He defends in that theory that God could become real, but that he would be limited. He wouldn't be strictly the same God as the one in classical religion. He couldn't do/know the physically and logically impossible (He would neither be able to know the Cantgotu environments, which is physically impossible, nor he would know illogical concepts..etc) In this page (http://thedebriefing.net/articles/book-reviews/physics-christianity/), it says that "Tipler points out that though quantum unitarity is a strong from of determinism, it is possible for free will to co-exist. The muliverse is subject to the quantum identity theory. According to Tipler, God cannot know or do what it is logically impossible to know or do. Before an analogue of any individual makes a decision or does something he or she is that same as all other analogues in all universes of the multiverse down to a quantum level. Physics only permit knowledge of a certain likelihood of a particular thought or act (“a percentage“). This is despite the argument that though we are unaware of all our analogues, God is aware via the Second Hypostasis of the Singularity."

My doubt is what does it mean with "Physics only permit knowledge of a certain likelihood of a particular thought or act (“a percentage“)"? Would this happen also at the final singularity of Omega Point Theory? If yes, why? If infinite information is generated near the final moment of the Omega Point "singularity", wouldn't it be able to have a "100%" certain (not only a likelihood) knowledge about a thought or act?

  • 3
    I have doubts about the Tiplers theory. Its been described by the philosopher Rem B. Edwards as "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable" and by the cosmologist, George Ellis "a masterpiece of pseudoscience… the product of a fertile and creative imagination unhampered by the normal constraints of scientific and philosophical discipline" ... – Mozibur Ullah Mar 7 '18 at 10:01
  • 1
    ...and by the physicist Lawrence Krauss " "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist"; he might have done better by publishing it as science fiction to investigate such speculative ideas as have Isaac Asimov & Olaf Stapledon. – Mozibur Ullah Mar 7 '18 at 10:02
  • 1
    I do not see this theory as a probable option either. What is interesting is that as the theory says, if infinite information was created at the final moments of the universe, then the final Omega Point entity should be at least omniscient. – Forsete Mar 7 '18 at 10:05
  • 1
    I had a conversation with David Deutsch who criticised the theory for making exaggerated religious claims (the entity of the omega point theory wouldn't have god-like omniscience capable of knowing/thinking the physically and logically impossible to think: capable of knowing Cantgotu environments, illogical concepts...etc). Because i wanted an answer from a physical (not "mystical" or religious) point of view, i asked him the same question. He told me, that if that amount of info was infinite it wouldn't necessarily mean that it was info about everything, so it wouldn't be omniscient. – Forsete Mar 7 '18 at 10:05
  • Then my final and true question (that I'd like to be answered here) is: If the situation above occurred and the created info was about everything, then the phrase "Physics only permit knowledge of a certain likelihood of a particular thought or act (“a percentage“)" wouldn't apply there? If physics didn't change, then what could change that in that situation? @MoziburUllah – Forsete Mar 7 '18 at 10:05

I don't think this is pseudoscience. If it was intended as science, its probably science. Certainly science has been known to be wrong... so maybe its wrong.

But it doesn't seem wrong. If anything, it seems emotionally charged since he ties in religion. But then rather than he being non-scientific, I think the real issue is how does one scientifically critique him?

Probably the easiest way is to judge the math and also observe the world to see if things are more or less consistent, if you adopt his framework.

I read an interesting statement today that said QM equations would only be consistent if what Frank Tipler proposed were true. As I was looking into, I came on this interesting thread and had three things to contribute:

  1. If Frank Tipler were objectively wrong (i.e. screwed up the math), we could do much less than admire or laugh at it. We, nor anyone, would still be talking or thinking about it.

  2. "Physics only permits knowledge of a certain likelihood of a certain act/thought" -- Please read: Phys Rev Lett. 2011 Jan 28;106(4):040403. The past has to be consistent and maybe imposed through an interesting idea of post-seletion. QM might back-warp the universe of probabilities to make an observable, consistent past happen in forward time. (i.e. next time I look at an apple, I'll probably be thinking more about this than the apple (and even more so now that its written)).

  3. Logical/Illogical - I think there are mathematical statements that are illogical, but still true. There have been many systems of logic. If the past is any indication, then there will probably be a more before a theoretical Omega Point. I think is probably best to wait humbly until we get closer to get a better idea of what logic looks like then.

For now, I'll throw my dice in for omniscience, since this seems the most logical! But will cede to Alan F. whom I'm pretty sure knows the real deal.

| improve this answer | |
  • 3
    "If it was intended as science, its probably science." Every pseudoscience was intended as science from their creators' views. – rus9384 May 5 '18 at 15:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.