Escapology And Eschatology 1 (of 7) : The Omega Point (Return Of Bruce Wayne: What Really Happened)

This post is, in a way, about the last issue of Return Of Bruce Wayne. However, my fantastic filing system (which involves putting comics in random piles around the living room until my wife makes me tidy them up, when I put them into one big pile) has somehow failed me, and I can’t actually find the comic in question.

However, I’m running a fever, I’m mildly hallucinatory, and the comic I remember reading was probably better than the one Grant Morrison wrote and Lee Garbett drew anyway. Fuck the text! Where my interpretation disagrees, the text is wrong!

So, let’s talk about physics. There’s a slight plot hole in the story, one which can be fixed if we look at something that probably inspired Grant Morrison anyway. I make no claim that my interpretation is the one Morrison intended – but it *should* be.

Thanks to comicsalliance for the scan

WHAT ARE THE ARCHIVISTS DOING?!

Oh, I know what they say they’re doing, all right. They say they’re dumping all the information of the universe into a black hole, for safe keeping. There are two problems with this.

The first problem is on the meta-level. Throughout Morrison’s DC Mega-story, which he’s been telling for six years now, at least (if you only count this installment, and not his pre-Marvel works) black holes have been symbols of oppression, depression, and crushing futility. Now, all of a sudden, this one represents hope? That works, in the same way that this story is an ‘everything gets turned upside down’ one, but WHY?

The second problem is only for those who read books on physics for fun, and that is – BLACK HOLES DON’T WORK LIKE THAT. You can’t throw information into a black hole and have it be lost from the outside universe. Stephen Hawking once thought you could, but in 2005 he finally got around to accepting what everyone else had been saying for years, that they don’t work that way. To quote from this discussion between Smolin and Susskind:

Anyone who has read the recent New York Times article by Dennis Overbye knows that the ultimate fate of information falling into a black hole was the subject of an long debate involving Stephen Hawking, myself, the famous Dutch physicist Gerard ‘t Hooft and many other well known physicists. Hawking believed that information does disappear behind the horizon, perhaps into a baby universe. This would be consistent with Smolin’s idea that offspring universes, inside the black hole, remember at least some of the details of the mother universe. My own view and ‘t Hooft’s was that nothing can be lost from the outside world—not a single bit. Curiously the cosmological debate about Cosmological Natural Selection revolves around the same issues that came to the attention of the press a week or two ago. The occasion for the press coverage was Hawking’s recantation. He has reversed his position.

Over the last decade, since Smolin put forward his clever idea, the black hole controversy has largely been resolved. The consensus is that black holes do not lose any information…[citations snipped]

The implication of these papers is that no information about the parent can survive the infinitely violent singularity at the center of a black hole. If such a thing as a baby universe makes any sense at all, the baby will have no special resemblance to the mother. Given that, the idea of an evolutionary history that led, by natural selection, to our universe, makes no sense.

This wouldn’t matter so much were this not all once again down to the Second Law Of Thermodynamics, and Morrison’s old frienemy Entropy. We can’t really do away with this without punching a huge hole in Morrison’s themes.

(This also puts a bit of a dent in the cosmology of the Faction Paradox series… but I’ll get to that…)

So what’s actually going on? Let’s find out what *reeeeely* happened…

The clue is in the name of the Omega Sanction, which both Bruce Wayne and Mister Miracle suffered. What is Darkseid’s plan with this? What does it have to do with black holes? Why does it involve a trip to the end of the universe?

The answer comes from a physicist called Frank Tipler. Now, Prof. Tipler is now known for some… odd… views. ( He argues that you can tell Barack Obama is evil because the luminiferous aether exists and the film Starship Troopers has a gory bit, for example). I’ve called him the Dave Sim of astrophysics before now, and with good reason. But, much like Sim, Tipler was a genuinely good worker in his field, doing his postdoc work with John Wheeler and Abraham Taub, not exactly lightweights.

Tipler, though, came up with one idea, his big idea, *RIGHT* at the point where he went off the rails. He thinks he’s proved, scientifically, that God exists and we’re all going to heaven.

In his book, The Physics Of Immortality, he shows that given the right conditions, it is possible for life to survive to the very end of the universe. In doing this, it will collapse the entire universe into a single point, which will be able to run an infinite amount of computation in a finite amount of time. This would allow it to emulate, in perfect detail, every intelligent life-form that has ever existed, and place those lifeforms into simulated environments that they would find perfectly enjoyable, where they could live for an infinite length of time. Tipler points out that this single-point universe computer would be omnipresent (because only one point would exist), omnipotent (because everything that existed would be in its programming) and omniscient (because it would contain all the information in the universe and be able to perform an infinite number of calculations).

He goes on to make a number of other claims, including that any universe where this *didn’t* happen would not exist, and his claims get steadily more outlandish (and go steadily towards attempting to justify a particularly American kind of right-wing fundamentalist Christianity) as time goes on. However, strange as it may seem, the basic Omega Point idea holds up. It’s a proper scientific theory – it makes predictions which can be falsified, and it’s based on taking current science at its word – and while it may well be wrong (I think it is), it’s not *OBVIOUSLY* wrong, in the way that arguments from design or whatever (or Tipler’s later work) are. A number of fairly respectable people like David Deutsch or Marcus Chown think there’s something to it.

Tipler calls this single-point-computer-universe-god-thing… The Omega Point.

It comes at the end of the universe – in fact at the end of the multiverse (Tipler argues that every one of what Morrison would refer to as hypertimelines converges there).
It has all of the information in the uni/multiverse entered within it
It’s the last hope for sentient life to live forever.
It’s the very last spacetime event in the uni/multiverse
It would be the point at which the entire uni/multiverse becomes sentient (and those who know Morrison’s work know how much that resonates with it).
And it looks like… the singularity of a black hole, stripped of its event horizon.

And that brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Wayne Manor and environs. If Vanishing Point is the Omega Point at the last few nanoseconds before it *becomes* the Omega Point, what does Darkseid want with it?

Well, for a start, we know that Darkseid only started his latest planning at almost the precise time the multiverse came back into existence – and the Omega Point requires the multiverse interpretation of quantum physics to be true (this would, of course, mean I was wrong two years ago when I said that the DCU runs on the implicate order interpretation, but I’ve never been totally married to that anyway). We also know that in Final Crisis Darkseid managed to take over a big chunk of the world by use of an anti-life computer virus.

And what does Darkseid want, more than anything? Well, as I put it a couple of years back:

To quote from Rock Of Ages – “I will remake the entire universe in the image of my soul, Desaad… and when at last I turn to look upon the eternal desolation I have wrought… I will see Darkseid, as in a mirror… and know what fear is.”

Darkseid has looked at the Second Law of Thermodynamics and thought “fuck that”. Or, more likely, “Bother not Darkseid with your ‘entropy’ and your ‘universal laws’ Obeisance to laws, made by man or nature, is the morality of the slave. The morality of Darkseid is conquest. Darkseid is all.”

Because Darkseid has taken that childish realisation and decided it doesn’t apply to him. He’s going to be everything. Because this, ultimately, is what an attempt to deny entropy means. It is entropy that prevents any tyranny from being absolute – Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety (one of the fundamental scientific discoveries of the twentieth century, but never as regarded as many others) states that control requires as many options open to the controller as there are degrees of freedom in the thing being controlled, so complete control is impossible. This is because entropy always increases – freedom and death are, ultimately the same thing. You can’t have one without the other.

So Darkseid takes this to its logical conclusion. Remaking the entire universe into himself – getting control over every last quark and meson in it – is the only way he can beat entropy, so that’s what he sets out to do. In this way he’s far more direct than the cheap photocopy Thanos – Thanos *sublimates* his desire – he wants to have sex with Death. Darkseid just wants to destroy death, along with the universe itself, and exist alone, changeless and eternal.

Darkseid wants not just to control the entire universe, but to be the entire universe. And he happens to have in his possession a computer virus that appears to transmit itself instantly, to be architecture-independent (working equally well on human brains and all types of computer invented) and that turns things into avatars of himself.

And Vanishing Point – The Omega Point – is a point where all of creation – the entire whang-dang-doo multeyeverse – exists at a single point, as a computer. If Darkseid can somehow get his virus into that computer, if he can rewrite its operating system with his own mind, then he can become the multiverse.

(I must reread JLA: Classified 1-3 with this in mind, because they’re about the infection of a universe – our universe – with evil from the outside by, if I remember rightly, a virus of some description.)

The Omega Sanction is Darkseid’s way of becoming God, and becoming the culmination and completion of all universal history. And Batman saves the day, by being Batman.

Next: It’s All In Plato…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Escapology And Eschatology 1 (of 7) : The Omega Point (Return Of Bruce Wayne: What Really Happened)

  1. Hi, Andrew Hickey.

    Just to correct some factual errors on your part, Prof. Frank J. Tipler is not a right-wing conservative. Rather, he’s a left-wing liberal (see, e.g., his book The Physics of Christianity [New York: Doubleday, 2007], p. 189).

    Prof. Tipler points out in the article which you cite that the Laurence H. Tribe/Barack Obama paper uses incorrect ideas on physics in order to arrive at incorrect conclusions on constitutional law. Although I’ll here point out that the entire methodology of this Tribe paper is fallacious, as the methodological basis of physics and legal ethics is different, and other than just physical facts of nature, one cannot use some supposed abstract idea about the “relative” nature of physics to reason about legal ethics (which–at any rate–as Tipler points out, Einstein’s Relativity makes physics *invariant*: everyone measures the same laws of physics given the same inertial reference frames; Einstein himself stated that “Invariantentheorie” would have perhaps been a better name for his theory).

    Barack Obama is evil because he’s a mass-murderer. Just as the previous president before him was a mass-murderer, and the previous president before that one, and the previous president before him, and so on. They’re serial-killers in suits. Although that’s an overly-harsh imputation upon the private-sector serial-killers who are considered extremely prolific if they manage 20 confirmed kills. U.S. presidents are just getting warmed up if they can manage killing several hundred-thousand innocent children, women and men.

    At any rate, U.S. presidents are just paid actors. They’re spokesmen for the military-industrial complex that Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address. Becoming too focused on them is a distraction, as if they mattered. As if any of dozens of other puppets couldn’t be put in their place with the same result.

    (Actors though they be, they are still culpable for the actions taken under their name, given that they’re responsible under law for those actions and given that they are morally responsible for promoting those actions.)

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      Hi,
      I never said (at least not in this post) that Tipler was a conservative, merely that his ideas tend to support a right-wing fundamentalist viewpoint – which is certainly true. He is an advocate of ‘intelligent design’, anti-abortion, and does not consider global warming to be happening. These are all positions of a particular right-wing religious viewpoint. He also argues a laissez-faire economic viewpoint and writes for the ultra-right-wing Pajamas Media. He may consider himself a ‘left liberal’ but he isn’t. (That said, as a European I see the whole of American political discourse skewed so hugely towards the right that I would consider most USians who consider themselves left-wing to be moderate centrists at best).

      As for your views on American Presidents, I agree.

      • Hi again, Andrew Hickey.

        I knew to begin with that you didn’t say the word “conservative”, but you did say that Prof. Frank J. Tipler is “attempting to justify a particularly American kind of right-wing fundamentalist Christianity”. This statement by you is incorrect. I used the term “right-wing conservative” to sum up the position you imparted to Tipler. Again, see Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 189 for how your designation does not apply.

        Prof. Tipler is a rather thoroughgoing left-wing liberal. Unfortunately, you didn’t understand what I was talking about when I originally said that because our language has been butchered by those who lord over us.

        The terms “left” and “right” in the political sense go back to 1789 in France. When the French Estates-General met on May 6, 1789, the Third Estate commoners, who wanted less taxes and government control (i.e., “laissez-faire”), were seated on the left side of King Louis XVI, and the Second Estate nobles and First Estate clergy, who were the conservatives and wanted to maintain the government’s power, sat on his right. (Prior to the May 1789 convention of the French Estates-General [the first meeting of which was on May 5, 1789], the last time the Estates-General had met was under King Louis XIII in 1614.)

        Also, “liberal” originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) “libertarian”, i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, all drugs to be legal, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.

        The term “liberal” as it is commonly used today is purely and simply a misnomer meaning the antipode of what it originally meant, as those commonly called “liberals” today are about giving government more power, not in stripping government of power. Those commonly called “liberals” today are in fact *right-wing conservatives* in the original sense of that political term. So also, socialism and Communism are exceedingly *right-wing* and *conservative* political philosophies, as they put all power into the hands of government, rather than strip government of power.

        Of course, this change in the meaning of liberalism (such that today it means the opposite of what it originally meant) was by no accident. Authentic liberalism represents the only genuine threat to statism (i.e., right-wing conservatism, in the original sense of the term), and due to liberalism’s triumphs in gaining the intellectual high-ground during the 19th century, it was necessary for the oligarchy to subvert the liberal agenda if they were to survive. The ruling elite did this by sabotaging the very meaning of the terms “liberalism” and “left-wing”–such that these terms now popularly mean the opposite of what they once did–via bankrolling and promoting self-termed “liberal” court intellectuals who in fact promote the right-wing, conservative agenda, i.e., statism, i.e., collectivism. Thus, in doing this, the ruling elite succeeded in changing the meaning of their oppositional philosophy to a philosophy that supports their empowerment! That is, the ruling elite created another branch of right-wing conservatism, nowadays called by the misnomer “liberalism”, so also by the names of socialism and Communism.

        For the history on how the “capitalist” (i.e., mercantilist) political elite in the West bankrolled Communism (as well as National Socialism), see the below scholarly books by Antony C. Sutton, Ph.D., all of which are available free online:

        Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House Publishers, 1974).

        Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (Suffolk, England: Bloomfield Books, 1976).

        The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (Billings, M.T.: Liberty House Press, 1986).

        I can add much more documentation regarding this matter. But to leave you for now, Plank No. 5 of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’s Communist Manifesto is “Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.” (See Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels, English edition of 1888.) A central bank is a government-created institution that’s in complete contradiction to a free market. Yet it’s the system that goes by the name of “capitalism”.

        • “Unfortunately, you didn’t understand what I was talking about when I originally said that because our language has been butchered by those who lord over us.”

          No, I ‘didn’t understand’ because you deliberately chose to use words to mean something diametrically opposed to what they actually mean. “Left-wing” has meant, for centuries, those who want power to be moved from a rich elite to the poor masses. The left/right divide is orthogonal to the liberal/authoritarian one. Tipler espouses a right-wing economics (by the definitions used by everyone who speaks English rather than Glibertarianese) and a ‘traditional Christian’ ‘morality’. He is neither ‘left’ nor ‘liberal’ as those words are used by 99%+ of the English-speaking world.

          Incidentally, please don’t presume that I am ignorant. I have rather more understanding of the history of actual liberal thought than you – Liberalism is a consistent philosophical tradition, not just a misreading of Adam Smith.

          • pillock says:

            I always must clarify this, when someone brings Canada into it: in my country, the label “libertarian” translates to “extreme right-wing whack-job”, NOT “advocate for freedom”.

            • Hi, Pillock.

              Yes, I’m quite aware of what the etatist, royalist inculcation is in your country. It’s the same as in the United States in this regard.

              Eternal war is peace.

              Freedom is slavery.

              Ignorance is strength.

              • pillock says:

                James, seriously. In Canada, we don’t normalize the label “libertarian” as you do in the States, we don’t see it as belonging to a philosophical school or lineage, we see it as a specifically American invention. When someone calls themselves a libertarian here, in our political context, it’s incoherent. The term addresses American politics and history, not Canadian politics and history. We don’t equate any old-timey use of “liberal” with any current use of “libertarian”, that is so much your guys’ thing that anyone who stands on that association here looks like a raving loon.

                So my point is, when you say Canada and the U.S. make the same equation between liberal and libertarian, that’s not correct. We don’t.

                • Hi, Pillock.

                  Yes, I realize that the military-industrial-royalist complex that runs your country is none too happy with the philosophy of freedom, and hence that the common people have been raised since birth to hold the philosophy of freedom in fear. Granted. That’s a given. I understand that quite well. You needn’t explain such matters to me, as the same process is at work in the United States, as it is with every country with a government over it.

                  But even though we realize that the philosophy of freedom is bad-mouthed by the purveyors of mass death and destruction from our birth to our death, my below statement still stands as correct:

                  “”
                  Also, “liberal” originally meant what we would call today (at least in the U.S. and Canada) “libertarian”, i.e., laissez-faire free market, less taxes, less regulation, and gun ownership by the common people. Thus, in the original sense of the words, someone who wanted no taxes, all drugs to be legal, a free market, and armament of the common people would be a left-wing liberal.
                  “”

                  That is, the term “libertarian” has the same meaning in Canada as it does in the U.S., as opposed to having the meaning of *socialist*, as it does in some European countries. That was the point I was making in mentioning this distinction. But like I said, I realize that the term is bad-mouthed by the political and media elite in your country, just as it is in the United States. We’re raised from birth to hold the philosophy of freedom in fear. I already understand that.

                  Hence the reason why we now call right-wing conservative positions “left-wing” and “liberal”, as the political establishment has successfully redefined their oppositional philosophy to mean a philosophy that supports their empowerment.

                  Of course, what are called “right-wing” and “conservative” positions by the political establishment also are positions which support the empowerment of government.

                  Ergo, the political elite have got a good deal going on. What they call “left” and “right”, “liberal” and “conservative”, all happen to require ever-more government power and funding.

                  It’s funny (in a sick way), but the standard political spectrum that we’re all taught is that on the extreme left one has concentration camps guarded by men with machine guns, and on the extreme right one has concentration camps guarded by men with machine guns. The “middle ground” between these two extreme positions, as we’re now starting to realize, is concentration camps guarded by men with machine guns. One gets the impression that those who are inculcating us from birth with these notions have a great hankering for concentration camps guarded by men with machine guns.

                  The original left-wing, liberal position is that we don’t need concentration camps guarded by men with machine guns, and that in fact the government is the great enemy of human progress, and hence should be limited. I hold to this position.

                  • Andrew Hickey says:

                    James, I haven’t been able to be as involved in this discussion as I would like, as I’ve been ill recently and don’t have the energy to compose any long posts, but I will say this:

                    You are badly misinterpreting Pillock’s previous comment in your reply. Some of this is deliberate (your ‘yes, I realise’ stuff) while other parts of it, I think, come from your genuinely misreading his comment.

                    I am perfectly content to allow you to make misstatements of fact, as you have repeatedly done in this thread, and to make up your own meanings for words if you wish. I will *not*, however, allow you to misrepresent the arguments of others here. I pride myself on having a civil comments space here, and one reason is that people play fair.

                    Your next comment *WILL* be an apology to pillock (along with, optionally, a request for clarification on any points on which there is genuine misunderstanding) or you will be banned from commenting further.

                  • pillock says:

                    I’m not feeling upset, honestly! I think this really is a case where it’s just a misunderstanding.

                • pillock says:

                  In the spirit of a friendly Internet, I’m gonna clarify a bit more. The gun ownership thing, for example: in Canada there’s not too much of a political dimension to gun ownership. It’s a big woodsy country with lots of bears in it, so guns don’t mean freedom they mean food. As I’ve said here before, freedom is really easy to get, here: fifty miles north of wherever you’re standing is all the freedom you can handle, the most laissez-faire economics imaginable. You don’t need to fight for it. You can just have it.

                  But most people find greater security in the cities, where government is bigger.

                  One of these days I really must write a blog-post about it, I guess…

                • pillock says:

                  Somehow I don’t think we’re likely to have a meeting of the minds about this, though. Nevertheless, for what it’s worth: there’s some slight clarification, I hope. Different place, different history, different conditions…different political vocabulary. So by all means hold to your definitions, but just don’t hold me to them, eh?

                  Feel as though I may be being a bit unfair here, but what the hey, “interests of a friendly Internet” and all that…I’ll let it stand unless Andrew thinks it’s too baiting.

        • Hi again, Andrew Hickey.

          You wrote: “No, I ‘didn’t understand’ because you deliberately chose to use words to mean something diametrically opposed to what they actually mean.” I used the words in the original sense of their meaning. You go on to state:

          “”
          “Left-wing” has meant, for centuries, those who want power to be moved from a rich elite to the poor masses. The left/right divide is orthogonal to the liberal/authoritarian one. Tipler espouses a right-wing economics (by the definitions used by everyone who speaks English rather than Glibertarianese) and a ‘traditional Christian’ ‘morality’. He is neither ‘left’ nor ‘liberal’ as those words are used by 99%+ of the English-speaking world.

          Incidentally, please don’t presume that I am ignorant. I have rather more understanding of the history of actual liberal thought than you – Liberalism is a consistent philosophical tradition, not just a misreading of Adam Smith.
          “”

          Nor a misreading of John Locke, either, I suppose.

          I see that you’re very emotional. I don’t see that there’s anything I could say that would further the discussion at this point. You’ll believe what you want to believe. The matters I’ve already discussed are enough for someone who desires to research this matter further.

          Take care, Andrew.

    • pillock says:

      Why do some people get so het up about “invariance” being a better word for it?

  2. It’s me again, Andrew.

    Since there’s no point for us to discuss politics–given that we’re at an impasse–how about I lighten the atmosphere with that which tames the soul of the savage beast.

    I’d like to share with you the below song, from one of my favorite albums:

    freedomhelena, “Skatenigs – Chemical Imbalance”, May 22, 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwGrZq3SY7k

    The audio quality of the above video isn’t as good as it could be, as, e.g., the actual album that the song is from (Stupid People Shouldn’t Breed) doesn’t have that static on it.

    Skatenigs are a band from Austin, Texas (where I was born, and raised just outside in the Leander hill country). Their first album, Stupid People Shouldn’t Breed, was published in 1992. The album was produced by Ministry front-man Al Jourgensen.

    The above song “Chemical Imbalance” features poetry written and read by Lorri Jackson (R.I.P.), who used to run with Jourgensen’s circle. Below is more about her from an interview with the person who was her boyfriend at the time of her death:

    “‘Talking About Lorri Jackson’: An Interview with Guy Aitchison by Oberc”, 1997. http://www.burkhartstudios.com/gallery/interview.htm

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      Thanks, but not my kind of music I’m afraid. My own tastes run to the very melodic (Beach Boys, Bach), or the very, very atonal and abrasive (Captain Beefheart, Edgard Varese) with not much room in the middle.

      • The very melodic? If that includes Beethoven in your collection, then the best performance and recording–by far–that I’ve ever heard of Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 in D Minor, Op. 125 was conducted by Richard Edlinger and performed by the Zagreb Philharmonic in September 1988. This recording has been published as Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 ‘Choral’ (Naxos 8.550181), and in the five-CD sets Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 1-9 (Complete) (Lydian 18501), and Beethoven: Symphonies Nos. 1-9 (Complete) (Amadis 7501).

        I’ve listened to all the usual recommendations for the 9th, such as Furtwängler and Karajan–and many more besides–but none of them come close to touching this recording. If one doesn’t know this recording of the 9th, then one doesn’t really know the full import of the 9th.

      • On the atonal and abrasive side, if you’re not already familiar with it, Andrew, you might like the British band Godflesh’s debut album Streetcleaner.

      • Since our musical exchange went so swimmingly, Andrew, I thought I’d share with you the most important works in political economy, all of which except for two are available for free on the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

        Below are vital articles concerning the nature of government, of liberty, and the free-market production of defense:

        Prof. Murray N. Rothbard, “The Anatomy of the State”, Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1965), pp. 1-24. Reprinted in a collection of some of Rothbard’s articles, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (Washington, D.C.: Libertarian Review Press, 1974).

        Murray N. Rothbard, “Defense Services on the Free Market”, Chapter 1 from Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970).

        Prof. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “The Private Production of Defense”, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1998-1999), pp. 27-52.

        Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security”, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter 1989), pp. 27-46.

        Prof. David D. Friedman, “Police, Courts, and Laws–On the Market”, Chapter 29 from The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Co., 1989; originally published 1971). Available for free on Friedman’s website.

        Concerning the ethics of human rights, the below book is the best book on the subject:

        Murray N. Rothbard , The Ethics of Liberty (New York, N.Y.: New York University Press, 1998; originally published 1982).

        If one desires a solid grounding in economics then one can do no better than with the below texts:

        Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1995).

        The above small book by Prof. Hoppe doesn’t delve into political theory, but only concerns the methodological basis of economics (i.e., the epistemology of economics). I would recommend that everyone read this short book *first* if they’re at all interested in economics. There exists much confusion as to what economics is and what it is not. This book is truly great in elucidating the nature of economics and its epistemic basis. If one were to read no other texts on economics, then this ought to be the economic text that one reads. Plus it doesn’t take all that long to read it.

        Murray N. Rothbard, “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics”, in Mary Sennholz (editor), On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1956), pp. 224-262. Reprinted in Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (London, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 211-255.

        Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, second edition, 2004; originally published 1962).

        Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977; originally published 1970).

        These texts ought to be read in the order listed above. I would also add to the above list the below book:

        Murray N. Rothbard, America’s Great Depression (Auburn, Ala.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, fifth edition, 2000; originally published 1963).

        The above book concerns how the governments create depressions (i.e., recessions) through credit expansion (i.e., fractional-reserve banking and/or fiat money).

        And on the matter of politics in relation to God, see my below article, which demonstrates the logically unavoidable anarchism of Jesus Christ’s teachings as recorded in the New Testament (in addition to analyzing their context in relation to his actions, to the Tanakh, and to his apostles). It is logically complete on this subject, in the sense of its apodixis.

        James Redford, “Jesus Is an Anarchist”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), revised and expanded edition, October 17, 2009 (originally published December 19, 2001).

        • I’ll also add my below article (available for free online), which demonstrates the logically unavoidable correctness of the anarcho-capitalist theory of human rights. It doesn’t derive an “ought” from an “is”–rather, it derives an “ought” from an “ought”: an “ought” everyone must necessarily presuppose in order to even begin to deny it.

          James Redford, “Libertarian Anarchism is Apodictically Correct”, Noegenesis, July 22, 2010.

  3. pillock says:

    Yeah, so I wanted to say: but isn’t that “dropping things into a black hole to save them” actually consistent with the idea that information doesn’t get lost? Just gets smeared out over the event horizon, circling the drain unalterably for all eternity and never going down it…

    (Though for myself, I rather like the idea of black holes being sources of irreversibility in the universe, so I’m not totally sanguine about the end of this “debate” proving much…it’s just too damned chummy-sounding of them all, and also I guess we’re long past the time when Hawking changing his mind means anything about anything…like I’ve said before, Hawking is now to physics as Hitchens is now to journalism…)

    But there’s no doubt in my mind that this black hole’s exactly what you describe, and I’d be disappointed in Morrison if he was so plodding and pedantic as me!

    • Hi, Pillock. The way the information is released from black holes is that black hole event horizons are eventually eliminated via the trapped surfaces of today’s black holes merging with the future trapped surfaces of the collapsing universe. See Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), App. H: “The Classical Omega Point Universe: Mathematical Details”, pp. 478-479.

      Regarding proposed solutions to the black hole information issue, all except for Prof. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology share the common feature of using new laws of physics that have never been experimentally confirmed–and indeed which violate the known laws of physics–such as with Prof. Stephen Hawking’s paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). (See S. W. Hawking, “Information loss in black holes”, Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 [October 2005], Art. No. 084013; also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005.) Hence, the end of the universe in finite proper time via collapse before a black hole evaporates is required if unitarity is to remain unviolated (i.e., if general relativity and quantum mechanics–which is what the proof of Hawking radiation is derived from–are true statements of how the world works).

      For fuller details on this and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, see:

      F. J. Tipler, “The structure of the world from pure numbers”, Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964; available on Tipler’s website. Also released as “Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything”, arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

    • pillock says:

      “The way the information is released from black holes is that black hole event horizons are eventually eliminated via the trapped surfaces of today’s black holes merging with the future trapped surfaces of the collapsing universe.”

      AH!

      Now that is some cool comic-book physics for sure! Thanks, James.

  4. Pingback: Mindless Ones » Blog Archive » “Pain is Funny”: Deadpool Max #1-3 Reviewed!

  5. Pingback: Eschatology & Escapology 4: Faction Paradox « Sci-Ence! Justice Leak!

  6. Pingback: Universe Part Seven: Curse Of The Ruby Slippers « A Trout In The Milk

  7. I think James Redford is a tool. Of Darkseid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s