archive.is webpage capture | からアーカイブ | ||
| すべてのスクリーンショット, | ドメインから www.quora.com | ||
| ウェブページスクリーンショット | |||
Sign In
Is Tipler's Omega Point theory a sham or does it have some scientific validity?
3 Answers
Joshua Engel, not a physicist
It's crankery. The original 1994 concept required a collapsing universe. In 1999 it was definitively shown that that wasn't the case.
I gather that he's re-jiggered the theory to make it work in an expanding universe, but that's just tipping it into non-falsifiability. He has a thing that he wants to prove (basically, that Christianity was right all along), and he's going to keep tweaking the theories to prove it.
About the best that can be said for it is that it's a philosophical conundrum along the lines of a Boltzmann brain. Infinities are rife with opportunities for proofs along the lines of "in an infinite universe, extremely unlikely things are not only possible, but must happen an infinite number of times". Such proofs are weak; they can't be definitively excluded but don't end up giving us anything we can really take any meaning from.
As an original concept, it might have been philosophically interesting, but it's not really something that can be taken seriously.
I gather that he's re-jiggered the theory to make it work in an expanding universe, but that's just tipping it into non-falsifiability. He has a thing that he wants to prove (basically, that Christianity was right all along), and he's going to keep tweaking the theories to prove it.
About the best that can be said for it is that it's a philosophical conundrum along the lines of a Boltzmann brain. Infinities are rife with opportunities for proofs along the lines of "in an infinite universe, extremely unlikely things are not only possible, but must happen an infinite number of times". Such proofs are weak; they can't be definitively excluded but don't end up giving us anything we can really take any meaning from.
As an original concept, it might have been philosophically interesting, but it's not really something that can be taken seriously.
Related QuestionsMore Answers Below
Lee Witt, Have had my Ph.D. in statistics since 1989 (my beard is over 40 years old)
Sham is far too kind a word: pile of steaming crap is a far more accurate description. Martin Gardner was insightful when he referred to Tipler's idea as the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" and used the first letters in that description as an abbreviation.
Tipler misuses probability, and (so physicists tell me) physics in his work.
If you haven't read it, don't bother. If you have - do your best to forget about it.
Note: Tipler has descended even further into crackpottery and, well, general foolishness.
a) He is a hard-core denier of climate change, even saying that the fact that it snowed near his location disproving it
b) He says that 'A scientific theory is only truly scientific if it makes predictions “that the average person can check for himself.” '
c) He has worked with the Institute for Creation Science - you don't get a much stronger indication of science denial than that
He did some very impressive work in relativity in his younger days, but his descent to the creationist side seems to have taken his talent for real science and destroyed it.
Tipler misuses probability, and (so physicists tell me) physics in his work.
If you haven't read it, don't bother. If you have - do your best to forget about it.
Note: Tipler has descended even further into crackpottery and, well, general foolishness.
a) He is a hard-core denier of climate change, even saying that the fact that it snowed near his location disproving it
b) He says that 'A scientific theory is only truly scientific if it makes predictions “that the average person can check for himself.” '
c) He has worked with the Institute for Creation Science - you don't get a much stronger indication of science denial than that
He did some very impressive work in relativity in his younger days, but his descent to the creationist side seems to have taken his talent for real science and destroyed it.
James Redford, author
In answer to the question "Is Tipler's Omega Point theory a sham or does it have some scientific validity?": yes to the latter option. Physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Hence, the only way to avoid the Omega Point Theorem is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)
Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. It is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point. Said Omega Point cosmology is also an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which TOE is itself logically forced by the aforesaid known physical laws.
The Omega Point final singularity has all the unique properties (quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology:
* James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708,
https://archive.org/download/The...
, https://sites.google.com/site/ph...
.
Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.
* James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013,
Google Groups
, https://archive.is/a04w9
.
The previous answerers Joshua Engel and Lee Witt both admitted in their responses that they know essentially nothing about Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, yet unfortunately they felt the compulsion to respond to this question.
185
Views