Mr Redford says: "Teilhard's and Prof. Tipler's omega point concepts are different ideas:"

I'm not disputing the physics, which - for all I know - may well be correct. I'm disputing the fantasy element .............

"Tipler have come under a lot of attack for his theories, not entirely undeserved. Applying theology to physics (or the reverse) have long been a taboo, and he boldly breaks it. Whether this is a good or bad thing is hard to tell; there is enormous potential for misunderstanding, confusion and pure pseudoscience, but at the same time it might force some fresh air into the stale dialogue between faith and science. As I see it, Tipler has made several quite audacious claims which probably don't hold water, but many of his ideas and lines of reasoning are probably sound, and might one day be used for other purposes than to prove the existence of the personal God Tipler seeks. ...........

........... The Eternal Life Postulate claims that life will exist forever. If one accept it, Tipler claims one have to accept the Omega Point since it provides the only possible way to bring this about (I would rather say it provides the only known or conjectured way to do this, there might be others). Since life in general seems to evolve towards increased changes of survival in any given environment, one could argue that evolution will favour this Postulate, even if it is not a ontological truth. However, we should always remember that evolution is blind, and many species or groups of organisms have become trapped in blind alleys (like the insects, whose size cannot increase due to their tracheatic system). It is possible that life (and intelligent thought) may become trapped in such a way as to make eternal life impossible. However, the postulate is just one of the reasons Tipler accepts Omega as inevitable."

http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/tipler_page.html

Here's a less kind review:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/tipler.html

......... and it gets worse .............

"How can the three persons of the Trinity be one God?

    The Cosmological Singularity consists of three Hypostases: the Final Singularity, the All-Presents Singularity, and the Initial Singularity. These can be distinguished by using Cauchy sequences of different sorts of person, so in the Cauchy completion, they become three distinct Persons. But still, the three Hypostases of the Singularity are just one Singularity. The Trinity, in other words, consists of three Persons but only one God. (pp. 269–270.) .............

(Spiney comment: In other words, the early Christians were experts at Complex Analysis ......... !)
     
............... How did Jesus walk on water?

    For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward. If we ourselves knew how to do this, we would have the perfect rocket! (p. 200) ..............

(Spiney comment: Dr Who only has a sonic screwdriver, and Tardis, but after all this is Jesus!)

.......... How can long-dead saints intercede in the lives of people who pray to them?

    According to the Universal Resurrection theory, everyone, in particular the long-dead saints, will be brought back into existence as computer emulations in the far future, near the Final Singularity, also called God the Father. … Future-to-past causation is usual with the Cosmological Singularity. A prayer made today can be transferred by the Singularity to a resurrected saint—the Virgin Mary, say—after the Universal Resurrection. The saint can then reflect on the prayer and, by means of the Son Singularity acting through the multiverse, reply. The reply, via future-to-past causation, is heard before it is made. It is heard billions of years before it is made. (p. 235)".

No Comment!

http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2007-06/000851.html

You're here engaging in the logical fallacy of circular argument, as you're taking for granted that Christianity is incorrect. Yet if Christianity is true, then your objection to the Omega Point cosmology being in conformance with traditional Christian descriptions of God's nature (such as God existing as a triune being) is in error.

Prof. Tipler didn't set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point Theory which occured after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [pg. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, Issue 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460 http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt ).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (pg. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on an emulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the emulation).

The only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), and hence to reject empirical science: as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point Theory is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.

Additionally, we now have the quantum gravity Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics: of which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology. So here we have an additional high degree of assurance that the Omega Point cosmology is correct.

Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1] Even NASA itself has peer-reviewed his Omega Point Theory and found it correct according to the known laws of physics (see below). No refutation of it exists within the peer-reviewed scientific literature, or anywhere else for that matter.

Below are some of the peer-reviewed science and physics journals in which Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published:

- Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 (June 1986), pp. 617-661; doi:10.1007/BF00670475. (First paper on the Omega Point Theory.)

- Frank J. Tipler, "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions for Scientists," Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, Vol. 24, Issue 2 (June 1989), pp. 217-253; doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1989.tb01112.x. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf , http://www.gazup.com/FLQT0-tipler-omega-point-as-eschaton.pdf-download-mirrors Republished as Chapter 7: "The Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to Scientists" in Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, edited by Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), ISBN: 0812693256, pp. 156-194.

- Frank J. Tipler, "The ultimate fate of life in universes which undergo inflation," Physics Letters B, Vol. 286, Issues 1-2 (July 23, 1992), pp. 36-43; doi:10.1016/0370-2693(92)90155-W.

- Frank J. Tipler, "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe," NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, January 1999, pp. 111-119; an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; doi:2060/19990023204. Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-ultrarelativistic-rockets.pdf See also: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ntk=DocumentID&Ntt=19990023204 , http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19990023204_1999021520.pdf

- Frank J. Tipler, "The Ultimate Future of the Universe, Black Hole Event Horizon Topologies, Holography, and the Value of the Cosmological Constant," arXiv:astro-ph/0104011, April 1, 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104011 Published in Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000, edited by J. Craig Wheeler and Hugo Martel (Melville, N.Y.: American Institute of Physics, 2001), ISBN: 0735400261, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15, 2001), pp. 769-772; doi:10.1063/1.1419654.

- Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology," International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148; doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526. http://theophysics.110mb.com/pdf/tipler-intelligent-life-in-cosmology.pdf Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058

- Frank J. Tipler, Jessica Graber, Matthew McGinley, Joshua Nichols-Barrer and Christopher Staecker, "Closed Universes With Black Holes But No Event Horizons As a Solution to the Black Hole Information Problem," arXiv:gr-qc/0003082, March 20, 2000. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003082 Published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 379, Issue 2 (August 2007), pp. 629-640; doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11895.x.

- 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; doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, in which the above August 2007 paper was published, is one of the world's leading peer-reviewed astrophysics journals.

Prof. Tipler's paper "Ultrarelativistic Rockets and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" was an invited paper for a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, so NASA itself has peer-reviewed Tipler's Omega Point Theory (peer-review is a standard process for published proceedings papers; and again, Tipler's said paper was an *invited* paper by NASA, as opposed to what are called "poster papers").

Zygon is the world's leading peer-reviewed academic journal on science and religion.

Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005," Reports on Progress in Physics. http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/-page=extra.highlights/0034-4885 )

Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). A journal's impact factor reflects the importance the science community places in that journal in the sense of actually citing its papers in their own papers. (And just to point out, Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper could not have been published in Physical Review Letters since said paper is nearly book-length, and hence not a "letter" as defined by the latter journal.)

For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper in addition to the following resource:

Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist http://theophysics.ifastnet.com , http://theophysics.110mb.com

-----

Note:

1. While there is a lot that gets published in physics journals that is anti-reality and non-physical (such as string theory, which violates the known laws of physics and has no experimental support whatsoever), the reason such things are allowed to pass the peer-review process is because the paradigm of assumptions which such papers are speaking to has been made known, and within their operating paradigm none of the referees could find anything wrong with said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing wrong with such papers within the operating assumptions of that paradigm. Whereas, e.g., the operating paradigm of Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper is the known laws of physics, i.e., our actual physical reality which has been repeatedly confirmed by every experiment conducted to date. So the professional physicists charged with refereeing this paper could find nothing wrong with it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.

1 Has Tipler - or has he not - written a book called "The Physics of Christianity", and if so then in what sense is he an atheist ?

2. We don't yet have a TOE.

3. As an agnostic, I think Jesus probably wasn't part of God, but anyway, I'm damn sure he wasn't a hyper-quantum-computer at the-end-of-the-universe, using exotic subatomic particles to perform miracles ......... notice I'm not even mentioning the ethics of why "the eventual fully conscious quantum computer universe" would want to tell us such crazy lies!

1 Has Tipler - or has he not - written a book called "The Physics of Christianity", and if so then in what sense is he an atheist ?

Of course he wrote a book with that title, as I have cited said book within this thread. Nor is Prof. Frank J. Tipler currently an atheist, as I have repeatedly pointed out here. Tipler was an atheist at the time of the publication of his book The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994). I also have pointed that out here repeatedly. Yet he said therein that the reason he was still an atheist is because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory. The Omega Point Theory has advanced since that time, such that it's been shown that the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics. Hence, Tipler now considers himself a theist.

Please pay attention, as this has already been elaborated on in my prior posts.

2. We don't yet have a TOE.

We do if one conforms with the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), as the only way to avoid the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology--is to violate said known laws of physics, of which physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to date. That is, there exists no rational reason for thinking that the Omega Point quantum gravity TOE is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme irrationality in order to argue against it (since to argue against it one would have to violate one or more of the known laws of physics).

3. As an agnostic, I think Jesus probably wasn't part of God, but anyway, I'm damn sure he wasn't a hyper-quantum-computer at the-end-of-the-universe, using exotic subatomic particles to perform miracles ......... notice I'm not even mentioning the ethics of why "the eventual fully conscious quantum computer universe" would want to tell us such crazy lies!

The miracles of Jesus Christ are made possible via the existence of the Omega Point (since in physics it's just as accurate to say that causation goes from future to past events: viz., the principle of least action; and unitarity).

Quote from: James Redford on Mar 03, 2010, 04:06:58 PM

The known laws of physics (specifically, the Standard Model of particle physics), allows the miracles of Jesus Christ to have taken place. So it's perfectly physically possible, using only known physical laws that have been repeatedly confirmed.

Given that QM is an inherently probabilistic theory, nearly everything is possible, at least in a mathematical sense. It would be possible for all the atoms that currently make up yourself to spontaneously reassemble themselves into an army of badgers. The only problem with this is that the probability is so close to zero that it is practically impossible.

Seriously, trying to argue the reality of alleged miracles in some holy books with the standard model is just batshit crazy. I don't care what great work Tipler has done in the past, but he apparently completely lost it at some point.

This is where the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE)--which inherently produces the Omega Point cosmology--comes into play. Only those possibilities with an Omega Point end-point will actually exist.

So the Omega Point TOE actually introduces rationality into an existence that would otherwise be just a random existence of probabilities--in which case, anything could happen, and indeed, everything will happen, even if the probability is low. Instead, with the Feynman-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE, the only probabilities that are possible are those which lead to the Omega Point.

If the coming of Jesus Christ was necessary in order to lead to the Omega Point, then the probability of said event occuring is exactly 1: certain to happen.

For more on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

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, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

Quote from: James Redford on May 14, 2012, 05:53:04 PM

For more on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs

There are lots of non-sequiturs in Tipler's and your arguments. Let's just start off with a simple one: Why exactly does the universe have to collapse to a point? How do you (and Tipler) know that it can't keep expanding forever? In that case, unless I am mistaken, Tipler's argument with the Bekenstein bound falls apart completely.

If the universe kept expanding forever, then that would violate unitarity. For more on this, see Sec. 3.1: "The Omega Point" and App. A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" of my following article:

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, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

Quote from: Lukas on May 14, 2012, 06:26:02 PM

Quote from: James Redford on May 14, 2012, 05:53:04 PM

For more on physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof of God's existence according to the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/66pCpB7Zs

There are lots of non-sequiturs in Tipler's and your arguments. Let's just start off with a simple one: Why exactly does the universe have to collapse to a point? How do you (and Tipler) know that it can't keep expanding forever? In that case, unless I am mistaken, Tipler's argument with the Bekenstein bound falls apart completely.

If the universe kept expanding forever, then that would violate unitarity. For more on this, see Sec. 3.1: "The Omega Point" and App. A.2: "The Bekenstein Bound and the Ultimate Future of the Universe" of my following article: [...]

I see, so it the apparent black hole information paradox? However, physics has moved on and most physicists nowadays seem to think that the holographic principle solves this problem, including Hawking himself.

Also, much of your and Tipler's argument seem to rely on a supposed consistent "Theory of Everything" ("Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity"). I don't think any mainstream physicist (including Feynman, DeWitt, and Weinberg) would agree or would have agreed that this is really a "theory of everything".

Here is how one mainstream physicist, Sean Carroll from CalTech, views Tipler: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/01/05/the-varieties-of-crackpot-experience/

Re the paper linked to in Reply 25: I haven't read it all yet, but here are some of my initial questions.

Page 4: "The known laws of physics require there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time in order to force the collapse of the universe and then manipulate its collapse so that the computational capacity of the universe can diverge to infinity."

This sounds like a disproof of free will to me. If the laws of physics require life to not only exist, but to perform certain tasks at certain times, then there cannot be a case where those tasks don't happen, and therefore there's no choice or free will possible.

Free will is physically allowed because in the multiverse all choices which do not violate physical law do in fact happen. Additionally, at the quantum level, within any single universe the outcome of quantum states is undetermined.

For further information on how free will is physically allowed, see Ch. 7 of Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1994).

Section 7.1 (page 35): The paper states that the haecceities of the Omega Point are omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. It then goes on to say that "These three properties are the traditional definitions of God held by almost all of the world’s leading religions."
Yet there are religions that don't have a singular God with these haecceities (the polytheistic religions of ancient Greece and Rome, for instance), and even the Abrahamic religions give Yahweh/God/Allah additional haecceities than just these. Exodus 34:14 describes Yahweh as being "jealous" of "other gods". For the Omega Point to be identical with Yahweh, it too must be jealous. What is it jealous of? Are there other Omega Points that the intelligent civilizations in this universe can experience and worship?

Jealousy is not a unique property (i.e., haecceity) claimed for God, as it's a property that applies to ordinary humans. Regarding the Old Testament, see Sec. 7.4.2: "God's Relation to the Old Testament" of my following article:

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, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://scribd.com/doc/79273334 , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://webcitation.org/6Abfap2bp

Section 7.3 (page 43): The paper states that the trinity of God is reflected in the three-in-one nature of the singularities involved: the Initial Singularity (the Big Bang, I assume), the Final Singularity (the Omega Point), and a term I can only find in Omega Point-related papers: the All-Presents Singularity (everything in between). I assume that the Father is synonymous with the Initial Singularity. Which one is synonymous with the Son? By that I mean, which one redeems us humans on this planet? And why do we need redeeming, since, as I showed above, there's no free will in this model?

Prof. Frank J. Tipler identifies the Final Singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the All-Presents Singularity (which exists at all times at the edge of the multiverse), and the Initial Singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang) with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, respectively (successively, the First, Second and Third Persons of the Trinity).

For the physics of the Trinity, see Sec. 6: "The quantized FRW universe", Subsec. 6.3: "Singularity structure of the multiverse", pp. 922–924, which is pp. 41-43 of the arXiv version, of Prof. Tipler's below paper:

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, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T. http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3276

See pp. 82, 97 and 100 of the following book for more on the physics of the Trinity; and pp. 226–235 for how Jesus the Man can be united with the All-Presents Singularity: Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Christianity (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2007).

Back to page 4: "[A]s the universe comes to an end at this singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe (in terms of both its processor speed and memory storage) increases unlimitedly [sic] with a hyperbolic growth rate as the radius of the universe collapses to zero, allowing an infinite number of bits to be processed and stored before the end of spacetime." So the computational power only gets powerful enough to become God at the end of the universe? Where, then, is God at the beginning and the middle? If it's only God at the end and we're in a simulation, then isn't it a category error to confuse the simulated universe created by the Omega Point with the actual universe which created the Omega Point?

See Sec.: "Worlds within Worlds", pp. 39 ff. of my aforecited "Physics of God" article.

More page 4: "Via this supertask, a simulation run on this cosmological computer can thereby continue forever in its own terms (i.e., in computer clock time, or experiential time), even though the universe lasts only a finite amount of proper time."
Don't supertasks violate the known laws of physics? No computation can happen in faster than Planck time. Eventually (i.e. in finite time) the infinite series of the supertask will get to that limit and stop being able to get faster.

Physics recognizes that physical processes take place which are smaller than the Planck scales. For example, the Big Bang initial singularity was of zero radius, which is infinitely smaller than the Planck length. And the Planck mass is approximately 21.7651 µg, whereas obviously there are many physically real things which are much less massive than this.

I eagerly await your replies.