The Varieties of Crackpot Experience

Frank Tipler is a crackpot. At one point in his life, he did very good technical work in general relativity; he was the first to prove theorems that closed timelike curves could not be constructed in local regions of spacetime without either violating the weak energy condition or creating a singularity. But alas, since then he has pretty much gone off the deep end, and more recently has become known for arguments for Christianity based on fundamental physics. If you closely at those arguments (h/t wolfgang), you find things like this:

If life is to guide the entire universe, it must be co-extensive with the entire universe. We can say that life must have become OMNIPRESENT in the universe by the end of time. But the very act of guiding the universe to eliminate event horizons – an infinite number of nudges – causes the entropy and hence the complexity of the universe to increase without limit. Therefore, if life is to continue guiding the universe – which it must, if the laws of physics are to remain consistent – then the knowledge of the universe possessed by life must also increase without limit, becoming both perfect and infinite at the final singularity. Life must become OMNISCIENT at the final singularity. The collapse of the universe will have provided available energy, which goes to infinity as the final singularity is approached, and this available energy will have become entirely under life’s control. The rate of use of this available energy – power – will diverge to infinity as the final singularity is approached. In other words, life at the final singularity will have become OMNIPOTENT. The final singularity is not in time but outside of time. On the boundary of space and time, as described in detail by Hawking and Ellis [6]. So we can say that the final singularity – the Omega Point – is TRANSCENDANT to space, time and matter.

All of the signs of classic crackpottery are present; the vague and misplaced appeal to technical terminology, the spelling mistakes and capital letters, the random use of “must” and “therefore” when no actual argument has been given. Two paragraphs later, we get:

Science is not restricted merely to describing only what happens inside the material universe, any more than science is restricted to describing events below the orbit of the Moon, as claimed by the opponents of Galileo. Like Galileo, I am convinced that the only scientific approach is to assume that the laws of terrestrial physics hold everywhere and without exception – unless and until an experiment shows that these laws have a limited range of application.

Compares self with Galileo! 40 points! There is really no indication that the person who wrote this was once writing perfectly sensible scientific papers.

Perhaps you will not be surprised to find that Tipler has now jumped into global-warming denialism. In just a few short paragraphs, we are treated to the following gems of insight (helpfully paraphrased):

People say that anthropogenic global warming is now firmly established, but that’s what they said about Ptolemaic astronomy! Therefore, I am like Copernicus.

A scientific theory is only truly scientific if it makes predictions “that the average person can check for himself.” (Not making this up.)

You know what causes global warming? Sunspots!

Sure, you can see data published that makes it look like the globe actually is warming. But that data is probably just fabricated. It snowed here last week!

If the government stopped funding science entirely, we wouldn’t have these problems.

You know who I remind myself of? Galileo.

Stillman Drake, the world’s leading Galileo scholar, demonstrates in his book “Galileo: A Very Short Introduction” (Oxford University Press, 2001) that it was not theologians, but rather his fellow physicists (then called “natural philosophers”), who manipulated the Inquisition into trying and convicting Galileo. The “out-of-the-mainsteam” Galileo had the gall to prove the consensus view, the Aristotlean theory, wrong by devising simple experiments that anyone could do. Galileo’s fellow scientists first tried to refute him by argument from authority. They failed. Then these “scientists” tried calling Galileo names, but this made no impression on the average person, who could see with his own eyes that Galileo was right. Finally, Galileo’s fellow “scientists” called in the Inquisition to silence him.

One could go on, but what’s the point? Well, perhaps there are two points worth making.

First, Frank Tipler is probably very “intelligent” by any of the standard measures of IQ and so forth. In science, we tend to valorize (to the point of fetishizing) a certain kind of ability to abstractly manipulate symbols and concepts — related to, although not exactly the same as, the cult of genius. (It’s not just being smart that is valorized, but a certain kind of smart.) The truth is, such an ability is great, but tends to be completely uncorrelated with other useful qualities like intellectual honesty and good judgment. People don’t become crackpots because they’re stupid; they become crackpots because they turn their smarts to crazy purposes.

Second, the superficially disconnected forms of crackpottery that lead on the one hand to proving Christianity using general relativity, and on the other to denying global warming, clearly emerge from a common source. The technique is to first decide what one wants to be true, and then come up with arguments that support it. This is a technique that can be used by anybody, for any purpose, and it’s why appeals to authority aren’t to be trusted, no matter how “intelligent” that authority seems to be.

Tipler isn’t completely crazy to want “average people” to be able to check claims for themselves. He’s mostly crazy, as by that standard we wouldn’t have much reason to believe in either general relativity or the Standard Model of particle physics, since the experimental tests relevant to those theories are pretty much out of reach for the average person. But the average person should be acquainted with the broad outlines of the scientific method and empirical reasoning, at least enough so that they try to separate crackpots from respectable scientists. Because nobody ever chooses to describe themselves as a crackpot. If you ask them, they’ll always explain that they are on the side of Galileo; and if you don’t agree, you’re no better than the Inquisition.

109 Comments

109 thoughts on “The Varieties of Crackpot Experience”

  1. Self-Confessed Crackpot

    Sean wrote :

    “Because nobody ever chooses to describe themselves as a crackpot. If you ask them, they’ll always explain that they are on the side of Galileo; and if you don’t agree, you’re no better than the Inquisition.”

    Hang on a min! I’ll confess to being a crackpot at times! 😉

    Just for a laugh … 😉

    A bit of satire / parody can entertain & never hurt anyone ..well, okay almost never! 😉

    Seriously though, we’re all fallible humans.

    Logic is a mental tool like math – and bothcan actuially mislead us -Logic can prove a lot but if the premise are false (or the actors illogical) then the conclusions will be inaccurate too.

    Logic can be used to prove almost anything; eg. 1 + 1 = 11 or one or zero (Hey, place 1 right next to 1 and you have the numeral eleven, add one cat to one mouse & you have one – albeit fatter – cat left, add one particle of anti-matter to one particle of matter and BOOM! y’have nothing ..) 😉

    There’s a few generalisations there but there pretty well founded.

    Don’t know where I’d rate on the crackpot scale – that’d be a nice addition to the ole points of crackpottery scale. Example :

    1-10 points : you’re not much of a crackpot! (But you have your moments)

    10-20 points : Hmm.. be careful you’re starting toverge on crackpot territory

    20-30 points : Borderline crackpot

    30-40 points : CRACKPOT!

    40-50 points : Major Raving Loony crackpot (Creationist / Flying Saucerist?)

    50-60 points : Moonbat flavoured Fruitcake!

    60-70 points : Aren’t you in a straitjacket yet?

    70-80 points : .. Because seriously now you need to be!

    90-100 points : Pottery not merely cracked but shattered into tiny splinters and scattered to the winds!

    100 + Congratulations you’re officially brain-dead. Go straight
    to your next re-incarnation, hope you get a brain in your next life! 😉

  2. Self-Confessed Crackpot

    Oh yeah if I’m not too being too immodest – feel free to add that ‘un to the points system linked here! 😉

  3. I wrote an undergraduate dissertation on Frank Tipler’s Omega Point theory back in 1989, and it’s truly remarkable that he’s continued to squeeze as much as he can out of that one idea for the next 20 years. The theory was first published in the proceedings of the 1988 Philosophy of Science Association Biennial Meeting.

    I also notice that James Redford makes something of a habit of long posts in defence of Professor Tipler, one such example occurring on my own blog a year or so ago:

    http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2007/05/physics-of-christianity.html

  4. I think that the problem is that whenever you try to offer an explaination of all of the reality we perceive, any theory that you come up with that includes an attempt to explain conscious subjective experience is almost by definition going to sound crazy (Chalmers: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html).

    I’m very willing to believe that human behavior can be explained via the computational powers of the physical brain. The only problem is that I haven’t seen a plausible explanation of how the physical brain, made up of inanimate particles, can produce conscious subjective experience. And that’s really a big problem, since conscious subjective experience is the part of reality that is closest and most real to us. So if a theory of reality doesn’t explain that, then that theory has a rather large hole in it.

    The only sane sounding approach is to deny that we have subjective experience, or to say that it is not what we think it is, that it is actually an illusion (e.g. Dennett). But the illusion of consciousness is still consciousness. So then the problem is explaining how a mechanistic bio-bot can have the illusion of subjective feeling (Chalmers: http://consc.net/papers/moving.html). But, any other approach leaves you sounding like a crackpot…

  5. Pingback: This Site Has Always Been Up Starlinks | Mike Brotherton: SF Writer

  6. Hello Allen, and thanks for visiting my blog too. Well, look (as O says): it is not sane to deny that we have subjective experience, it is literally pathological. Our experience is what our existence literally consists of, it is what the world shows itself “through.” How can someone pinch him or herself and not admit, there is this funny “something” that bothers me that is not given to me as numbers, as calculation? We aren’t mechanistic anyway, look at the weird way the universe works: how can a structureless particle like a muon decay at all with no mechanism to mark time, and worse: some decay at different spans than others. The universe doesn’t owe us, least of all logic grease monkeys, to make sense on our terms. It is just that weird way, and honest people (like Chalmers) will admit it.

    Reread my comment at January 7th, 2009 at 11:48 am about the limitations of AI – it isn’t just “conscious experience” that such a mind couldn’t conceive of, it’s substantive reality!

  7. Pingback: Astrology | 2012xFactor

  8. Pingback: 11 January 2009 « blueollie

  9. They have a name for this Omega Point idea in classical philosophy. It’s Pantheism, and it is heresy for all monotheists. If you like your matter sprinkled with good and evil at the subatomic level, then you might be more comfortable with Zoroastrianism than Christianity.

    Personally, I worship Shroedinger’s cat. No I don’t.

  10. YO, `Stand’ & Mike Brotherton: You have Frank confused with Paul Tipler, who did write some very successful undergrad physics texts.
    Talk about a polarizing topic…I have known about Frank Tipler for sometime now, and was saddened to see such a distinguished relativist become a godster….similar to Don Page. Talk about a Connecticut yankee in King Arthur’s court. I suspect he has suffered alot since his Physics of Immortality came out. No need to pile on poor ostracized Prof. Tipler.
    SU(2) as CMB ?…C’mon.

  11. Winter Solstice Man

    Tipler is from the Deep South – Andalusia, Alabama, to be exact – so this would explain his obsession with xianity right through his physics.

    Anyone who says I am stereotyping has never actually visited the South, or even America in general for that matter. Churches and religious fanatics abound everywhere. Oh there is plenty of religious freedom – so long as you are some mainstream variation of Christianity.

    Tipler is just doing his best to force his religious views on the rest of us through the guise of being a tenured physics professor.

    At least Tielhard de Chardain had a real excuse for his original version of the Omega Point: He was a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest first and foremost.

  12. This crack pot is coming to my school, a small liberal arts college, to give a lecture on “The Physics of Christianity” pretty soon. Even worse, he’ll be doing it in the science hall, as if he’s got anything actually scientific to say. I don’t know whether I should write a letter to the physics department/president of the school or just wait until the lecture and grill him in the Q and A (I have a slight fear that he may skip that portion though; I wouldn’t be surprised from someone shilling complete hogwash).

    Does anyone have some suggestions on what action I should take?

  13. Gordon McCabe, you are incorrect in your statement at position January 10th, 2009 at 3:52 pm regarding Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point Theory being “first published in the proceedings of the 1988 Philosophy of Science Association Biennial Meeting.” In actuality, the Omega Point Theory was first published in 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.

    For much more documentation on this, see:

    Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://geocities.com/theophysics/

  14. Dallas, in answer to your query, yes, here are the actions you take: begin by studying in-depth Prof. Tiplers Omega Point Theory. Since the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date), and hence to reject empirical science, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect. Indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point Theory.

    From this study, you will be in a better position to inform others as to the iron-clad (according to the known laws of physics) veridicality of the Omega Point Theory.

    A great place to begin your study is the below paper (see also the Theophysics website previously linked to above):

    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.

    Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler’s above 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 website.)

    Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain’s main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal’s impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (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.)

    Also keep in mind that Prof. Tipler’s foregoing paper details the correct quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) properly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, so in addition to proving the existence of God (according to the known laws of physics), it’s a very important paper even without that, to say the least.

    For more prefatory material describing these matters, see my above post at position January 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am.

  15. James Redford, people that have little to say often use up a lot of words to not say it with. Would it be possible for you to take the time to write less? More words doesn’t make anything more true.

    Oh, and “[…] in addition to proving the existence of God (according to the known laws of physics) […]”… Heh. Heh heh. You jest, yes?

  16. I dipped into Tipler’s Physics of Immortality and like everyone else thought it was utter balderdash. But I am not impressed by the ad hominem arguments against Tipler’s views on global warming. I haven’t read Tipler’s original piece but even despite Sean’s crudely sarcastic paraphrase you can discern the outline of a perfectly sensible argument. This is that the gold standard for settled science (especially in the physical sciences) is confirmation through verified predictions, not consensus amongst experts, or post hoc explanation. And the expected confirmation has not yet come for climate models presuming high CO2 sensitivity. None of them predicted what Hadley and the others are now observing – a dip in the smoothed long term average global temperature measurements. See http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    Even if Tipler had no credentials at all as a physicist he would still deserve the courtesy of having his views represented accurately and fairly.

  17. Global Warming was real. Anthropomorphic global warming of any consequence is likely a hoax, perpetuated by many scientists and statisticians playing well outside of their respective fields. Herd mentality, as so often prevails in scientific circles. Other than that I concur.

  18. Hi, Caligula. Why would you even bother responding with such a post? (That is, your post at position January 17th, 2009 at 6:56 am.) What is so difficult about you reading for yourself an article published in the Institute of Physics’ Reports on Progress in Physics, of which 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)?

    Some people act as if I’m asking them to sacrifice to Molech their first-born child, and those people are supposed “atheists.” Get ahold of yourself already. Think rationally: if God and eternal life don’t exist, then you have nothing to lose by reading this verboten text published by one of the world’s leading physics journals, and of which text received the highest praise by the referees (to here quote again):

    Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler’s above 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 website.)

    Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain’s main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal’s impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (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.)

    So in answer to your rhetorical question, Caligula: do I jest? I jest about a lot of things. One of the things I jape about is the irrational superstition of those who call themselves atheists. A superstition so strong that it keeps them from even honestly considering that God exists and that there’s a completely rational explanation for God’s existence. But no, I’m not being jocular about God having been proven to exist according to the known laws of physics. Since the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date), and hence to reject empirical science, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect. Indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point Theory.

    Rationality is my only God. All else is error and destruction.

    Unfortunately, often those who style themselves as atheists come to that position out of what they legitimately view as irrationalist strains within the religionism they see being practiced. So they’re clever enough to figure out that religion, as it is often practiced, is a sham, yet they err in cutting off their inquery at that point.

    That is, they’re not interested in what Jesus (whether he be a man who lived or some fiction of a conspiracy) said, but simply interested in finding fault in anything connected to this position which they hate. That Jesus could literally be their greatest ally hadn’t occurred to them. If one actually bothers to conduct a comprehensive survey (as I have done) of Jesus’s words and actions, then one finds that no more rational person has walked the Earth before or since Jesus (at least given what history records). And that by far.

    Humanity is still at a barbaric level compared to the morality preached by Jesus Christ. But then, the morality of Jesus Christ is the morality of the future. It is the morality of the ultimate technology: God. Because of that, the Christic ethic of the Golden Rule, or as a corollary, each to their own, cannot become popular now, due to humanity’s infatuation with the false God of statism, of which is a substitute-God and a substitute-parent. But if the state be a parent, then it is Saturn: the god who eats his own children.

    Humanity will once again needlessly have to go through the meat-grinder. It will be more bloody this time than in the past, which is saying quite a lot. Again, all of it needlessly. None of this has to happen. But it will, because most people hate truth above all else. Truth is the most hated thing upon the Earth.

  19. Hello, James Redford. QED, although you really didn’t need to provide *quite* that much evidence in your post at January 23rd, 2009 at 4:17 am.

    What makes you think my question was rhetorical? (Now *that* question is rhetorical, because I have better things to do with my time than wade through your walls of text to find the few sentences to which it could be reduced.)

    You may think I’m just being unnecessarily mean, but seriously: WRITE LESS. Focus. Stay on-topic. You may not be the utter loon you appear to be, but you’re certainly not doing yourself any favors.

    And don’t make unwarranted assumptions about what people have, and have not, read or studied. I *earned* my Interpreter’s Bible *and* my physics knowledge. I’m not calling you a loon *just* because you type too much.

    > Rationality is my only God.

    Whahuh? (Also rhetorical.)

  20. Hi, Caligula. So if your prior tergiversations weren’t rhetorical, then they were out of cowardice. At any rate, whatever your motivations are, you are still tergiversating, since the most direct response to another person whom one disagrees with is to state what is factually wrong with their position, which you have now repeatedly avoided doing.

    The reason you have repeatedly avoided specifying what is actually in error with Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point Theory is because there is nothing wrong with it, at least going by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics). And since the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date), and hence to reject empirical science, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect. Indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point Theory (as you have amply demonstrated).

    Regarding the “Interpreter’s Bible” which you say you earned, that sounds swell. I’m glad to hear that, as that suggests that you may be ready to raise yourself to the next level. For the crown to your theological (and moral, and political) edification, see my following article:

    James Redford, “Jesus Is an Anarchist,” revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (first published on December 19, 2001) http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

    Pertaining to your question of “Whahuh?” (which you state is “Also rhetorical”) in response to my statement that “Rationality is my only God,” I’ll go ahead and explain that to you because it’s obvious that you’re at least somewhat curious even given your disclaimer to rhetoricalness, since if you were completely incurious then there would have existed no motivation on your part to even respond with a question (however rhetorical).

    God (i.e., the Omega Point, to use the physicists’ technical terminology) is the most rational state obtainable. It is the state of infinite informational content (i.e., an infinite number of bits of information). At the moment the Omega Point is reached, all fallacies which are logically possible to refute will have been refuted, and all veridical knowledge which is logically possible to be known will be accepted. The Omega Point is the most rational state logically conceivable.

    As well, the Omega Point is the most pleasurable state logically conceivable, and infinitely so. The reason is because conscious actors unavoidably seek out what they anticipate will be a more pleasurable state for themselves. (This also applies to people who sacrifice themselves to save another, for in that case they prefer the outcome of saving another to maintaining their own lives. Of course, they may fail, due to their expectations not being in conformance with reality, but such failures don’t apply to a perfected consciousness, of which has rooted out all error which is possible to root out.)

    Since love feels good, love will be a prominent feature of the Omega Point. Indeed, infinitely so.

    Interestingly enough, since sex feels good (when it is conducted via rational means, i.e., love–rather than violence or shame), the Omega Point will also be the most highly sexualized state conceivable.

    Judgement is something we do to ourselves. We are inherently a part of this stream of information-processing, and cannot be abstracted from it. Hence, we each contain within ourselves knowledge of what is inherently good, even though it has been debased to a great degree in many (largly due to government and its intellectual bodyguards, which includes the enforced miseducation system and the mainline churches). But however debased it is in our Earthly lives, upon death it presents itself in full force. This Truth is the light at the end of the tunnel. One can only approach said light if one is willing to accept truth. This includes the truth of all one has done in one’s life. So for a murderer, truth would literally hurt, since if he comes toward the light he must experience the reality his victims experienced from their own point of view, including all the pain with it.

    Hence, many upon death flee from the light, as they regard it as evil due to it being a source of pain. But then, such is also the case with life, even quite apart from cases of murder, as that example was merely given to present it in stark terms.

    So “hell” (even, or especially, on Earth) is simply the resultant product of refusing to accept truth (although “hell” is a pagan concept which isn’t found in the original languages of the Bible). In death, the farther one flees from the light the further one is steeped in error, and hence the harder it will be for one to realize what is necessary in order to save oneself (i.e., extricate oneself from the unpleasurable predicament). But then, so also is the case with life.

    If one is interested in the biblical exposition of the above process, then see John 3:19-21. See also John 14:6, wherein Jesus defines himself as a synonym for truth, and points out that one cannot reach God except via truth. Of course, see also my “Jesus Is an Anarchist” article referenced above in this post, of which pertains to the political and social ethics of God.

  21. @James Redford: Here’s a challenge for you. Respond to a post in under two paragraphs.

    > I’m glad to hear that, as that suggests that you may be ready to raise yourself to the next level.

    You’re condescending as well. Neat.

    > […] So “hell” (even, or especially, on Earth) is simply the resultant product of refusing to accept truth (although “hell” is a pagan concept which isn’t found in the original languages of the Bible). […]

    Almost none of your wall of text is relevant at *all* to anything I said.

    > Pertaining to your question of “Whahuh?” (which you state is “Also rhetorical”) in response to my statement that “Rationality is my only God,” I’ll go ahead and explain that to you because it’s obvious that you’re at least somewhat curious even given your disclaimer to rhetoricalness, since if you were completely incurious then there would have existed no motivation on your part to even respond with a question (however rhetorical).

    I’ll paraphrase, as an example: “I don’t believe you understand what ‘rhetorical’ means, so I’ll answer anyway.” You are, however, incorrect. I can think (and express) my opinion that you’re a loon without *any* desire to hear more of it.

    You *so* don’t get it. I haven’t addressed anything about the Omega Point because I don’t care to debate anything factual with you. I have addressed *you* as a person and as a writer. You write too much and say too little. This puts you squarely in the realm of the varieties of crackpot experience. I’m telling you as a well-read, intelligent, interested observer: you’re not doing yourself any favors, and don’t seem to be able to stop yourself.

  22. > For the crown to your theological (and moral, and political) edification, see my following article:

    *That* is the “crown” of my personal theological, political, and moral edification?! (Rhetorical. Seriously. There is absolutely no curiosity on my part to your answer to that question. None whatsoever. I am utterly devoid of interest regarding your thoughts pertaining to the question. If I made a list of all the things I am interested in in even the tiniest amounts, your response to this would not be on it. Hopefully this clears up at least one item on the list of things you believe about me.)

  23. Hi, Caligula. It’s interesting to see your tergiversations. You’re not even passably good as B.S.ing, to use a colloquialism. Because of that, everything I said in my prior post applies now as it did then.

    It would be nice to hear from you an actual critique regarding factual matters, but apparently that requires from you a mental skill-level which you lack. And I doubt that you lack that due to some birth defect, but rather due to your psychological displeasure vis-à-vis a position which you hate, of which prevents you from thinking rationally on the matter.

    So as I said, if your prior tergiversations weren’t rhetorical, then they were out of cowardice. At any rate, whatever your motivations are, you are still tergiversating, since the most direct response to another person whom one disagrees with is to state what is factually wrong with their position, which you have now repeatedly avoided doing.

    The reason you have repeatedly avoided specifying what is actually in error with Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point Theory is because there is nothing wrong with it, at least going by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics). And since the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date), and hence to reject empirical science, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect. Indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point Theory (as you have amply demonstrated).

    Regarding the “Interpreter’s Bible” which you say you earned, that sounds swell. I’m glad to hear that, as that suggests that you may be ready to raise yourself to the next level. For the crown to your theological (and moral, and political) edification, see my following article:

    James Redford, “Jesus Is an Anarchist,” revised and expanded edition, June 1, 2006 (first published on December 19, 2001) http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

    Pertaining to your question of “Whahuh?” (which you state is “Also rhetorical”) in response to my statement that “Rationality is my only God,” I’ll go ahead and explain that to you because it’s obvious that you’re at least somewhat curious even given your disclaimer to rhetoricalness, since if you were completely incurious then there would have existed no motivation on your part to even respond with a question (however rhetorical).

    God (i.e., the Omega Point, to use the physicists’ technical terminology) is the most rational state obtainable. It is the state of infinite informational content (i.e., an infinite number of bits of information). At the moment the Omega Point is reached, all fallacies which are logically possible to refute will have been refuted, and all veridical knowledge which is logically possible to be known will be accepted. The Omega Point is the most rational state logically conceivable.

    As well, the Omega Point is the most pleasurable state logically conceivable, and infinitely so. The reason is because conscious actors unavoidably seek out what they anticipate will be a more pleasurable state for themselves. (This also applies to people who sacrifice themselves to save another, for in that case they prefer the outcome of saving another to maintaining their own lives. Of course, they may fail, due to their expectations not being in conformance with reality, but such failures don’t apply to a perfected consciousness, of which has rooted out all error which is possible to root out.)

    Since love feels good, love will be a prominent feature of the Omega Point. Indeed, infinitely so.

    Interestingly enough, since sex feels good (when it is conducted via rational means, i.e., love–rather than violence or shame), the Omega Point will also be the most highly sexualized state conceivable.

    Judgement is something we do to ourselves. We are inherently a part of this stream of information-processing, and cannot be abstracted from it. Hence, we each contain within ourselves knowledge of what is inherently good, even though it has been debased to a great degree in many (largly due to government and its intellectual bodyguards, which includes the enforced miseducation system and the mainline churches). But however debased it is in our Earthly lives, upon death it presents itself in full force. This Truth is the light at the end of the tunnel. One can only approach said light if one is willing to accept truth. This includes the truth of all one has done in one’s life. So for a murderer, truth would literally hurt, since if he comes toward the light he must experience the reality his victims experienced from their own point of view, including all the pain with it.

    Hence, many upon death flee from the light, as they regard it as evil due to it being a source of pain. But then, such is also the case with life, even quite apart from cases of murder, as that example was merely given to present it in stark terms.

    So “hell” (even, or especially, on Earth) is simply the resultant product of refusing to accept truth (although “hell” is a pagan concept which isn’t found in the original languages of the Bible). In death, the farther one flees from the light the further one is steeped in error, and hence the harder it will be for one to realize what is necessary in order to save oneself (i.e., extricate oneself from the unpleasurable predicament). But then, so also is the case with life.

    If one is interested in the biblical exposition of the above process, then see John 3:19-21. See also John 14:6, wherein Jesus defines himself as a synonym for truth, and points out that one cannot reach God except via truth. Of course, see also my “Jesus Is an Anarchist” article referenced above in this post, of which pertains to the political and social ethics of God.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top