S & CB (1995) 7, 163—172 0954—4194

w. n. sroeeen and e. F. n. ELLIS

A Response to Tipler's Omega-Point

Theory

Frank J. ‘lipler’s Omega-Point Theory claims to be a purely scientific

theory which adequately accounts for the existence of an evolving

personal God who possesses traditional divine attributes and in virtue of

whom we enjoy free will, personal immortality, the prospect of resurrection

from the dead, and the action of the Holy Spirit in our lives, among other

things. Here we present a critique of that theory, concentrating on its

principal flaws, which are philosophical, not scientific. They include

arbitrarily endowing an abstract geometrical construction (the causal

b0undary)—which may or may not eventually come into existence-with

personal and divine characteristics (through a misuse of language), failing

to acknowledge the limitations of physics, and making unwarranted

assumptions concerning the character and necessity of life in the universe.

Keywords: Tipler, Omega-Point, resurrection, cosmology, information theory.

1. Tipler's Programme

In a series of papers and articles [1—5], and now in a book [6], Frank I.

Tipler develops what he calls the Omega-Point Theory, which he presents

as ‘a purely scientific theory for an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent

evolving personal God who exists necessarily and who is both transcen-

dent to space-time and immanent to it' [6]. Supposed consequences

deriving from it are free-will, personal immortality, the resurrection of the

dead, grace and the action of the Holy Spirit, heaven, hell, and purgatory.

All of these, it is claimed, emerge as physical-mathematical concepts, or

inevitable consequences of them.

As a physicist and a mathematician Tipler demonstrates an active and

imaginative control over many areas of contemporary science, particularly

quantum field theory, gravitational physics and cosmology, and infor-

mation theory. However there are glaring scientific, philosophical, and

theological flaws in his construction of the Omega Point theory, and

particularly in his extension of its argument beyond the physical in an

attempt to cover the personal, philosophical, and theological areas of

reality.

Many reviewing Tipler’s Omega-Point theory have found it difficult to

accept, and indeed most find it farfetched (see for example Martin

Gardner's comments ['7]. Why then the present reconsideration of this

theory? This is because on the one hand some writers, including a

theologian of major stature, Wolfgang Pannenberg, have taken Tipler's

Science ii Christian Belief, \lol 7, No 2 0 163

W. R. STOEGEFI and G. F. H. ELLIS

work seriously [8], and reputable journals and publishers are continuing to

accept Tipler's manuscripts on this topic for publication, despite their

obvious shortcomings; and on the other, a major publicity campaign is at

present being run internationally to promote his book [Ref. [6]]. As a result.

there is the very real danger that the uncontrolled speculation represented

by the Omega-Point Theory will drag both serious scientific research and

serious theological research into disrepute in the public eye, and also will

damage important new discussions which have recently begun between

scientists and theologians.

It is difficult for the non-specialist to ‘zero-in' on the fundamental errors

in the Omega Point Theory—there is an extensive technical fabric cloaking

the theory, which, though questionable at many points, provides the

impression of serious scientific scholarship. But the principal flaws are not

technical. In this paper we specify major fallacies in Tipler's approach:

scientific, philosophical, and theological, leaving aside secondaryr tech-

nical issues [some of which have been answered elsewhere {9]}. In the light

of this analysis, the Omega Point theory is seen to be based on uncertain

physics pushed far beyond the limits of its applicability. Its principal

components are grounded in assumptions which are attractive but

unsupportable, and in a geometrical-physical construction [the Omega—

Point) which is arbitrarily endowed with divine attributes through

linguistic misappropriation.

In what follows we review some major reasons why this work should

not be considered, in its main contentions, as either acceptable scientific

work, or as acceptable philosophy or theology [if we use those terms in

their usual sense).

2. The Fundamental Flaw

Tipler’s fundamental flaw in constructing the Omega-Point theory is well

and primarily illustrated by his characterization of the Omega Point itself.

The Omega Point, as Tipler defines it, is a single-point c-boundary [causal

boundary] of the universe. Now only very special universes can have a

causal boundary which is a single point. It is very unlikely that our

universe will develop such an Omega Point. But Tipler concludes that it

must possess one on the basis of his assumption that ‘life must exist

forever’ [see Section 5 below].

For life to exist forever, as Tipler defines it, the universe must

[according to him] be closed and lack event horizons, thus implying that

the c-boundary will be a single point. Such a point will be outside the

space-time, but will be its completion in a geometrical sense—for all light

rays and particle paths will terminate there. We do not accept his argument

for the existence of such a point, but that is not the main issue that concerns

us here.

What Tipler does, having assumed it exists, is to arbitrarily endow this

single—point causal boundary—an abstract geometrical construction having

164 0 Science & Christian Belief, Vol 7, No 2

A Response to Tipler’s Omega-Point Theory

certain basic mathematical properties—with living, personal and divine

characteristics, which are completely unsustainable. This is characteristic

of the principal way in which he goes astray time and again in his

argument. To attribute personal qualities, or the qualities of a living

being—not to mention those of omniscience, omnipotence and omni-

presence—to the Omega Point, is as sensible as attributing such qualities to

a mountain peak, to a circle [because it is geometrically perfect], or to a

number with special qualities [such as 13, 777, or 3.1415926 . . .}. You can

do so if you want to, but this step has no relation to the nature of reality: it

is quite arbitrary. One could equally well call the Omega Point [should it

exist), Nirvana, Heaven, Hell, or anything else vaguely suggested by its

geometrically special character—but none of these names would have any

real relation to the mathematical construct. To make the point another way,

a rock or some other impersonal object may vaguely and imperfectly

remind me of a person because of its shape, stance, or behavior. Calling it

'Harold’, though, does not turn it into a person.

Having made this step, since the Omega Point is assumed to be the

single geometrical completion of space-time, Tipler then presumes that it is

also ‘the completion of all finite existence’ in a way that approaches an

absolute metaphysical sense. This is far beyond what is justified on

mathematical or physical grounds, and is completely outside what is

predictable of the Omega Point from philosophical and theological

considerations. It is based on the linguistic step of extending the word

‘completion’ from one reasonably well established meaning to another,

much broader one, that has no logical foundation in what has previously

been presented.

Thus Tipler is not careful about how language is used in these contexts;

but here careful use of language is critical. By similar moves in Tipler’s

game, the geometrical or physical application of infinity—as in infinite

information and infinite information storage—quickly and uncritically

becomes ‘omniscience'. The supposition that all information ends up,

geometrically speaking, at the Omega Point [which is the completion of the

space-time), becomes ‘omnipresence'. Omnipotence is close behind. These

unlimited qualities are all equally unjustified characterizations of the

hypothetical Omega Point.

Tipler then exploits this confusion of meanings to construct his new

cosmic animism. The illusion of scientific rigor is strong. However such

attribution of motivations and personal relationships, not to mention

divine qualities, to a geometrical construction [which may or may not exist)

is merely fanciful, in whatever way it may be rationalized. This careless

labeling, treated now as if it has an adequate basis, is the faulty foundation

for all that follows.

3. The Limits of Physics

A second basic error which underlies Tipler's Omega-Point Theory is the

illusion that physics is omni-competent and without limits, either in

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 7, No 2 O 185

W. Fl. STOEGER and G. F. R. ELLIS

principle or in practice. According to him, the goal of physics is

“understanding the ultimate nature of reality.’ Thus physics will eventually

find God [p.5 of Ref. 6]. In his view, physics is able to deal with all aspects

of reality, including the most fundamental. Nothing is outside its

purview—neither the personal, the religious, the aesthetic, nor the poetic.

If one accepts this, then complete reductionism is the inevitable conse-

quence; this implies, as Tipler asserts in his book, that human beings are

finite state machines, and nothing more than finite state machines (p. 31]. If

this view were really true, there would be no need for any other discipline

but physics; physicists would be masters of all disciplines. But, given the

rigorous and well-defined methods and interests of physics, which dictate

both its success and its limitations, this overstated estimate is illusory.

Though physics is a very powerful instrument for knowledge within a

broad range of experience, to presume that it is omnicompetent and that

nothing exists outside its purview is an unjustified and erroneous

assumption. If true this would imply, for example, that physics can

determine the difference between great and mediocre poetry, can explain

the social behavior of ant colonies, or can supplant psychotherapy—

obviously unsupportable claims. Even within its range of competency,

physics is unable to live up to the hopes and expectations we have for it; for

example it cannot even convincingly explain the arrow of time or the

foundations of quantum mechanics, much less the ‘ultimate nature’ of

gravity, electrons, or anything else [what it can do is give a highly

successful phenomenological description of the regularities of their

behaviour—a totally different thing]. This failure to acknowledge the limits

of physics results in Tipler transgressing them, and so allows his

fundamental mistake of endowing geometrical and physical quantities and

constructions with personal and divine attributes—concepts that are

completely outside the purview of physics {to be quite clear about this,

consider which laws of physics make statements about love or hope,

intelligence or faithfulness, righteousness or evil]. For example, the claim

is made that the Omega Point will love us. Which are the testable laws of

physics that lead to this conclusion? There can be none—for ‘love’ is not a

concept that physics can handle in any way.1 Consequently the attempt to

use the mantle of physics to provide a justification for Tipler's inventions

fails.

This claim of the paramount nature of physics is particularly important

in relation to Tipler’s main substantive methodological proposal—that

there is no need for theology, except regarded as a branch of physics. We

deal later with Tipler’s claims as seen from a theological perspective. The

point here is that in fact physics cannot even begin to deal with the subject

1 The only way we can see that one might try to justify this kind of thing from within a

physics framework is through the idea, based on Feynman‘s approach to quantum physics,

that ‘all that can happen, will happen' [note that this says nothing whatever specifically about

'love']. If this is the basis envisaged, then in some universes the Omega Point, were it to exist,

would hate us, and in others it would be quite indiflerent to our existence.

166 0 Science & Christian Belief, Vol 7, No 2

A Response to ‘l'ipler’s Omega-Point Theory

area that is the concern of theology. It has neither the needed concepts nor

the analytic methods to do so. Specifically, it cannot deal with particular

events regarded precisely as particular and special—it has no interest in

doing so. Physics deals with what is generally trukwith what can be

subsumed under 'laws’. Theology is at least attuned to the particular and to

the special as possible channels of revelation; Tipler’s analysis makes no

room for that.

Related to this failure to acknowledge the limits of physics is Tipler’s

continual identification of models with the realities they are intended to

describe, for example in dealing with the claimed possibility of resurrection of

the dead [carried out, he claims, by a hypothetical process of emulating

people]. He assumes we can have perfect models of extraordinarily complex

systems, though no method is known that will produce them even in

simple cases; and then mistakes the model for the thing itself. Even in

simple physics, that is bad methodology. In more delicate areas of

philosophy and theology, it is a fatal mistake.

4. Testability

Tipler claims that the Omega Point theory is testable. Even though at the

end of his articles and at the end of his book he admits there is at present no

evidence for it, he nonetheless implies it is subject to testing, at least in

principle. But when one looks carefully at the major elements of the

Omega-Point theory, it is not testable even in principle, either scientifically

or theologically—certainly not relative to its key conclusions. The major

physical conclusion is that we could never from within the universe

[before its end) determine if its causal boundary was indeed going to be a

single point; this key component of the theory is thus quite safe from

experimental disproof any time before the end of history. And insofar as we

can experimentally check his basic assumption that life will continue for

ever, that assumption is false [see Section 5].

If we choose to disregard this obvious argument, and consider checking

the other assumptions observationally, it is clear that we cannot experi-

mentally check the theory’s major claims about the nature of the Omega

Point at any time before the universe ends; e.g. that some kind of

computational process could take place there—after the end of the

universe, when space and time no longer exist. A fortiori we cannot test the

hypothetical process of resurrection; the implication that once this had

taken place, the replicas would be conscious in some meaningful sense;

and the assumption that the ‘resurrected’ replicas would then have ‘eternal

life.’

Insofar as the Omega Point Theory is based on physics, that physics is

highly speculative and controversial, relating to the wavefunction of the

universe and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics

—which are not testable by any possible experiments. Some weakly related

Science 8. Christian Belief, Vol 7, N0 2 0 187

W. R. STOEGER and G. F. Fl. ELLIS

claims about the nature of elementary particles are testable, but these in no

way substantiate the major elements of the theory.

5 Tipier’s Assumption About Life

The fundamental flaws discussed already definitively undermine the basis

of Tipler’s Omega Point theory as a scientific theory. It is nevertheless still

worth commenting on other aspects that further demonstrate its lack of

credibility. One of these--basic to the rest of his argument—is Tipler’s

postulate that life must exist forever in a universe which recollapses—and

so continues at a future epoch when temperatures diverge to infinity as one

approaches the final state.

This assumption, as Tipler presents it, is unsupportable on any credible

scientific grounds [9]——even though he initially characterizes life in

minimalist terms simply as information processing [in later parts of his

work he presents information processing as a necessary condition for life,

not as a definition of life]. As temperatures increase in the future [if indeed

this happens], all possible physical structures which could support the

complex hereditary, developmental, and feedback control systems of living

organisms will be destroyed as all material is ionized and then nuclei

decompose into highly energetic fundamental particles, which continually

bombard any incipient structures that might briefly remain. He is thus

supposing physically impossible scenarios for this key ingredient of his

theory, namely maintaining life in the extreme conditions that would occur

in a collapsing universe.

It is this unwarranted assumption which is claimed to lead to the

conclusion that the universe must be closed and life must prevent the

existence of horizons. This further claim-"that life could prevent formation

of event horizons so that the Omega Point can form—requires coherent

manipulation of the entire universe by living beings! This chain of

argumentation is fantasy rather than science.

6 The contradictory character of the Omega Point as God

It is worth indicating briefly how Tipler’s Omega Point arguments and

speculations contravene fundamental principles of logic and philosophy.

The attribution of divine characteristics to the Omega Point in his theory

leads to contradictions both within the theory, and with accepted notions

of the divine.

The first point is that the Omega Point is supposed to be generated by

the laws and by the evolutionary history of the universe and of entities

within the universe, instead of generating them. Though supposedly

divine, as Tipler characterizes the Omega Point in certain key components

of his theory. it has no role in determining those laws or that evolutionary

history. Nor does it seem that it ever could have. In fact, as Tipler points

out, the Omega Point itself is determined by all the entities in the universe.

168 v Science & Christian Belief, Vol 7, No 2

A Response to Tipler's Omega-Point Theory

which feed information into it. In a sense it is a passive receptacle. How

then could the Omega Point be divine in any accepted sense?

But in later parts of the theory, Tipler characterizes the Omega Point as

determining all else. He postulates the ‘Teilhard boundary condition,‘

which forces us to have a universe with an Omega Point. This is a way of

attempting to theoretically embody his fundamental assumption that life

must exist forever [see section 5 above]. He then has the Omega Point

determining the wave function of the universe, which he later suggests

should be identified with the Holy Spirit—which in turn determines

everything else! There is confusion and a circularity of argument here, and

so a fundamental inconsistency in the basis of the theory—on its own

terms. The Omega Point cannot both be determined by and be determining

the very same things. Nor can it be both completely active and completely

passive relative to the very same realities.

A further inconsistency, related to this, is that Tipler attributes

necessary existence to the Omega Point. From what we have seen, there is

no way in which that necessity can be logically and consistently

understood within his theory, even if his fundamental assumption were

necessarily true.

We do not regard these errors as significant relative to the fundamental

problems discussed earlier. We point them out because they confirm the

rather pervasive inconsistencies in the overall construction of the theory.

7 The Omega Point Theory as Theology?

Considering Tipler's Omega Point proposal from a theological viewpoint, it

is strange that, in ostensibly constructing it purely on the basis of physics,

he rejects the foundations on which most theology is based, namely

revelation and faith [the response to revelation]. He replaces these

foundations with what physics purports to know of space-time, matter, and

information, and proceeds from there. Indeed: he denies the possibility of

revelation; although if the Omega Point is able to do as much as he

claims—if it is a person, lifegiving, etc.——it is quite unclear why it does not

reveal itself in a special way to us who are proceeding towards it.

Theology for Tipler is, as we have also seen, nothing but physical

cosmology based on the assumption that life as a whole is immortal [pg. 11

of Ref. 6]. In this analysis, little else seriously counts—Hthe scriptures,

tradition, communal and individual experiences of faith and commitment,

human history, experiences of ultimacy, prayer and spiritual discernment,

prophets and prophetic tradition. Tipler’s physical theology has no way of

evaluating, appealing to, or incorporating any of these aspects of usual

theology. In fact, though he has derived some of his language, concepts,

and inspiration from them, in his theory they are all suspect and beside the

point. With the power and certitude physics is claimed to offer, these

2 Despite his many quotes from St. Paul and other religious figures.

Science & Christian Belief, Vol 7, No 2 O 169

W. R. STOEGEFI and G. F. Fl. ELLIS

traditional sources of theological reflection are not seen as worth taking

seriously.

If we turn from the lack of a solid base of theology to theological

content—insofar as that makes any sense—Tipler’s Omega Point theory is

also unacceptable in many ways. His concept of Gode—the Omega

Point—is, as we have already seen, impoverished and almost unrecogniz-

able, a God who is inconsistently conceived and is at root merely a

geometrical construction at the fringes of possibility and of reality. This

God does not reveal, redeem, heal, transform, or possess anything beyond

what we already have and possess—and in fact, in one characterization of

its essence, is itself determined only by that! God is just another object or

aspect associated with the universe-“at the end of the universe—and

cannot even be conceived as existing until the universe has been

'completed’.

On this thinly conceived view, there is no destiny nor meaning to

human life or for the universe deriving from the Omega Point. Eternal life

and resurrection are just continuations of our present existence, far from

what either Christian, Hindu, or Islamic teaching proclaims. There is

nothing about sin and its forgiveness, or about salvation and redemption, to

be offered, indeed this construction has no ethical content—there is no

‘ought‘ or ‘ought not’ here. At every stage, Tipler’s Omega Point theory is as

inadequate theologically as it is scientifically.

8 Personhood and Information

One final aspect of the Omega Point theory is worth a comment. In

proposing that the Omega Point would actualize “the resurrection of the

dead,’ Tipler identifies this with 'emulation’—-total exact reconstruction of

a person and his or her history in a computational process.

In hypothesizing this, Tipler assumes that all the information, genetic

and epigenetic [for example neurological), that completely characterizes

each person is able to be communicated to the Omega Point by physical

processes, and then is able to be stored, manipulated, and used by the

Omega Point to reconstruct each person. This proposal rests on his

thorough-going reductionism—that we are nothing more than finite state

machines, which therefore can be easily and exactly copied at every point

in their history. This contradicts conclusions emerging from many other

realms of science—including dynamical systems, the physics of complex

systems, several areas of biology, and neurophysiology.

Additionally, there are a number of impossibilities here. Total infor-

mation about a person is never available to the exterior of the person—how

could an exterior observer determine all the brain states of a person by any

physically possible means? Furthermore, transmission and storage of the

totality of information needed to reconstruct a person completely, even if it

were available, is impossible in physical and information terms: inter clic,

intervening matter and black holes would prevent this. This impossibility

170 0 Science 8‘ Christian Belief, Vol 7, No 2

A Response to Tipler's Omega-Point Theory

is compounded by where the Omega Point is finally actualized (outside

space-time itself].

Thus, disregarding all other problems, Tipler's Omega Point, apart from

any other consideration about its nature, is simply incapable of obtaining

the needed information by physical processes occurring in space-time (the

situation envisaged by Tipler). And if it had the information available,

the supposed process of reconstruction of a person—by a mathematical

structure that does not exist in space-time—seems purely fanciful. Tipler’s

discussion does not begin to tackle the real problems that would face a

biologist or physicist seriously considering such an enterprise.

In this context Tipler seems to have confused infinite information and

data storage with omniscience, that is infinite knowledge or knowledge of

everything. But the quantity of information, even if it is infinite, does not

imply either quality or organization of that information, or that the

information is complete concerning all that exists—or indeed concerning

any specific aspect of reality whatever. You can have infinite information

that tells you very little about anything!

9 Conclusions

We have concentrated on the principal flaws in Tipler’s Omega Point

theory, leaving aside those of a purely technical nature. As we have seen,

his theory involves major errors in attribution, in the use of language, in

understanding the character of knowledge relative to reality, in logic and

consistency, and in the justifiability of fundamental assumptions. As a

result we can see that the Omega Point Theory is far from what Tipler

purports it to be. It is really a texture of fancy and illusion created by the

misuse of both physics and language. It should not be confused with

serious work at the science-theology frontier.

Though our critique has been very negative, there are positive

contributions in Tipler’s Omega-Point writings. He presents some fascinat-

ing perspectives on the universe, physical reality, and their ultimate

meaning. And he is one of the few who has begun to consider what the

future of the universe may mean for us. If one is capable of sitting the

unsupported speculation from what is possibly justifiable, there are some

worthwhile and challenging proposals scattered throughout his book and

his papers on these topics. For example the technical issue of whether a

space-time could in fact exist with a single point as its future c-boundary is

an intriguing one.

Perhaps we should step back and consider the Omega-Point theory

neither as science nor as theology, but rather as contemporary myth—a

New Age story——or as science fiction struggling to find a place for God and

persons in the physical universe. Then as such it may have something to

teach us about our yearnings and our intuition that, however inconsistently

we may articulate it, nothing of value will be lost in the end—life in some

full sense will continue forever.

Science 8r Christian Belief, Vol 7, No 2 0 171

W. R. STOEGER and G. F. R. ELLIS

Our critique has supposed the Omega-Point theory is intended to be

taken seriously as science and theology, or as an adequate replacement for a

rigorous theology. Assuming this standpoint, then as we have shown, it is

deeply flawed and quite unsupportable, the argument being inconsistent

and arbitrary, with numerous unwarranted conclusions being simply

stated as fact; so it cannot be taken seriously in either scienctific or

theological terms. But perhaps our supposition is unjustified, and we have

not correctly identified its literary genre.

References

[1] }ohn D. Barrow and Frank ]. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,

Oxford University Press (Oxford, 1986], Chapter 10, pp. 613—682.

[2] F. I. Tipler, ‘The Omega Point Theory: A Model for an Evolving God,’ in Physics

Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding, eds. Robert I.

Russell, William R. Stoeger, and George V. Coyne, Vatican Observatory, 1988.

pp. 313—331.

[3] F. ]. Tipler, ‘The Ultimate Fate of Life in Universes Which Undergo Inflation,’

Physics Letters, B286, 36 [1992).

[4] F. I. Tipler, Inter. Journ. Theor. Phys, 25, 617 [1986].

[5} F. I. Tipler, ‘The Omega Point as Eschaton. Answers to Pannenberg's Questions

for Scientists,’ Zygon, 24 [June 1989], 217—253.

[6] F. I. Tipler, The Physics of Eternity: Modern Cosmology, Cod, and the

Resurrection of the Dead. Doubleday, 1994, 528 pp.

[7] Martin Gardner, ‘Tipler's Omega Point Theory,’ Skeptical Enquirer, 15 [Winter

1991], pp. 123-132.

18] W. Pannenberg: ‘Theological Appropriation of Scientific Understanding:

Response to Hefner, Wicken, Eaves, and Tipler,‘ Zygon, 24, No 2 [June 1989],

263—271.

[9] G. F. R. Ellis and D. H. Coule: 'Life at the End of the Universe,’ Gen. Rel. and

Grav., 26, 731—739 {1994).

W. R. Stoeger is staff estrophysicist at the Vatican Observatory and adjunct associate

professor of astronomy at the University of Arizona. G. F. R. Ellis is Professor of Appiied

Mathematics specializing in cosmology at the University of Cape Town.

172 0 Science & Christian Belief, Vol 7, No 2