Omega Point(less?) Theory
After my somewhat silly blog post about the Unidentified Foreign Obstacle I feel everyone deserves a post with a bit more substance. To this end I wish to explore Frank J. Tipler’s “Omega Point Theory.”
A member of the “skeptics guide to the universe” forum recently posted the following in the religion/philosophy section.
I wonder if anyone is familiar with Dr. Tiplers’ theory of the Omega Point. It’s been dubbed a kind of scientific explanation of heaven. I am currently in the process of creating a graphic novel about the mythology of religion, in so far as it’s all myth. Anyway, I want to include this in the part about “heaven” but I want to include the criticism of the theory but I’m not a scientist. It seems preposterous and definitely gets my skeptic red flags out but I’d like to hear what’s wrong with the equation/theory in question.
Well I’m not a scientist (yet) either but thought I’d put some reading time in and tackle the question. I shall briefly summarize the idea behind Frank Tipler’s “Omega Point Theory” in as simple terms as I can. I am no expert (or even amateur) physicist and am myself only vaguely able to understand some of the physics behind Tipler’s theory. Despite my (and many readers) lack of physics background the logical principles and critical thinking involved in criticizing the theory are easily accessible and comprehensible to all:
The “Omega Point” is the term given by Tipler for the ultimate fate of the universe. Tipler argues that the universe will undergo a sort of “big crunch”, a hypothesis still circulated as a possibility by modern physicists. Some calculations have predicted that this big crunch might occur around 42 billion years from now. A big crunch involves the universe eventually contracting back on itself until it reaches a primordial state (perhaps initiating another big bang). For this to occur then the gravitational force of all the matter in the universe needs to be sufficient to counteract the energy with which the universe is expanding. Unfortunately for Tipler and other proponents of the big crunch it is now almost certain that rather than the expansion of the universe slowing and reversing it’s actually speeding up! This could instead result in a sort of big rip as the fabric of the universe tears itself apart.
Irregardless of scientific evidence Tipler’s Omega Point Theory proceeds under his specific notion of the end of the universe. To cut to the meatier part of his theory Tipler argues that as the universe contracts exponentially fast, so to the maximum computational capacity of the universe will increase (faster than time runs out). In essence he’s saying that a computer could theoretically use the contraction of the universe to power itself and operate at a speed which is faster than time, giving it infinite energy (apparently). How exactly this would be accomplished is beyond my understanding, but this theory gets even better! This ultimate computer with the infinite energy could then use it’s power to effectively resurrect every human that ever lived. This computer or “God” as Tipler refers to it as will then go about simulating a paradise reality for every human being. In case you haven’t figured out what this “simulated paradise” is yet I’ll give you a clue.
Heaven…
That’s right folks, this elaborate theory dressed up to look like it could be real physics is actually a scientific attempt at rationalizing heaven. To help me out with criticizing this theory using actual evidence and logic (rather than the ridicule it’s easy to rely on) I turned largely to Michael Shermer’s brilliant book “Why People Believe Weird Things In this book Shermer actually dedicated a chapter to dealing with Dr. Tipler’s Omega Point in why people believe weird things. I shall attempt to distill Shermer’s criticism’s into a few digestible chunks:
1) Tipler claims that Omega Point Theory is a ‘testable physical theory for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God” and that “if any reader has lost a loved one … modern physics says you and they shall live again.” Tipler nevers does provide any evidence for his so called testable theory and throughout the book relies on what sounds nice and what gives people hope. Nothing resembling an actual scientific hypothesis or theory is presented.
2) Tipler argues away most major hurdles and criticisms with “science will find a way”. He claims that humans with not only colonize some galaxies but all galaxies using technologies he assumes will arrive because of his faith in science. Skeptics are often accused of having faith in science, Dr. Tipler demonstrates what that really looks like. He waves away all scientific hurdles including faster than light travel with unscientific wishful thinking.
3) Dr. Tipler’s theory seems to be based on nothing short of what he personally wants to happen, though he proposes it likes it’s destiny. From his and our limited perspective the concept of accurately predicted the history of the human race until the end of this universe is ludicrous. To demonstrate how improbable his ideas are Micheal Shermer sets up a brief casual link that would need to be followed:
if the density parameter is greater than 1 and thus the universe is closed and will collapse; if the Bekenstein bound is correct; if the Higgs boson is 220 20 Gev; if humans do not cause their own extinction before developed technology to leave the planet; if humans leave the planet; if human develop the technology to travel interstellar distances at required speeds; if humans find other habitable planets; if humans develop technology to slow down the collapse of the universe; if humans do not enoucnter forms of life hostile to their goals; if humans build a computer that approaches omniscience and omnipotence at the end of time; if this God wants to ressurect all previous life; if if if if!
So many of these steps might be wrong and there are so many others in between that this theory is nothing more than a highly flawed thought exercise in special pleading.
4) Tipler is manufacturing his ideas in the exact way as to validate his interpretation of Judeo-Christian philosophy. He is creating his own connections between physics and religion by re-defining both.
5) As memory is a product of neuronal connections how will the Omega/God reconstruct something that does not exist. The information within a human brain is truly lost at death, bringing them back is not a technological limitation. Tipler could then argue that the Omega recreates existence from the start using it’s apparently infinite energy and recreates all life through causality. The problem also exists of which memories will the Omega recreate and from what point in our lifes? It couldn’t truly be a continuation of my consciousness if the memories didn’t lead up to my death.
All in all there is no real science in Dr. Tipler’s theory. It is best described as an enormous case of special pleading. Here is a man who has stretched the limits of his reasoning to accommodate his own speculative belief system. For a more in-depth look grab “Why People Believe Weird Thing” by Micheal Shermer.”
July 5, 2010 at 10:09 am
I just started reading the physics of immortality. I am agnostic and going through what I would describe as a life crisis. I have panic disorder and during an attack I have a great fear of death. I figure that a book describing some science based rationale for an afterlife might do me good. I haven’t even scratched the surface of this book but I can tell that Tipler draws much of his theory from a thorough knowledge of physics and computer science. For this reason I’ve decided that I will benefit from reading it even if his theory of the afterlife is bunkum. I’m reading through the bit about finite and infinite machines and it’s very interesting.
September 10, 2010 at 3:51 am
Hi, Christian Polson-Brown. I tried posting the reply contained in the below link in this thread, but the post seemingly didn’t go through. Perhaps this is due to its length or the number of URLs it contained. Or perhaps it is being held for approval. If the latter is the case, then go ahead and approve the post so that we can keep the discussion in one location. But until then, the below link contains the text of my said post.
James Redford, “Reply to Christian Polson-Brown”, net.science.physics.misc, Message-ID: 0ldi869buvlvvaofkitjj2pmdck7tu9o1s at 4ax period com, 09 Sep 2010 15:34:43 -0400. http://groups.google.com/group/net.science.physics.misc/browse_thread/thread/e170d1e2be7e7dda
September 29, 2010 at 11:11 pm
I am perplexed by the claims that you make, and am asking for some defense, and clarification in much of your statement. Firstly, I would like to address the claim that experiments have confirmed things. In our current understanding in the philosophy of science, experimentation doesn’t confirm anything, nor is it designed to. Rather, experimentation is designed to disprove hypotheses that are false. In paraphrasing Karl Popper, pretty much any hypothesis can be validated through experimentation, however that holds no value. For instance, horoscopes can be validated due to vagueness. A really valuable hypothesis makes claims that if true, would make certain outcomes impossible; they make “risky predictions.” The more a hypothesis forbids, the more valid the experiment, because the experiment can falsify the hypothesis, and prove it incorrect. What an experiment should not do is attempt to confirm something, because that is easy, and many false things can be confirmed true, if we selectively pick-and-choose our evidence.
Secondly, I would like to address your claim that in order to deny the Omega Point hypothesis, one would have to ignore, or deny many well established physical laws. I would like to know where you’ve collected your knowledge that the gravitational constant (6.673 x 10^-11) is truly constant throughout the entire universe. I understand that we’ve established that it is the constant in our solar system, and have good reason to believe that it is the constant within the Milky Way. However, I have so far seen no reason as to why it is a true constant, throughout the entire universe. If you cannot supply evidence where the constant is a constant in other areas of the universe, then you cannot make judgments upon other areas of the universe. Physicists assume that the constant is a constant everywhere, however we have no evidence to say so, and we have no reason to think it is either, it is just simpler that way (Occam’s Razor), but that is only an assumption we make. To be based upon an assumption would make the hypothesis an assumption itself, and therefore not a valid argument. Furthermore, I understand your claim that to deny the Omega Point is to deny many physical laws, however, I do not understand why this is so, I believe that you need to defend this point. It is not enough to make this statement, you must form a logical argument, that illustrates this conclusion as valid.
The last point I’d like to address is your claims that the hypothesis is not religious in nature, and couple this with your other claims that the hypothesis shows that Jesus’ miracles were possible. I believe that these two claims hold a lot of tension together. If it isn’t religious in nature, then it allows a multitude of religious miracles to become true, and we should not be focused on only one. Isn’t it now possible that Thoth walked as a man, and wrote the emerald tablet? Isn’t it now possible that Mohamed cast spells on Djinn? Isn’t it possible that Hercules was a real man, with real immense strength? Isn’t it now possible that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is invisible and can pass through physical objects with ease? So, if this hypothesis is not religious in nature, then why are we looking only at Christian miracles, and showing that they are now possibly true, and ignoring the multitude of various other religious miracles, and showing that they are also true, by the same physical laws? You are unfairly focusing on one, and ignoring the others based solely on preference rather than any valid reasoning. Why is this, if the hypothesis is not religious in nature?
January 7, 2012 at 5:31 am
Your bit about Popper is rather incomplete. Popper (Conjectues and Refutations”) says that confirmations of theories can only be vsalid if they are the results of risky experiments. In Risky experiments the entire theory is at risk based on the outcome
September 10, 2010 at 3:14 pm
[...] Omega Point(less?) Theory [...]
September 30, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Hi, Christian, congratulations by the website and this topic. “If” we will prove the real existence of the Matrix/DNA how it is described in The Universal Matrix Theory, the computer imagined by Mr. Tipler already exists and it is purely natural. Try to imagine this Universe being a genetic production and our DNA being merely the biological shape of a Universal Matrix. For instance, the contraction of the Universe is a cosmological counterpart of thge contraction of the placenta, where its energy is transferred to the embryo. The terrestrial DNA maybe have all of our ancestrals registered in it, till bacterias, so, it is not crayse to imagine that everybody can be ressuscited. And if the Universe is really composed of hardware and software under evolution as suggests the models of the theory, individuals counciousness are being registered in the Matrix, also.
But, the Matrix is suggesting that in this Universe as cosmic egg is being reproduced the natural system ex-machine which produced the Universe. “If” so, we can call it God, a natural and not omniscient, not magical God. What is being reproced is the son of God = the Tipler’s computer!
October 1, 2010 at 9:44 am
I disagree. There are a few damaging problems both scientific and philosophical for such a view to be true. As long as we are accepting evolution theory as factual, I would like to point out that there is a lot more to mutation than simply over-replication. There is also mutation (changes) of current DNA, as well as deletions of DNA. This means that it would be impossible for a computer to replicate everything in the past through the use of DNA. You see, it isn’t simply that we contain the entire DNA our great-great ancestors did, plus more, some of the DNA was changed (so we can’t go back to the original, because there is no way to find the original), and some of it was simply lost (and here we certainly cannot go back to the original). This means that our ancestors did indeed have genetic information that we lack. The humans of the future will have even more changes, and so it will be all the more impossible.
For the philosophical issue, what we are using to define an individual is simply genetic data, according to the claim “The terrestrial DNA maybe have all of our ancestrals [sic] registered in it, till bacterias [sic], so, it is not crayse [sic] to imagine that everybody can be ressuscited [sic].” The issue with this is that now, there is no difference between humans and mosquitoes and grass. The computer would have to resurrect every single insect that ever lived, every single blade of grass that ever sprouted, every fertilized egg of every organism that never grew into viable offspring. The reason why is that all of these things contain genetic data as well. There is no distinction between us, and pond scum genetically speaking (the DNA will be different of course, but they will both contain DNA, and that’s what’s important here). This would lead to reason that there is no difference between you and a worm. You are no more valuable than a worm, no more important than a worm, you’re not even any different than a worm, with the exception that your code is different than the worm’s. Are you alright with accepting the idea that you are nothing but a worm in God’s eye? In fact, you and a worm are pretty much indistinguishable to God.
September 30, 2010 at 6:46 pm
[...] http://friendofreason.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/omega-pointless-theory/#comment-613 [...]
October 2, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Jones, thank you very much for replying because you gave new matter for thoughts. I have to address something here (if I can do it in my poor English). I think that Mr. Tipler is talking about resurrection of everybody and simulated paradises because he is inspired in creationism. I am not. But I think that is wonderful the great creativity and insight from Mr. Tipler’s imagination.
Your objection about mutations, deleted DNA, etc. does not denies the possibility that every past living being were registered into the nowadays DNA: we don’t know what’s about the junk DNA, 97% of the DNA is unknown yet. And the Matrix models are suggesting they are recording evolution since the Big Bang.
I am not alright with accepting the idea that I am nothing but a worm in God’s eye. First because there is no God’s eye seeing me. Second: my father’s eyes see me as human specie and not my past shapes of embryo, fetus, blastulae like fish, morulae like agglomerated of galaxies or his spermatozoon like worm. If the fate of this universe is carrying out a genetic reproduction from the natural system ex-machine, this father-system should see me at my last shape, which is now in its embryonary stage: purely consciousness.
You disagree but you did not made the necessary mental operation for to understand what is biological DNA and what should be an ex-machine DNA… or Matrix. Here, the Mr. Tipler intuition about a divine computer makes sense.
September 7, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Yes, those are many “if”, but still possible “if”s. Tipler’s explanation is only one of many others, the first records of the theory is attributed to a Jesuit. Even if Tripler version is probed wrong partial or totally, the theory in itself is as valid and stable philosophically speaking, as it is to prove it either right or wrong. Yes, -our- current Universe might be expanding and this expansion is accelerating, yet,
1) Expansion of the universe can be used as a source of energy too in the very same way as contraction 2) If -our- Universe is closed and absolute, this energy can be used to revert or stabilize the expansion of this Universe, 3) Other theories of multiverse open possibilities to new possible solutions. 4) Vacuum energy can be used too. 5) It is important to mention the HOW this computational power is achieved to understand why it is plausible. Shortly, it might even be independent to rather the Universe expands contracts or whatever. The point in Infinite computational power is that the capacity of redundancy in the Universe is infinite and that this redundancy can be used to compute. This means that all the interactions, all the “complexity” of the Universe can be used to compute.
In doing so, Tracking down the interactions of all energy in the Universe, we could simulate a perfect copy of it, therefore the once living will live again, or more correctly, we could see them alive in -their- time, as if looking to an ant farm, then we could render that people into the “real” Universe.
Now, I personally like the theory, but believe that it still have to be refined, then properly stated. For example, I can only wonder about the shape and fate of Universe, therefore my current calculations will be incomplete, I also wonder, ej, if the entropy of the Universe is great enough to make the simulation impossible, but to answer that requires knowledge beyond our current state, measures that I don’t even know if exist yet. Math that is beyond the understanding of anybody but a few theoretical mathematicians maybe.
Finally, Science != Math. Science try to find out things but it is not absolute as math is, ej, 1+1=2 always, but gravity as basic as it is, is constantly re-interpreted, some theories now suggest that it could even be nullified or reversed. We still have much to learn from gravity while we already know everything about 1+1. Math is conclusive (mostly), Science is not.
September 7, 2011 at 5:57 pm
heh, bad spellin’
January 21, 2012 at 3:06 am
Not to mention Suskin’s book, “The Black Hole Wars” Where he points out information in a system is at the walls of the system containment. He goes on to point out that this is thee principle of jolography which is closely related to Tipler’s thought. Ya knoww what? More science is needed. Remember Ludvig Bolzman!
November 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Tipler is a mathematical physicist, and I suppose that he did not just concocted his Omega Theory out of nothing–he just have to elaborate it more.
I encountered the Omega Theory in a discussion on the possibility of human immortality, and I personally do not see it as a way of describing “heaven.” More of it as a description of how we (and everything in the universe) will end.
Please take note that lately, some physicists are researching and are coming close to proving that the speed of light is not constant throughout the universe. What I’m trying to say is that we are now in a place in time where what we hold as true may not be. The scientific hurdles his theory must hurdle might be someday be solved.
We are all in search of truth in understanding. A reasonable mind is an open mind.
November 23, 2011 at 1:49 pm
While I disagree with most of Tipler’s ideas, the fact remains that a simulation run within infinite time with infinite computational capacity would have to eventually “recreate” everyone who has ever existed. Look at this another way: if our universe is infinite, there exists exact copies of Earth and everyone on it somewhere in the universe. (I believe the last number I heard was that the closest “copy” to us would be at least 1*10^51 light years away, but I don’t know where that number comes from) In fact, there would be an infinite number of copies. Infinity isn’t just some really big number that you can count to if you spend enough time counting. If you are given infinite time to do infinite simulations, it will eventually simulate everything that can be simultated, and it will run those simulations an infinite number of times. Where Tipler is without a doubt wrong is in thinking that this qualifies as some type of rebirth or resurrection. A copy or simulation is distinct from the original (or copy) that it is supposedly based on. If it were possible to “transfer” a human mind into a computer, the gray matter that forms the human mind is not going to move and what is inside the computer would be a copy of the original, and would diverge from the original at that point. I don’t see how this would be any different. Everyone who had ever died would still be just as dead…. but don’t think that everyone who had ever lived would not eventually be simulated. An infinite amount of time to simulate every possible quantum state of the universe is going to produce everything that ever was or could be an infinite number of times.
November 23, 2011 at 4:41 pm
I understand the concept of infinity.
The point is though that continuity would not exist between your current living self and the simulated copy. This is a key disagreement that I have with OPT supporters, to which they invoke untested pseudo-scientific quantum effect similar to the “soul”.
Yes you would be simulated, but you would not be “resurrected” in a literal sense because there is no continuity. Infinity would produce infinite copies of the same thing, and “you” cannot be infinite things at once. Each copy is individual and the copy that is currently “you”, ends with you.
And yes I know that quantum information is never truly lost, but continuity of mind is.
November 23, 2011 at 11:05 pm
That is exactly what I said: ” Where Tipler is without a doubt wrong is in thinking that this qualifies as some type of rebirth or resurrection. A copy or simulation is distinct from the original (or copy) that it is supposedly based on. If it were possible to “transfer” a human mind into a computer, the gray matter that forms the human mind is not going to move and what is inside the computer would be a copy of the original, and would diverge from the original at that point.”
So in that sense, we agree. Personally, I think Omega Point theory is a bunch of hooey. My only point, and not necessarily to you, is that with infinite computational capacity it would be inevitable that everything and everyone would be simulated.
In addition, in my tired state I wrote that the nearest “copy” of Earth in an infinite universe would be at least 1*10^51 light years distant. That should have said (1 followed by 43 trillion zeros) light years distant. I was thinking of somethhing else entirely when I wrote that. My only point there was that, in an infinite existence, anything that can happen will happen.
So, to sum it up, I agree with you completely that this could not be considered a resurrection. I hope this clears it up.
November 24, 2011 at 12:41 am
Ahhh sorry Patrick, I should have read your comment more carefully. Yes, it appears we do indeed agree.
Thank you for your comments.
November 24, 2011 at 10:56 am
No worries. My editing could have been better and it doesn’t help that I tend to be quite verbose when tired. I just found this site and I wish I had found it earlier.