The Omega-Point

  • Thread starter Thread starter freesoulhope
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

freesoulhope

Guest
It is my arguement that once you reach the sigularity (an Omega Point) the Laws of physics, that gorvens our cosmos, ceases to exist, and therefore fails to explain the universe’s existence on the basis of physics. If the Omega-Point is true, would this not, at the very least, serve as “indirect” proof that our reality is based upon something that transends the Laws of physics? If not, why Not?
And given the Omega-Point being true, can one honestly remain a naturalist, assuming that all things can be rudicibly explained (and understood), including the universe in its entirity, by the Laws of Physics?

Peace.
 
freesoulhope said:
It is my arguement that once you reach the sigularity (an Omega Point) the Laws of physics, that gorvens our cosmos, ceases to exist, and therefore fails to explain the universe’s existence on the basis of physics. If the Omega-Point is true, would this not, at the very least, serve as “indirect” proof that our reality is based upon something that transends the Laws of physics? If not, why Not?
And given the Omega-Point being true, can one honestly remain a naturalist (assuming that all things can be rudicible and understood, including the universe in its entirity, to the Laws of Physics?

Peace.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that a truely honest naturalist exists. Or maybe I should say not objective instead of not honest. Every thing they look at is through the lense of naturalism which is a distortion of reality. Saying they are not honest is the wong way to put it. It is as if they speak a different language that forces them to only see things in terms of naturalism. If naturalism is your faith you will reconcile everthing to it.

Most scientists today lack humility because they are the high priests of western society. Even Church leadership bows down to them on occation. With prayer for great humility and conversion of heart perhaps the Omega-Point could be seen as a reason for conversion to the naturalist.
 
freesoulhope said:
It is my arguement that once you reach the sigularity (an Omega Point) the Laws of physics, that gorvens our cosmos, ceases to exist, and therefore fails to explain the universe’s existence on the basis of physics. If the Omega-Point is true, would this not, at the very least, serve as “indirect” proof that our reality is based upon something that transends the Laws of physics? If not, why Not?
And given the Omega-Point being true, can one honestly remain a naturalist, assuming that all things can be rudicibly explained (and understood), including the universe in its entirity, by the Laws of Physics?

Peace.
Click to expand...
Materialists will retort with a “meta-physics”, or “sub-physics” which explains what happens “after” the omega-point is reached.

The very nature of materialism is infinite iteration upward and downward.

The materialist positions himself between two mutually reflecting mirrors.

This “illusion” describes everything there is to know about the materilist.
 
I think your premise is arguable. The Laws of physics could exist and perhaps must exist at the omega point in order to exist at all. The laws exist potentially in the singularity just as the universe that defines them exists potentially in the singularity.
 
I think what the OP has described is becoming a prominent thing in physics which would explain Hawkings switch to top-down cosmology theory.
 
Benadam said:
I think your premise is arguable. The Laws of physics could exist and perhaps must exist at the omega point in order to exist at all. The laws exist potentially in the singularity just as the universe that defines them exists potentially in the singularity.
Click to expand...
Unless they don’t.
 
freesoulhope said:
It is my arguement that once you reach the sigularity (an Omega Point) the Laws of physics, that gorvens our cosmos, ceases to exist, and therefore fails to explain the universe’s existence on the basis of physics. If the Omega-Point is true, would this not, at the very least, serve as “indirect” proof that our reality is based upon something that transends the Laws of physics? If not, why Not?
Click to expand...
The key word is “transcend”, which you seem to be defining as “to encompass; to include and go beyond”. If that is the case, then one can say that Einstein’s physics transcends Newton’s. Einstein, though, was still describing purely physical phenomena. So, yeah, if the Omega Point is true, it would indicate that there are another set of physical laws that transcend the physics currently known by Western science.
And given the Omega-Point being true, can one honestly remain a naturalist, assuming that all things can be rudicibly explained (and understood), including the universe in its entirity, by the Laws of Physics?
Click to expand...
Yes, one can honestly remain a naturalist, if only for the reason that the Omega Point itself is a “natural” phenomenon, even if not explicable via currently known physical laws.
 
johnnycatholic said:
Unless they don’t.
Click to expand...
I can’t deny that potential complexities if any within a singularity would be a mystery.So I won’t. Assuming any given instance of that state has potential to even change is just a guess in the dark isn’t it? A singularity is much like absolute simplicity isn’t it? If so I think I might think of it as the heavens and the earth as described in the beginning 'formless and void.
 
Ahimsa said:
Yes, one can honestly remain a naturalist, if only for the reason that the Omega Point itself is a “natural” phenomenon, even if not explicable via currently known physical laws.

I’m wondering what would define nature at the omega point? existence?
Click to expand...
 
Ahimsa said:
I think we can exclude the possibility of the Omega Point being “supernatural”.
Click to expand...
it seems that the omega point includes the possibility of the supernatural. No scientific explanation? A matter of faith.
 
In my understanding, the Omega point is not something taken into consideration in any empirical cosmological theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top