Intelligent Design, The Omega Point Theory, and the Elephant in the Room

Continue the good work Mike. Interesting ideas stretch the mind, open us to the possibility of catching a glimpse of the ineffable, reveal what is there within us all yet unseen, just as DNA used to be.

Tipler is being ignored, as was David Bohm. Bohm has an even better claim to scientific justification and eschewed following an imaginary path into the future and confined himself to describing the implicate and explicate present orders with clear (even to the likes of laymen such as I) scientific/mathematical proofs. Teilhard was banished to China and forbidden to publish. His legacy – and humility – will show the way for the next generation who will rediscover him and his historical / theological interpretations.

Meanwhile you ain’t doing too bad yourself.

The real big elephant in the room is that you cant describe a supernatural entity with natural law, hence the term supernatural.
The efforts to find ones faith as a derivative of sophistication is doomed to failure. If you will find the supernatural definable within natural laws by definition you believe in a natural phenomenon which through definition has to be given an additional fantastical component just to jazz it up to make it extra-special. Just where we came from as a physical organism is irrelevant in a metaphysical sense except for those seeking an exception from the supernatural grace that they claim is so omportant.
I have little regard for the products of emotional and feeble man based on serial insinuations and interpretations of multiple vague derivative theoretical constructs. You can’t find faith in a caluclator or a dictionary. You weren’t intended to.
Thats what supernatural means…

“The drive-by shooting of “ID” perpetrated by NS got me thinking about cosmologist Frank J. Tipler and his mathematically impervious proof for the existence of God: The Omega Point Theory (OPT).”

Bullet Proof? Page 305, “The Physics of Immortality”

“To emphasise the scientific nature of the Omega Point Theory, let me state here that I am at present forced to consider myself an atheist, in the literal sense that I am not a theist. … I do not even believe in the Omega Point. The Omega Point Theory is a viable scientific theory of the future of the physical universe, but the only evidence in its favour at the moment is theoretical beauty, for there is as yet no confirming experimental evidence for it. Thus scientifically one is not compelled to accept it at the time of my writing these words. … If the Omega Point Theory and all possible variations of it are disconfirmed, then I think atheism .. is the only rational alternative. But of course I also think the Omega Point Theory has a very good chance of being right, otherwise I would never have troubled to write this book. If the Omega Point Theory is confirmed, I shall then consider myself a theist.”

A good discussion of this book is at:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html

yet more proof that if you put enough sequential vague concepts in a series you’ll probably be able to come full circle without most people noticing and impressing quite a few who dont notice the lack of anything tangible and incontravertable in a physical sense as sole proof of its validity. REAL proof is obtained without the need to use the word “if” more than once in said proof. The proof of intelligent design shouldnt rely on hundreds of interpretive conceptual “ifs” strung together.
The best univeral truths are those that are self-evident to all. Occult revealed truths are suspect by their very nature. And should be…

infidel57 – thank you for your comments. I will review your link with great interest. Meanwhile, “The Physics of Immortality” was first published in – I believe – 1993. (I remember where I was working at the time that I read it, because I discussed it with someone in particular who was also very interested in Tipler’s theory.) So the quote about him being an atheist is at least 15 years old.

Since then, I believe that Tipler has changed his mind.

Here’s a quote from his summary of the OPT located on his website:

“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.”

Sounds like a Christian to me. In any case, Tipler’s “commitment” to atheism is only so deep as his scientific training and adherence to his professional standards. In the absence of demonstrable evidence that God exists (or will exist), he is bound by his Sacred Trade (ie., the Scientific Method), to count himself an atheist. To the extent that he is professionally satisfied by the mathematics of the OPT (irrespective of how the Big Crunch occurs), he may count himself a Christian.
However, since I am not a scientist, I am not bound by such a standard, and so – as a layman – I am already convinced that the evidence is in: God exists, and He has a knowable character.

“…as a layman – I am already convinced that the evidence is in: God exists, and He has a knowable character.”

Scientist or layment, the standards of evidence are the same — can it be verified and duplicated. I am interested in knowing what evidence, as a layment, that has convinced you since all the evidence has been examined throught the various philophical arguments and have been found lacking as “proof”.

Also, if Tipler has found proof of existence of the Omega Point, he either needs to furnish that proof or explicitly retract his page 305 qualification if, indeed, he wants to be a theist and admit that his belief is based on faith, not science. I have a feeling that he was being less than candid when he declared himself an atheist but wanted to hedge his bets with the scientific community who would be reviewing his work.

infidel57 – I read through the article by Graham Oppy found on your website. I must say, for a man with his credentials, it seems written by an undergraduate. For example, Oppy begins his analysis with cheap jibes about OPT being a “joke” and wondering what it might “profit Frank Tipler” if OPT were true. Worse, instead of dissecting the health of Tipler’s science, Oppy deliberately avoids a head-on collision with the actual Theory, and choses to pick an epistemological fight with Tipler:

“The most important thing to note is the large appendix for scientists. In this part of the book, Tipler provides sketches of some of the mathematical and physical foundations for the theory. For the purposes of this notice, I shall ignore the appendix for scientists, and simply consider the material in the main text.” (Link to Eppy article.)

But if you would like to argue Tipler’s points epistemologically, you might better be referred to Oxford physicist David Deutsch, who, in his book, The Fabric of Reality, spent many pages dissecting Tipler’s Omega Point Theory. (See pages 347 through 365 for Deutsch’s full deconstruction of Tipler’s theory.)

Professor Deutsch understands both the mathematics of the OPT – which are irresistible – and apparently a bit more about the epistemology of OPT than either yourself or Mr. Oppy.

Deutsch writes that, for him, “the simplest point of entry to the omega-point theory is the Turing Principle. A universal virtual-reality generator is physically possible. Such a machine is able to render any physically possible environment, as well as certain hypothetical and abstract entities, to any desired accuracy.” (P. 348)

Deutsch goes on to say that “In some current cosmological models, the universe will recollapse in a Big Crunch after a finite time, and is also spatially finite. It has the geometry of a ‘3-sphere’, the three-dimenstional analogue of the two-dimensional surface of a sphere….” (p. 348)

“The key discovery in the omega point theory is that of a class of cosmological models in which, through the universe is finite in both space and time, the memory capacity, the number of possible computational steps and the effective energy supply are all unlimited.” (pp 348-349)

Neither David Deutsch nor professor Hawking agree with Tipler’s conclusion that God exists. But they can’t argue with Tipler’s formula. This formula – located in the Appendix for Scientists noted (yet remarkably ignored) by your writer, Mr. Eppy, is mathematical irrefutable and irreducible by graduate students or website owners.

More on Mr. Oppy’s critique of Tipler:

I have already mentioned that Mr. Oppy stoops to personal insult and insinuation in his self-styled ‘analysis’ of Tipler’s book, The Physics of Immortality.

I mean no disrespect to Mr. Oppy, but the very first sentence of his article is elucidating:

“Some people have wondered whether this book is an elaborate joke.”

On the surface it seems an oddly defensive way to begin a dispassionate ‘analysis’ of Tipler’s claims. This is especially true considering that Tipler’s previous contribution to science – The Anthropic Principle [with colleague John D. Barrow] has been a standard textbook at most universities for two decades, and has been acknowledged by none other than Richard Dawkins as an indispensable foundation for his own work as an anthropologist.

No offense to Mr. Oppy, but he is hardly in the same league as Professor Tipler, and should not be so casual in his writing on a subject of such import.

On page 3 of Mr. Oppy’s analysis, he writes the following:

“While the idea that one might ‘place’ the terms of traditional theology in the framework of a modern physical theory is not initially plausible, I suppose that one ought to be prepared to judge the results with something like an open mind.”

Yes. I suppose we should, Mr. Oppy. But on the very next page you opine the opposite when you said, in your quite figurative language:

“There is no reason at all to think that there is anything in traditional theology which approaches, or indeed remotely resembles, the Omega Point Theory. If theology is to seek comfort from modern physics, it should look elsewhere.”

I beg to differ with Mr. Oppy on this claim, and would suggest that he take that matter up with the very respected theologians that have embraced Dr. Tipler’s ideas as consistent within their traditional religions.

On page 5, Mr. Oppy wrote about the discontinuity between a “flesh-and-blood” self and their “emulations” on a computer:

“The crucial point is that there should be no conflation of things with representations of those things. A computer emulation of a thing is a (perfect) representation of that thing: but that’s all. If the thing is flesh and blood, then the computer emulation represents it as being of flesh and blood — but this does not mean that the emulation is itself a thing of flesh and blood. (Since we are talking about computers, the emulation might as well be thought of as an electronic encoding of a binary pattern. No flesh and blood there.)”

Actually, I don’t think this is true. I think an argument can be made that our identities are physically encoded onto the environment – much the same way that an analog tape stores data: in tightly wrapped streams of irregularities etched on a moving surface.

That means that the “information package” that is your human identity is physically associated with the flesh and blood world of the here-and-now. Your actions – and your very thoughts – have a long-term and quantifiable impact on the final state of this universe.
Without meaning to get metaphysical (sorry – couldn’t resist), the identity that is “you” can be defined by the ultimate outcomes of all the causes that you initiated during your lifetime.

Since causes have an ultimate beginning – widely acknowledged as the Big Bang – it is reasonable to assume that causes will have an eventual outcome – be it the Big Crunch or the Heat Death or whatever. The point is, at some time in the far future, the universe will run out of causes.

Your human identity, therefore, can be defined as the difference between the two following conditions:

1. A universe in which you existed, and
2. A universe in which you did not exist.

Depending on which of these two conditions are true – and when they are true – the universe will have a different (and ultimately predictable) outcome.

But the multiverse – as proposed by Richard Feynman and endorsed by Deutsch, Hawking, Tipler and lots of others – adds a remarkable facet to the puzzle.

Instead of having just two conditions (one in which you existed at a particular time in the history of the universe, and one in which you did not), the multiverse will become populated with an almost infinite number of possible outcomes – all of them influenced in some way by “your” impact (or lack of it) on this world. It seems to me that the sum of these outcomes amount to something substantial.

(Not to rub it in, but – in my opinion – Feynman will indeed see Tuva.)

Having once been in the presence of God, I can state that he exists. At least for me as it was I who was with Him. If you haven’t been with Him, maybe He doesn’t exist for you.

It was my impression that He is pure love.

I’m not a religious person, I stopped going to church 30 years ago. Yet, he visited with me once. I’m still not religious. There doesn’t seem to be a connection between religion and God.

I believe that Satan conceived of the concept of religion to lead humans astray. It appears to be working….See the Talmud and the Koran and the Old Testament for examples of hate, not love.

He loves us and He surrounds us all of the time.

If you shut off your mind and open your heart, you can feel His presence. He is always there.

NV – I agree with you when you speak of God. But I disagree with your analysis of humans. Yes, we’re sinful. Get over it.

Mike! Your posts are always timely if not conspicuous by the clarity of thought be presented..

Guys, many of the sages of the old testament refer to the..whole of creation..testifying to G_D, and that would also include theory and mathematical equations such as algorithems, would it not?!(my spelling not withstanding…)

Using natural and supernatural is not a good explanation for God and our world and should be avoided, because we are not that different from God. The reason we can’t see God isn’t because God is transcendent. The reason God is not around any more because we fell. Adam and Eve walked in the garden with God enjoying the evenings together. God wants us to know him. We were created in God’s image. The importance of the trinity to us is that our relationships did not have an evil source but in God’s trinity. The trinity is in contrast to the pagan gods disobedient spirits still carrying out his delegated control of his world but in ways that oppose God, who are always fighting and competing against each other and misleading humans and demanding too much from humans that connect to them as gods, Father Son and HS always agree, never fight, never compete, and that is how God intends for us to be one as God is one, with lifelong relationships in our families and communities. I think the universe you are describing is his handiwork not his embodiment, and he delegates control of it to other spirits or impersonal forces he creates for that purpose, some obey him and others don’t. He is not necessarily omnipresent in every part of the universe, or we would be toast, but God is the source of its genius and maintains authority. In apologetics and theology I prefer explanations based on anthropology rather than philosophy, science, or mathematics. For me the most useful and convincing proofs are the facts that no matter how far back we dig for old civilizations people were religious. No matter where we find people living today they are religious. No matter how hard Marxists try to strip it from societies, the next generation is always asking the same questions, is there a God? The search for gods it is as essential to our humanity as drinking water. It defies natural explanations. We are a very special creation living in a very messed up world, fallen humanity, disobedient spirits, curses by God to provide social order. Why have people lived as slave labor throughout the history of the world but still understand we are a special creation capable of genius? “In the image of God created he them… By the sweat of your brow you will toil all the days of your life.” Nobody today with all their scientific genius has provided better explanations for our world than Moses, in the form of stories you would tell your children around the campfire in the evening.

For an interesting explanation of the origin of God, read Julian Jaynes’s book “The Origin of Conscientious in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”

NV, I’d leave the attempts at explaining G_D to the Creator himself. The presence of G_D was revealed by Yeshua when He told the discliples it was imperitive that He leave, to allow the Holy Spirit to come. In this, He also told them that the HS would teach men in all things…notably about Himself.

Each believer learns in unique ways and ONLY the HS can reveal Himself in ways that display who HE is to that person. That does not mean HE shows Himself in different way to different people. On the contrary, the lesson will always be consistent with His righteousness and who He has revealed Hiself to be from the beginning of time.

When we as believers run after Him by attempting to ingest head knowledge via books written by mortals under their own initiative, we will see only reflections of that persons comprehension of a truely immense G_D of the universe. This is a far cry from approaching an understanding of him via the carnal mind or via transcendent conscientiousness..

Man.

You people are fucking crazy with your make believe man in the sky.

The direction of movement towards God is found in evolution. If the universe is inherently entropic, the only counter force is a self propagating order. The only significant self propagating order is life, created and perfected through evolution. God will not arise through a black hole singularity, but through the final stagnation of pure order overwhelming chaos. Essentially the pinacle of evolution on a meta scale. It will be then that he starts the process over. For more interest in my theory, my email is jbrown513@hotmail.com. I came upon this theory in my late teens using predominantly visual-spatial thinking, and know 30, I seem more and more convinced of it validity.

Check it out:

http://www.technical-jesus.com/Holy%20Grail_files...

Dead: "the make believe man in the sky" is not a man at all, but rather the manifestation of intelligent potential that Carl Jung identified as the Archetype, or the Collective Unconscious.

It would appear, as Shakespeare noted in the Tempest, that we human beings have a collective animal shared within and between us that occupies some part of SpaceTime.

Evidence for the Collective Unconscious is manifest in the very improbability of our existence.

The Christian bible (and yes, other sacred texts from other cultures) binds human consciousness to a Collective Narrative that exists in the present, but is also in-touch with the uncounted generations of humanity. Some call this "race memory" – an instinctive connection to the myths of ones culture or society.

I suspect this Collective Narrative works on some quantum level to effect physical causes in reverse order.

That would be one explanation for Improbability Problem that every scientist has to either explain or deny.

BTW – If the Double Slit Experiment isn't the smoking gun for the Multiverse, then I suggest you take that up with the departed ghost of Karl Popper.

Oh – and no swearing on MND, you naughty fellow.

(Naysayers should note that The Causal Order Postulate was disproven by Bell's experiments. See http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-06/9-06.htm )