PDA

View Full Version : Omega Point Theory


Tunug
05-24-2005, 15:34
Omega Point Theory is a very curious and interesting theory postulated by Dr. Frank J. Tipler in 1995 in his book "The Physics of Immortality." Tipler claims that his theory is testable. This theory purports to prove the existence of God and the ressurection of mankind into eternity with God. Ideas within this theory have been touched apon by notables such as Steven Hawking, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Wolfhart Pannenberg.

I'm reading his book and I was just wondering if anybody has given this theory a thought. I see it as very difficult for one to remain atheist after studying nature with such depth.

The following is reproduced from Tipler's website at: http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html


I have presented and defended my Omega Point Theory at length in my book The Physics of Immortality (Doubleday, 1994), which is available from Barnes and Noble or Amazon. As science, the Omega Point Theory makes five basic claims about the universe:

(1) the universe is spatially closed (has finite spatial size and has the topology of a three-sphere),

(2) there are no event horizons, implying the future c-boundary is a point --- the Omega Point,

(3) Life must eventually engulf the entire universe and control it,

(4) the amount of information processed between now and the final state is infinite,

(5) the amount of information stored in the universe diverges to infinity as the final state is approached.

I can show that these five basic claims directly follow from the most fundamental laws of physics: unitarity, general relativity with attractive gravity, and the Bekenstein Bound (aka the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). An outline of my proof is given on this web page.

I also argue that the ultimate future state of the universe, the Omega Point, should be identified with God. I have presented my argument in detail in my book The Physics of Immortality, but a main reason for my identification Omega Point = God, comes from Exodus 3:14. In this passage, God is speaking to Moses from the Burning Bush. God gives Moses His Name: EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (in Hebrew, of course). God's Name is best translated into English as I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. In other words, God is telling Moses that His essence is future tense. If we regard God as something Ultimate, then He is telling us that He is the Ultimate Future. Hence my identification Omega Point = God. My translation of EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is taken from the Oxford University Study Bible (Revised Standard Version), but the great German religious leader Martin Luther translated EHYEH ASHER EHYEH the same way into German: ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE. Luther's translation of the Bible was to the German language as the King James version was to the English language.

I am also including on this web page two critical defenses of both my scientific argument and my theological argument.

My science is defended by Dr. David Deutsch, a physicist at Oxford University. In January of 1998, Deutsch was awarded the Dirac Medal for his invention of the quantum computer. Deutsch's defense of my science is taken from his brilliant book The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Books, 1997). This book is available from either Barnes and Noble or Amazon. I can strongly recommend this book for its presentation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, the physics upon which the quantum computer is based. In fact, I agree with almost everything Deutsch says in his book. Where we disagree, I believe it is only because Deutsch has rejected his own theory! I shall reproduce here (with permission) most of the 14th Chapter of Deutsch's book.

My theology is defended by Professor Wolfhart Pannenberg, a theologian at the University of Munich, Germany. Professor Pannenberg has been called "the most brilliant living theological mind". He has been termed "one of the three great theologians of the 20th century". He holds five honorary doctors of divinity degrees. He is eminently qualified to judge theology. Professor Pannenberg's paper, which I reproduce here (with his permission) was originally presented at a conference on my book, held in June of 1997 in Innsbruck, Austria.

Amusingly, the theologian Pannenberg is dubious about some of my physics, and the physicist Deutsch doesn't like my theology! As you will read, Pannenberg does not like the Many- Worlds Interpretation (which Deutsch --- and I --- believe in because it is required by quantum mechanics). Deutsch defends the MWI in his book. I am placing on this web page another defense of the MWI, entitled "Quantum Nonlocality Does Not Exist," which shows that locality --- a fundamental fact of relativity --- is restored to physics by the MWI. I might add that most of the great physicists --- Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, for examples --- have publicly announced their support for the MWI.

I have included my replies to Deutsch's criticisms of my theology in the excerpts from Deutsch's book. Deutsch does not like the idea of God as the Ultimate Future, but Pannenberg many years ago concluded, as I have, that the Bible says God is the Ultimate Future.

BlenderWizard
05-24-2005, 21:06
Wow, that sounds really interesting. Much better than my pastor's (who is a PhD) explanation that the Bible is true because it says it is true.

debo
05-24-2005, 22:05
The knowledge that God exists is not meant to be proven scientifically. You come to know God through exercising faith in Jesus Christ. Then the Holy Ghost will witness unto you that those things are true. Basically what I'm saying is you don't prove God exists, you do things His way and he will prove to you that he exists. I don't mean to discredit what you were saying. I love physics and how it relates to God. And seeing the evidence of God in nature is a good thing as well. But a true knowledge comes from what I described above. The scientific proof might get some athiests to say there is a God, but it won't convert them to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Bill
05-24-2005, 23:25
Tunug-

He doesn't CLAIM that his theory proves the existence of God. He claims he can prove 5 points (points that are by themselves without theology).

Then he points out that the things he has proof for ~parallel~ certain OLD TESTAMENT texts.

What he does is put up a logical proof of Physics, and ties it to his theology, basically by saying "I can prove that one day everything will come back together. This models my view of God, where all information, all things, are known to God who is omnipotent" (my words, paraphrasing).

He doesn't prove ANYTHING about God. He puts up a model that he feels supports his theology.

That's IT.

Tunug
05-26-2005, 03:49
Bill.... That's IT??? did you read his book? lol

I'm only partway into the book and it's quite heavy and technical but fascinating nonethless. Hawking has some similar ideas on some of the matter.

he isnt trying to wholly prove the nature of god.....
he is showing the logical and mathematical theory that the realm of physics is predicting the universe's future entailing mankind's ressurected oneness with the universe and it's intelligent creator.... Not proving a theology... but scientifically bringing the study of physics to a new level that is the same foundation for theology. It's amazing that most of the greatest minds of theoretical physics were once atheist but can't help but admit that they are looking at a God head that is staring them in the face -- not just mere ideas but logically and mathematically testable -- .... and even more amazing that it is eminent that mankind is bound for a oneness (singularity) with this infinitely powerful state in the future. Just the fact that we are on the verge of creating thinking machines (and online globally with the internet) more powerful than us within the next 20-40 years. The only things that can stifle our current progress at this time is if AI cant be acheived just yet because we hit a limit of resources or mankind is destroyed partly (or totally somehow) by our own selves (terrorism)

Discovery of ZPF, it's nonlocality.... singularity of blackholes with regards to a Big Crunch, and Hawking radiation has dramatically changed the way physicists are unifying quantum mechanics, and cosmology (which are both hard science but strangely were thought to operate on some very different sets of laws and maths until the last 15 years were discoveries are about to unify them), and now a scientific base for philosophy.

To watch these changes take place in the next generation or two, one must have their head buried DEEP in the sand to remain atheist!

define the nature of It any way ya want.... that will be where science fiction will go.... but although like the mystery of gravity, magnetism, and electricity.... even though we don't fully understand It, we'll all know It exists.

Bill
05-26-2005, 21:51
Scientists cannot be aethiests. Aethism isn't logical, because it denies the existence of god (lower G). An agnositc says that hey hasn't yet seen proof of any god (again lower case G) but doesn't deny that it is possible.

If you are a true scientist, you should understand that there is a possibility that there is a god (lower G) that we have no evidence of, and therefore, even if you don't believe there is a god, you must be agnostic.

And this has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. He's just YOUR version.

Did you notice that the Bible quotes that this physicist used are Old Testament? Maybe God is a Jew or a Muslim.

Tunug
05-26-2005, 22:09
lol@u

If you are a true scientist, you should understand that there is a possibility that there is a god (lower G) that we have no evidence of

no evidence of? this is where i think u and many miss the point, but oh well

Tunug
05-26-2005, 22:34
debo... i'm with ya, man!

The knowledge that God exists is not meant to be proven scientifically.

Actually i think it can be and is meant to be, otherwise it wouldnt be that way. I think that it's also meant to be that the hard of hearts is meant to not see things this way, but that is their choice, isn't it?

now salvation is a different matter... the way to God, I believe is provable in other ways, but not "scientific", because it is not testable by scientific methods. I don't think that traditional scientific methods are always accurate (not completely objective) because there is in many cases where there is more than meets the eye (empirical).

The mainstream scientific community will completely discount any sort of phenomenon that is not reproducable and or testable. Which, back to the theory of Omega Point, is interesting, because it is observable and testable, logically and mathematically. No, it doesn't claim to describe the nature of and path to God in accordance with any traditional religion, but it does seem to show evidence of His omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient reality. It's cool stuff to think about. I am reading a lot of arguments online for and against this theory as I read the book, and I agree with claims on both sides. It's just great thought excersize, and neat to see a scientific foundation for spiritual beliefs.

Havok
05-27-2005, 21:16
I think certain phenomenon.... that cannot be explained, as stated above: gravity, electricity, magnitism, as well as strong and weak radiation forces... ALSO the 'big bang' theory... needs to have a 'touch' to get it started. Something else needs to 'bind and penetrate' the universe.

this leads me to believe, as a student of engineering... that there must be a power "behind the scenes" that explains the un-explainable.

I believe this force as "God " or "intelligent design" or whatever you want. wether we can communicate or whatever else.... is up to the individual... i sure HOPE so... but... it helps things to makes sense.

-=B=-

Scully
05-30-2005, 14:53
I'm really going to be peeved if I don't get some answers in the afterlife.

Indyarms
07-08-2005, 23:26
God is Great, God is good....

We thank the God for all our....... GUNS!!!



:lol: