Michael Shermer dedicated a chapter to dealing with Dr. Tipler's Omega Point in why people believe weird things. I'll briefly summarize some of his main criticisms (in my own words):
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.
The evidence that Prof. Frank J. Tipler provided for the existence of the Omega Point in his book The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994) was the laws of physics themselves: i.e., that the known laws of physics allow for the Omega Point to exist.
What Prof. Tipler said in his 1994 book is that he didn't have any experimental confirmation that the Omega Point Theory was correct. Hence, he said that he still regarded himself as an atheist, and that he would continue to regard himself as an atheist until the Omega Point Theory is confirmed. The Omega Point Theory has advanced since that time. Since that time it's been shown that the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date.
In the same book, Prof. Tipler correctly predicted the mass of the top quark, which contradicted the mass predicted by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN). Indeed, a paper Tipler sent to Physical Review Letters in 1992 correctly predicting the mass of the top quark was turned down with the explanation from one referee that it was "clearly refuted by experiment. The estimate from CERN indicates it is going to be 150." And so Europe's (and indeed the world's) most influential particle physicists were wrong and Prof. Tipler was right.
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.
The quotation you provide of "science will find a way" comes not from Prof. Tipler, but from Michael Shermer in his book Why People Believe Weird Things (A. W. H. Freeman/Owl Book, 2002). Nor have I seen where Shermer has accused Tipler of supporting the idea of faster than lightspeed travel. Tipler has never endorsed such an idea. Tipler accepts all known physical laws. Indeed, Tipler, in addition to being a mathematician, is also a global general relativist (the same rarefied field of Profs. Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose).
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.
The Omega Point Theory has advanced since the publication of Prof. Tipler's 1994 book. Since that time it's been shown that the only way to avoid the Omega Point Cosmology is to violate the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics), of which have been confirmed by every experiment to date.
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.
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).
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.
The foregoing comment contradicts the laws of physics, particularly quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, which require that quantum indistinguishability be true, i.e., that identical quantum states are in every way indistinguishable, even in principle. (For more on this, see The Physics of Immortality [New York: Doubleday, 1994], Chapter IX: "The Physics of Resurrection of the Dead to Eternal Life," Section: "Quantum Mechanics Supports the Pattern Identity Theory," pp. 230-233, and Appendix D: "The Law of Mass Action Requires Quantum Indistinguishability," pp. 412-416.)
It also contradicts mathematics and logic, since a bit sequence that is exactly identical to another is tautologically identical. Mathematics, logic and computing wouldn't be possible if this were not true.
Further, it asserts something that no one actually believes, i.e., as it pertains to situations that people actually have firsthand practical experience with. When someone loses an important computer file, we all realize that if they have a bit-identical copy of the file that it is in every way identical to the one they lost.
Let's contemplate the absurdity that would arise if someone believed contrarily. Take the example of a man who comes home to find that his hard drive has crashed, irretrievably corrupting all his files. The man is an author, and his hard drive contained all of the chapters to his forthcoming thousand-page magnum opus which he had spent many years of painstaking labor on. He becomes distraught upon realizing that all his years of diligent effort have been wiped out. Whereupon his wife informs him that she made a bit-identical backup copy of the entire hard drive earlier that day. The husband, hearing this, responds thusly:
""
O', my pulchritudinous wife, you have brought me very low--lower than before! For in this, my great moment of need, you, rather than provide me succor, instead have chosen to mock me with your offer of an ersatz simulacrum of my œuvre. Forsooth, what Fate hath wrought asunder upon the Plutonian shore cannot be undone by means of a spurious effigy.
O', why must you mock me so, thou taunting temptress?! Depart from my presence so that I can mourn alone, and take with you that counterfeit mimature of my opus! I must resign myself to the fact that my great work is forever lost!
""
Anyone knowledgeable with computers would realize that this husband has a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation: that two bit-identical files aren't merely an imitation of each other, but that they are mathematically, logically, and computationally exactly identical in every way, even in principle. They aren't merely very similar: they are indeed exactly the same file.
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.
Michael Shermer isn't a mathematician or a physicist, unlike Prof. Tipler (who holds a joint professorship appointment in both the departments of Mathematics and of Physics); nor has Shermer ever published his criticisms of Tipler's Omega Point Theory in any peer-reviewed science journal (let alone physics journal), which is the standard process of the scientific method.
Whereas Prof. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics and science 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://www.webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz ,
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://www.webcitation.org/5nY13xRip 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/0704.3276Monthly 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.comThe 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.
-----
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.
