Reply to Jonathan B. Hall
James Redford
"Frank Tipler" (December 28, 2010).
In this post you state that "His [Prof. Frank J. Tipler's] heart is in
the right place", but in your next post you call Tipler "an
intellectual fraud" ("Afterword on Tipler", December 28, 2010). So
which is it?
Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology is now a mathematical theorem per
the known laws of physics, i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
general relativity, and quantum mechanics. The only way the Omega
Point cosmology could be wrong is if one or more of the aforesaid
known laws of physics are wrong. Hence, the only way to avoid the
conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject empirical science:
as these physical laws have been confirmed by every experiment to
date. That is, there exists no rational reason to think that the Omega
Point cosmology is incorrect, and indeed, one must engage in extreme
irrationality in order to argue against the Omega Point cosmology.
Additionally, we now have the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum
gravity/Standard Model 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.
Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been peer-reviewed
and published in a number of the world's leading 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 papers in science and physics
journals wherein Prof. Tipler has published his Omega Point cosmology:
* 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, bibcode: 1986IJTP...25..617T. (First
paper on the Omega Point Theory.)
* Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Principle: A Primer for
Philosophers", in Arthur Fine and Jarrett Leplin (Eds.), PSA 1988:
Proceedings of the 1988 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science
Association, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (East Lansing,
Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1989), pp. 27-48, ISBN
091758628X.
* 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. Republished as Chapter 7: "The
Omega Point as Eschaton: Answers to Pannenberg's Questions to
Scientists" in Carol Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen (editors),
Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg
(Chicago, Ill.: Open Court Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 156-194,
ISBN 0812693256, LCCN 97000114. http://www.webcitation.org/5nY0aytpz
* 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, bibcode:
1992PhLB..286...36T.
* Frank J. Tipler, "A New Condition Implying the Existence of a
Constant Mean Curvature Foliation", bibcode: 1993dgr2.conf..306T, in
B. L. Hu and T. A. Jacobson (editors), Directions in General
Relativity: Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium, Maryland,
Volume 2: Papers in Honor of Dieter Brill (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993), pp. 306-315, ISBN 0521452678, bibcode:
1993dgr2.conf.....H. http://www.webcitation.org/5qbXJZiX5
* Frank J. Tipler, "There Are No Limits To The Open Society", Critical
Rationalist, Vol. 3, No. 2 (September 23, 1998).
http://www.webcitation.org/5sFYkHgSS
* 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 Full proceedings volume:
http://www.webcitation.org/5nwu4fT31
* 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, bibcode:
2007MNRAS.379..629T.
* 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 J. Craig Wheeler
and Hugo Martel (editors), Relativistic Astrophysics: 20th Texas
Symposium, Austin, TX, 10-15 December 2000 (Melville, N.Y.: American
Institute of Physics, 2001), pp. 769-772, ISBN 0735400261, LCCN
2001094694, which is AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 586 (October 15,
2001), doi:10.1063/1.1419654, bibcode: 2001AIPC..586.....W.
* Frank J. Tipler, "Intelligent life in cosmology", International
Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2, Issue 2 (April 2003), pp. 141-148,
doi:10.1017/S1473550403001526, bibcode: 2003IJAsB...2..141T.
http://www.webcitation.org/5o9QHKGuW Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March
31, 2007. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0058
* 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
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 on Progress in Physics
paper--which presents the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-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.webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE )
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.
For much more on these matters, particularly see Prof. Tipler's above
2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper.
You go on to state, "Dr. Tipler defines none of these terms: life,
guide, entire, universe. Having put overtly philosophical language on
the table, he is accountable to the discipline ..." Perhaps
philosophers don't understand what they mean when they use such terms,
but Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment)
at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general
relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and
Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle
physics and computer science. Tipler gives far more precise
definitions for these terms than any mere philosopher ever could. The
article by Tipler that you quote from ("The Omega Point and
Christianity", Gamma, Vol. 10, No. 2 [April 2003], pp. 14-23
http://www.webcitation.org/5tSuTIhb2 ) is written for a popular
audience, with only simple algebra being used for particle
interactions. For more in-depth and technical discussions on these
matters, see Tipler's above papers and the below books.
* Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God
and the Resurrection of the Dead (New York: Doubleday, 1994), ISBN
0385467982.
* John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Foreword" by John A. Wheeler,
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1986), ISBN 0198519494.
You further write, "life itself is profoundly improbable, and thus
doomed by the very law you [Tipler] so spectacularly overinvoke." The
Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems, such as the
universe as a whole, so it can't be used to argue that the evolution
of life on Earth violates physical law.
Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates
natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all
that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the
laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would
violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In
traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural
law--rather, they are events that are so improbable that they can only
be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world.
In reference to a passage you quote from Prof. Tipler's Gamma article,
you say that it is horrible theology, when in fact it is excellent
theology. It's clear that you misunderstood what Tipler had written,
because you incorrectly state regarding it, "He [Tipler] feels that
any sharing of religious belief is by definition abuse. He has no
demonstrated discomfort with confiscatory taxation, on the other
hand." Tipler never said or implied that "any sharing of religious
belief is by definition abuse". Indeed, Tipler likes to share his
religious belief. And Tipler already in part summed up correct
morality as "don�t take [i.e., steal] someone's property", which would
include taxation. (Regarding "covetness", I've found over 150
citations to books and academic journals written in English containing
this word going back to 1834. So it's an actual English word, just not
very common.)
In this vein you state, "even Jesus imposed His will on others.
Remember the cleansing of the temple? Remember 'Fill the jars with
water!'? Remember 'Follow me!'? Remember the raising of the young
girl, with the imperative Aramaic talitha cumi--Damsel, ARISE!--? By
Dr. Tipler's own dim and flaring lamp, Jesus committed 'the only
ethical sin.'"
The only recorded act of violence by Jesus was what is now known as
the Cleansing of the Temple. Although Jesus never hit anyone or
threatened to do so.
(According to John's account, Jesus had a whip of cords during the
Cleansing of the Temple, which the money changers likely would have
assumed that Jesus would have used against them had they challenged
him, but the account doesn't state that Jesus actually made any
particular threat to do so, or even so much as motioned to do so.
Jesus elsewhere [Luke 22:35-38] told his followers to sell their
cloaks in order to purchase swords. Yet Jesus strictly commanded all
of humanity to turn the other cheek and to love one's enemies [Matthew
5:3-12; 38-48; 6:9-15; Mark 11:25,26; Luke 6:27-37; 11:2-4]. The
operating principle here seems to be to let one's enemies assume what
they are predisposed to assume, i.e., to be "wise as serpents and
harmless as doves" [Matthew 10:16].)
Jesus overturned tables and seats inside the temple, but then those
tables and seats likely would have been considered temple property,
and hence dedicated to God. So if Jesus Christ is the Second Person of
the Trinity, then He was simply turning over His own tables and seats,
inside His own temple. If indeed that's the case, then He's allowed to
decide what He wants on His tables and seats inside His temple.
For further analysis of the Cleansing of the Temple, see Section 13 of
my following article: James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social
Science Research Network (SSRN), October 17, 2009 (originally
published December 19, 2001). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Later you state, "Worst of all is his mapping of the Father as the
Future Omega Point, the Son as the Present Omega Point, and the Holy
Ghost as the Past Omega Point. If anything, Father and Holy Ghost
should be switched, to bring the 'theory' in line with the rest of the
Christian tradition, at least nominally and esthetically." Prof.
Tipler's identifications here are in line with Christian theology.
According to Genesis 1:2, it's the Spirit of God which initiates
creation. Jesus Christ is God in the world, i.e., God with humanity,
i.e., God in the present. And God the Father's Kingdom exists in the
future.
The Big Bang initial singularity is the Uncaused First Cause, a
definition of God held by all the Abrahamic religions--it is the Holy
Spirit. The All-Presents Singularity is Jesus Christ in His
transcendent aspect. The Omega Point final singularity is God the
Father.
These aspects of the Cosmological Singularity consist eternally of
three hypostases in a homoousian triune, i.e., three persons in one
substance (ousia). All of existence is mathematically a subset of the
Omega Point (i.e., God the Father) since anything that will ever exist
will be perfectly rendered there, i.e., the Omega Point has infinite
computational resources (in terms of memory space and processor
speed).
You also write, "Some day, please tell me how to convert neutrinos
into neutrinos, as you [Tipler] promise in your second sentence." You
misread the sentence that you refer to (i.e., "These neutrons in atoms
more massive than hydrogen can be annihilated into neutrinos and
antineutrinos ..."). A neutron is a chargeless composite particle
found in most atomic nuclei. A neutrino is a chargeless elementary
particle with little mass that interacts very weakly with matter.
Additionally you say that "you [Tipler] are no Teilhard de Chardin".
Teilhard used the term "Omega Point" to mean the point he maintained
the Earth is evolving to, whereupon superintelligence becomes
dominate, which state Teilhard identified as Christ. While both
Teilhard and Tipler's Omega Point concepts share similarities in their
mutual meliorism, their physical cosmologies are fundamentally
different. Unlike Tipler, Teilhard was not a cosmologist, and his
Omega Point doesn't go beyond the Earth, a fatal flaw that dooms life
in Teilhard's cosmology on the grounds of physics. Teilhard's Omega
Point conception is quite vague on physical details, being more of a
philosophic idea. Tipler chose Teilhard's term upon realizing that
life can continue forever only if the universe ends in a
solitary-point final singularity. In Tipler's use of the term, "Omega
Point" means *end-point*, in the sense of the literal end of spacetime
at a literal geometric point of infinite sharpness.
-----
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 crucially wrong with
said papers. That is, the paradigm itself may have nothing to do with
reality, but the peer-reviewers could find nothing fundamentally 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 fundamentally wrong with
it within its operating paradigm, i.e., the known laws of physics.
----------------------------------------
James Redford, author of "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science
Research Network (SSRN), revised and expanded edition, October 17,
2009 (originally published December 19, 2001)
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761 ,
http://theophysics.chimehost.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf ,
http://theophysics.ifastnet.com/anarchist-jesus.html
Theophysics: God Is the Ultimate Physicist (a website with information
on Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory and the quantum gravity
Theory of Everything [TOE]) http://theophysics.chimehost.net ,
http://theophysics.host56.com