs. The solution has been behind our noses all along.
    The great conceit of scientists to claim that they "know" things is utterly laughable considering how many times they have had to revise their theories.
    To say that GOD and Heaven or the devil and hell don't exist or that they can't do some particular thing because it would violate rules created by men with a limited and imperfect understanding of the universe is highly unscientific.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #7

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The great conceit of scientists to claim that they "know" things is utterly laughable considering how many times they have had to revise their theories.
    To say that GOD and Heaven or the devil and hell don't exist or that they can't do some particular thing because it would violate rules created by men with a limited and imperfect understanding of the universe is highly unscientific.
    Hi, Swordsmyth. What you are proposing is yet another Christian heresy. Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God (NKJV):

    ""
    because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ...
    ""

    You are proposing to substitute God's laws for your own or other people's a priori desires as to how the world should be, an epistemological methodology that was the basis of Aristotelianism. You are in effect saying that you know better than God how the world actually works, and that God's laws aren't good enough--that God doesn't know what He is doing. Yet as Paul quite clearly points out in his rebuke of that position, even God's transcendent invisible and eternal attributes can be known by a study of physical reality. After all, the laws of nature are God's laws. In studying God's laws, one is necessarily studying the intellect of God.

    Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient.

    As well, your statements are a misunderstanding of modern physics. The known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) have been confirmed by every experiment ever conducted. There has never been a revision to them. And they have always mathematically unavoidably produced God.

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

    In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

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

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

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

    Furthermore, the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. Hence, we have never left the realm of Newton's physics. And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. For that, see the following resource:

    * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

    Moreover, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

    For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the foregoing July 30, 2013 resource.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by LexEtLibertas View Post
    Hi, Swordsmyth. What you are proposing is yet another Christian heresy. Paul appealed to reason when he wrote in Romans 1:19,20 that an understanding of the natural world leads to knowledge of God (NKJV):

    ""
    because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ...
    ""

    You are proposing to substitute God's laws for your own or other people's a priori desires as to how the world should be, an epistemological methodology that was the basis of Aristotelianism. You are in effect saying that you know better than God how the world actually works, and that God's laws aren't good enough--that God doesn't know what He is doing. Yet as Paul quite clearly points out in his rebuke of that position, even God's transcendent invisible and eternal attributes can be known by a study of physical reality. After all, the laws of nature are God's laws. In studying God's laws, one is necessarily studying the intellect of God.

    Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient.

    As well, your statements are a misunderstanding of modern physics. The known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) have been confirmed by every experiment ever conducted. There has never been a revision to them. And they have always mathematically unavoidably produced God.

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

    In Prof. Stephen Hawking's book coauthored with physicist Dr. Leonard Mlodinow and published in 2010, Hawking uses the String Theory extension M-Theory to argue that God's existence isn't necessary, although M-Theory has no observational evidence confirming it.

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

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

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

    Furthermore, the fundamental physics of today are simply more specific subsets of Newtonian mechanics, i.e., Newtonian mechanics with specific constrains put on it in order to make it consistent with observations and to make its resulting subsets mutually mathematically consistent with each other. Hence, we have never left the realm of Newton's physics. And all the forces in physics are now described and made mutually consistent with the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. For that, see the following resource:

    * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

    Moreover, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

    For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the foregoing July 30, 2013 resource.
    You seem to misunderstand me, my point is that we do not perfectly understand the rules of the universe because GOD hasn't given them to us trough revelation, men have reasoned them out as best they can but they constantly need to revise them, even if we take the "laws" of thermodynamics as perfect (an assumption) it is still possible for the traditional ideas of GOD and Heaven and the devil and hell to co-exist with them without violating them.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by LexEtLibertas View Post
    Hi, Pcosmar. What you are proposing is actually a Christian heresy,
    No I pointed out Pagan Heresy. One that the church absorbs.
    and that is worshiping Creation more than the Creator.

    The rest of your theorem I find to be gobbledygook with basis in neither scripture nor the observable world.

    You sound like a turing machine trying to explain God..
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You seem to misunderstand me, my point is that we do not perfectly understand the rules of the universe because GOD hasn't given them to us trough revelation, men have reasoned them out as best they can but they constantly need to revise them, even if we take the "laws" of thermodynamics as perfect (an assumption) it is still possible for the traditional ideas of GOD and Heaven and the devil and hell to co-exist with them without violating them.
    Then rejoice. Modern science, particularly in the form of physics, is proving traditional Christianity true. Regarding how the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) in the form of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology uniquely conform to, and precisely match, Christian theology:

    The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional quidditative definitions (i.e., haecceities) of God held by almost all of the world's leading religions. Hence, by definition, the Omega Point is God.

    The Omega Point final singularity is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause, a definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions.

    As well, as Stephen Hawking proved, the singularity is not in spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time (see S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973], pp. 217-221).

    The Schmidt b-boundary has been shown to yield a topology in which the cosmological singularity is not Hausdorff separated from the points in spacetime, meaning that it is not possible to put an open set of points between the cosmological singularity and *any* point in spacetime proper. That is, the cosmological singularity has infinite nearness to every point in spacetime.

    So the Omega Point is transcendent to, yet immanent in, space and time. Because the cosmological singularity exists outside of space and time, it is eternal, as time has no application to it.

    Quite literally, the cosmological singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

    And given an infinite amount of computational resources, per the Bekenstein Bound, recreating the exact quantum state of our present universe is trivial, requiring at most a mere 10^123 bits (the number which Roger Penrose calculated), or at most a mere 2^10^123 bits for every different quantum configuration of the universe logically possible (i.e., the powerset, of which the multiverse in its entirety at this point in universal history is a subset of this powerset). So the Omega Point will be able to resurrect us using merely an infinitesimally small amount of total computational resources: indeed, the multiversal resurrection will occur between 10^-10^10 and 10^-10^123 seconds before the Omega Point is reached, as the computational capacity of the universe at that stage will be great enough that doing so will require only a trivial amount of total computational resources.

    Miracles are allowed by the known laws of physics using baryon annihilation, and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model of particle physics, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved) caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. If the miracles of Jesus Christ were necessary in order for the universe to evolve into the Omega Point, and if the known laws of physics are correct, then the probability of those miracles occurring is certain.

    Additionally, the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse.

    Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

    For much more on the above, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following two 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/ThePhys...ics-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?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk@4ax.com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ro/KQWt4KcpMVo , https://archive.is/a04w9 , https://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS .

    And as said, one can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they were not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves, or beings on an even lower level of implementation, would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

    For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional (or higher) world with self-aware beings in it, see the foregoing July 30, 2013 resource.



Similar Threads

  1. Societal Development & Civil Advancement
    By Bryan in forum Foundational Knowledgebase Project
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-19-2016, 12:17 PM
  2. NASA: Redistribute Wealth or Face Societal Collapse
    By green73 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-19-2014, 04:24 PM
  3. Harvard's New Sadomasochism Club
    By presence in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-02-2012, 10:51 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-16-2011, 10:27 PM
  5. Chuck Baldwin: America Is In A Societal Meltdown
    By FrankRep in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 03:51 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •