January 16, 2009
the physics of immortality and the direction of time
Recently, Sean wrote a blog post about Frank Tipler, who described in his book, The Physics of Immortality, what he calls Omega point theory; Wikipedia has enough about it that I do not need to elaborate much further. The main idea in one sentence is that the 'big crunch' of a re-collapsing universe which contains intelligent life (necessarily) generates a point of infinite complexity, capable to process an infinite amount of information in a finite amount of time [x]. As I mentioned previously, the book contains a lot of interesting physics, but also large sections comparing the Omega point to the God of various religions and as a whole the book is a bit odd.
In a section near the end of his book, Tipler discusses quantum gravity, the wave function of the universe and in particular the boundary condition(s) for such a wave function. The best known example for such a condition is the no-boundary proposal of Hawking, which corresponds to 'creation from nothing'; A different proposal was examined by Vilenkin and others [e.g. here].
Tipler proposes as a new boundary condition the requirement of an Omega point. In other words, he replaces the usual initial condition with a final condition on the allowed physical states. In his own words:
"In my above description of the Omega Point Theory, I used past-to-future causation language, which is standard in everyday life, and in most physics papers. This may have given the reader the impression that it is life that is creating the Omega Point (God) rather than the reverse. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is more accurate to say that the Omega Point, acting backwards in time, via future-to-past causation, creates life, and His multiverse."
This is of course a main difference (if not the main difference) between science and religion.
Science assumes an initial condition (usually of high symmetry and low entropy), with everything following afterwards according to the laws of physics, with no purpose, intention or meaning.
Religion on the other hand assumes that there is a point to the world and our experience, a desired goal and final explanation, which determines everything.
Once Tipler assumes the final Omega point condition, he leaves science as we know it and opens the door to 'explanations' like this:
"I will say that an event is a "miracle" if it is very improbable according to standard past-to-future causation from the data in our multiverse neighborhood, but is seen to be inevitable from knowledge that the multiverse will evolve into the Omega Point."
While his book 'The Physics of Immortality' is vague enough, suggesting that perhaps one may be able to have it both, science and religion, the subsequent development of Tipler's thoughts makes it immediately clear where his proposal leads:
"I shall now argue that the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection were miracles in my sense. The key to understanding why these events HAD to occur is the recently observed acceleration of the universe."
I will only add that in my opinion Sean's word crackpot is misplaced in this case; I think 'tragedy' would fit better.
[x] According to Tipler, the discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe (dark energy) does not necessarily affect his main assumption, as he explains in this interview.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Or you could describe it more longwindedly as petitio principii.
Yes,but why is it usually absurd to assume final conditions and reason backwards and the other way around (assuming initial conditions and reasoning forward) seems usually much more reasonable.
I suspect it might have to do with the fact that the initial condition is symmetric, simple, low entropy etc. and the final condition is not.
But to be honest, I am not sure and I think it might be possible that to an Alien both seem equally awkward ...
Retrocausality, influencing the past:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL&hw=past&sn=007&sc=724
Allen,
thank you for the link, I believe this is about the transactional interpretation of QM.
The article is not about the transactional interpretation at all, it's about an experiment that could provide some insight into the nature of time.
And (incidentally) might also support the transactional interpretation. Right?
The results of the experiment would shed light on whether the future can have some sort of causal influence on the past.
Which is one of the things that you seem to imply is dodgy about Tipler's ideas.
Of course, if the experiment shows that there is no retro-causation...then I guess that undermines Tipler's position.
But, the article only mentions the transactional interpretation in passing.
Hi, Wolfgang Beirl.
The central claim of your post is in error, as Prof. Frank J. Tipler doesn't assume the Omega Point exists. Rather, the 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.
Bear in mind that Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed physics journals.[1]
Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports in Progress in Physics paper--which presents the Omega Point quantum gravity Theory of Everything--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, see:
"God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics," December 26, 2008 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=122&mforum=libertyandtruth
-----
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 the 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.
James,
>> The central claim of your post is in error, as Prof. Frank J. Tipler doesn't assume the Omega Point exists.
Yes he does, in the section of his book which discusses quantum gravity.
And the quote "It is more accurate to say that the Omega Point, acting backwards in time, via future-to-past causation" is not only verbatim but reflects of course accurately his proposal to place a final condition on the wave function of the universe (instead of using a conventional initial condition a la Hartle and Hawking).
You are right that most of the book discusses classical or semi-classical gravity and in those sections he tries to motivate the existence of the Omega point using a more conventional language.
But notice that the Omega point is in the future of us and its existence is not certain as it depends on intelligent life arranging it (in the classical and semiclassical veriosn of his proposal).
I should add that empirical evidence (the accelerating expansion of the universe) which was obtained after the book was published does *not* support the main point of his book (which is based on a closed universe).
He suggested a way around this (the link is in my post), which I don't find very convincing.
Post a Comment