The Omega Point Theory

[TMac]

Hi all,

For my first post on these boards (outside of the Lounge) I thought I would present this theory that I have been reading about by Tipler.

I am an ex-atheist, current Christian and I am looking to understand reality in the context of what I have experienced and what others are discovering about our universe.

I do not assert to be able to prove God to anyone, however, I do hope to constructively discuss areas where I believe there is a rational warrant for belief in God.

This theory caught my eye in that it provides a scientific model of the universe that points to a God concept. It is different from the normal references to 'God' in science where some use the term to denote the significance of a partical, theory or equation (E.g.: Higgs boson; Unified Field Theory; etc...)

I have taken my information from the following site and hope to get some feedback from you all as to the viability of the concept:

I also argue that the ultimate future state of the universe, the Omega Point, should be identified with God.

http://www.math.tulane.edu/%7Etipler/

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.

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.

Please excuse me if this topic has already been raised.

{edited to fix tags - xorbie}

[Darth Dane]

I thought that the translation was

I AM THAT I AM
And later
I AM

Yahweh or YHWH means, as I have been led to believe, HE IS.

[TMac]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
I thought that the translation was

I AM THAT I AM
And later
I AM

Yahweh or YHWH means, as I have been led to believe, HE IS.

That was my understanding as well. Tipler uses this alternate translation to support his contention and has support for the translation from various sources (including Martin Luther).

If we truely examine the implications of this theory it suggests that God as described, must also be able to 'be' in history in order to make the statement to Moses. IOW time is not a limiting factor. This would agree with the verse regarding Alpha AND Omega.

[Goliath]

Originally posted by TMac:

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



And just how do you know that the topology of space is not that of a 3-torus? (Or any other 3-manifold, for that matter?)

Sincerely,

Goliath

PS Yes, I know....I said I wouldn't be back...*sigh* :(

[case]

Originally posted by TMac
(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,

Last time I checked, event horizons were still an intergal part of astrophysics, especially black hole theory. And, as far as life goes, while I'm not quite sure what engulfing the entire universe would be considered, I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened as of yet.

I've heard of Tipler's argument before. Here (http://www.middx.org.uk/gordo/ellis3.html) is a good site that debunks it, and I'm sure there are plenty of others. What I can never quite get at with these arguments is how someone makes the leap from supposed "scientfic" proof to using it to support their religion, e.i. Christianity. It could easily be evidence for Islam, or Buhddism. If it actually made sense, that is.

[TMac]

Originally posted by Goliath
And just how do you know that the topology of space is not that of a 3-torus? (Or any other 3-manifold, for that matter?)


I do not know that the topology is as stated. 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-dimensional analogue of the two-dimensional surface of a sphere.

For a more comprehensive scientific defense of this theory Click here (http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/physicist.html) .

Please note that the defense is provided from: The Fabric of Reality, by David Deutsch (Penguin, 1997) and includes the quote:
Unfortunately Tipler himself, in his book The Physics of Immortality, makes exaggerated claims for his theory which have caused most scientists and philosophers to reject it out of hand, thereby missing the valuable core idea which I shall now explain

Which desputes the theology Tipler associated with the theory, however, the scientific basis appears sound.

I believe that the omega-point theory deserves to become the prevailing theory of the future of spacetime until and unless it is experimentally (or otherwise) refuted. (Experimental refutation is possible because the existence of an omega point in our future places certain constraints on the condition of the universe today.)

[Goliath]

Tmac,

Then you admit that you do not know the topology of space? Good. Your argument then fails.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[davidm]

Originally posted by TMac
I do not know that the topology is as stated. 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-dimensional analogue of the two-dimensional surface of a sphere.



I believe the Omega Point theory requires a big crunch. Tipler assumes a subjectively infinite number of computational steps will be achievable before the Crunch actually takes place. But, recent evidence suggests that the universe not only will expand forever, but that expansion is actually speeding up. This is fatal for the Omega Point theory.

Even if the Crunch occurred, it is beyond me why anyone should assume that consciousness is destined to spread through the universe.

And I must note that Goliath returns on the same day that Gurdur does. :) A good day, then, all around.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by TMac
a scientific model of the universe that points to a God concept
My concept of God is that He is a cheese grater.

The existance of cheese on your pizza is evidence for the existance of cheese graters. Also, cheese on your spaghetti.

Hence, I have just scientifically proven that God exists.

Now that I have proven God exists, watch me morph the word into something else entirely. Then watch me act all confused when you claim I haven't proven God exists. But I just did!

A "God concept" is worth nothing to a Christian. If it isn't Jesus risen from the cross, your preaching is in vain. Read the book, already.

[TMac]

Originally posted by davidm
I believe the Omega Point theory requires a big crunch. Tipler assumes a subjectively infinite number of computational steps will be achievable before the Crunch actually takes place. But, recent evidence suggests that the universe not only will expand forever, but that expansion is actually speeding up. This is fatal for the Omega Point theory.



This is correct as his model requires a singularity to be the Omega point. If the expansion model is proven then this theory dies.

To paraphrase Goliath:

Can you "prove" that the universe will expand forever? No? Your argument then fails.
:p

Regarding your other question I believe he is basing this on the Turing Principle. I will have a specific look at what he uses to back this up.

[Goliath]

TMac,

Since your argument has been torn apart, I'm wondering why you're still attacking the rebuttals of others. Shouldn't you be a tad bit more worried about fixing your argument?

Sincerely,

Goliath

[TMac]

Originally posted by Goliath
TMac,

Since your argument has been torn apart, I'm wondering why you're still attacking the rebuttals of others. Shouldn't you be a tad bit more worried about fixing your argument?

Sincerely,

Goliath


If I could remind you of the original intent of this thread

Originally posted by TMac
I have taken my information from the following site and hope to get some feedback from you all as to the viability of the concept:


It was not presented as an 'argument'. I was looking for feedback on the concepts presented in a theory I had come across in my wanderings.

I am not adverse to having the concept 'torn apart' if that is it's fate. I will always be happy to accept valid and constructive points.

That having been said, your "rebuttal" (if you call it that) was the only one I had a shot at. That is because I thought you must be joking. If I was to dismiss your argument based on "you don't know the unified field equation" therefore your argument fails, I would expect criticism. If I "knew" the topology of space time, I would publish a paper and claim the prize.

I look forward to more interesting discussions with you in future.

[TMac]

Originally posted by Yahzi
A "God concept" is worth nothing to a Christian. If it isn't Jesus risen from the cross, your preaching is in vain. Read the book, already.

True, however, it may be worth something to an atheist. :p

[Sensei Meela]

As quoted by TMac:
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.

Hmmm...well, for starters, Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch. Additionally, I've read that it may have been a grammatical error wherein the authors of the Pentateuch, seeking to consolidate the polytheism of their people and co-opt one of the existing gods, Ea, into one entity, were stating that YHWH said "I am that Ea." Since the words 'ehyeh' and 'Ea' are homophones the error has led to the popular 'I am that I am.' I don't recall where I've read this, nor can I say how much stock it carries, but it is interesting nonetheless.

[davidm]

Originally posted by TMac
This is correct as his model requires a singularity to be the Omega point. If the expansion model is proven then this theory dies.

To paraphrase Goliath:

Can you "prove" that the universe will expand forever? No? Your argument then fails.
:p

Regarding your other question I believe he is basing this on the Turing Principle. I will have a specific look at what he uses to back this up.

Evidence obtained in the last five years points overwhelmingly to accerlerated and infinite expansion. In fact, it points uncomfortably to a new model, The Big Rip. Space is currently expanding over intergalactic distances; but because the expansion is accelerating, it eventually will begin to expand over galactic and then solar and then planetary distances, and finally atomic and subatomic distances. It has been calculated that if the acceleration continues, in some 30 billions years the expansion of space will blow apart the earth; a half hour after that, subatomic particles will be ruptured and the universe will be a sea of nothingness.

Not very conducive to the Omega Point.

All five of The Omega Point theory's claims, by the way, are unwarranted assumptions, either ruled out by the evidence, or merely speculative. Just to take (3) for example: Why must life eventually engulf the universe and control it? And if it must, why must it be human life? As for humans, there is no reason to believe that we will ever leave the solar system.

And, of course, since we now know that the universe will expand forever, it would be impossible for any life to engulf and control it.

[Goliath]

Originally posted by TMac

It was not presented as an 'argument'. I was looking for feedback on the concepts presented in a theory I had come across in my wanderings.



You presented an argument for the existence of a god, did you not?

This argument relied on the assumption that the topology of space is Euclidean, did it not?

But since you do not know the topology of space, how can your "Omega point" argument hold?



That having been said, your "rebuttal" (if you call it that)



I do, and it was. One of your premises has not been proven. Your argument is no more sound than "If God exists, then God exists."

Please either put up, or shut up--ie please either fix your argument, or concede.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[TMac]

Originally posted by davidm
Evidence obtained in the last five years points overwhelmingly to accerlerated and infinite expansion. In fact, it points uncomfortably to a new model, The Big Rip. Space is currently expanding over intergalactic distances; but because the expansion is accelerating, it eventually will begin to expand over galactic and then solar and then planetary distances, and finally atomic and subatomic distances. It has been calculated that if the acceleration continues, in some 30 billions years the expansion of space will blow apart the earth; a half hour after that, subatomic particles will be ruptured and the universe will be a sea of nothingness.

Not very conducive to the Omega Point.



Agreed. It looks like this theory is one for the trash based on current evidence.

I am curious to see what we come up with to discribe the expansion though. This whole 'dark matter' thing is a mystery. It apparently makes up 90% of the universe, is undetectable, and has the properties of some kind of anti-gravity.

Thank you for your considered input on this thread. It has been a good test to see how people on this board participate. Thanks also to Sensei Meela, case and Darth Dane. I have learned about the style of posters like Goliath and Yahzi and I am happy that this board has an ignore feature ;)

I am here to learn and participate constructively. If I want agression and flame fights to vent a little, I know who to call.

[Mageth]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
I thought that the translation was

I AM THAT I AM
And later
I AM

Yahweh or YHWH means, as I have been led to believe, HE IS.

My understanding is that what God said to Moses (translated "I AM THAT I AM" was basically a Hebrew idiom meaning "mind your own business", more or less.

[Goliath]

Originally posted by TMac
I have learned about the style of posters like Goliath and Yahzi and I am happy that this board has an ignore feature ;)

I am here to learn and participate constructively. If I want agression and flame fights to vent a little, I know who to call.

Who was flaming you? Certainly not I.

Sincerely,

Goliath

[TMac]

Originally posted by Mageth
My understanding is that what God said to Moses (translated "I AM THAT I AM" was basically a Hebrew idiom meaning "mind your own business", more or less.

I take it as a name of God as it best represents the fundemental truth about any entity claiming to be God (if you are disposed to believe in such things). ;)

The "I AM" nature of God implies a number of attributes, including eternal and ground of being/existance. But that's a topic for another thread
:)

[Mageth]

Originally posted by TMac
I take it as a name of God as it best represents the fundemental truth about any entity claiming to be God (if you are disposed to believe in such things). ;)

The "I AM" nature of God implies a number of attributes, including eternal and ground of being/existance. But that's a topic for another thread
:)

I personally think that's reading a bit too much into the words.

For the record, I didn't pull that interpretation out of my ass - IIRC, I'm pretty sure that's what Biblical Scholar/Hebrew expert Richard Elliott Friedman concluded in his excellent book, "Who Wrote the Bible?" If not in Friedman, I've recently read it elsewhere.

Perhaps I'll look up what Friedman says about it and post a quote. [NOTE: see below]

[Mageth]

IMPORTANT CORRECTION:

I didn't get that from Friedman, I read it in Karen Armstrong's A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Ch.1, p. 21-22):

When Moses asks his [God's] name and credentials, Yahweh replies with a pun which, as we shall see, would exercise monotheists for centuries. Instead of revealing his name directly, he answers: "I Am Who I Am" (Ehyeh asher ehyeh)." What did he mean? He certainly did not mean, as later philosophers would assert, that he was self-subsistent Being. Hebrew did not have such a metaphysical dimension at this stage, and it would be nearly 2000 years before it acquired one. God seems to have meant something rather more direct. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is a Hebrew idiom to express a deliberate vagueness. When the Bible uses a phrase like "they went where they went," it means "I haven't the vaguest idea where they went." So when Moses asks God who he is, God replies in effect: "Never you mind who I am!" or "Mind your own business!" There was to be no discussion of God's nature and certainly no attempt to manipulate him as pagans sometimes did when they recited the names of their gods. Yahweh is the Unconditional One: I shall be that which I shall be. He will be exactly as he chooses and will make no guarantees. He simply promised that he would participate in the history of his people.

[TMac]

Thanks Mageth,

I am always looking for new information and interpretations.

It is said that if you don't learn something new every day then you have wasted a day. Looks like I can relax for today ;) :notworthy

[Halsted]

Originally posted by Mageth
I read it in Karen Armstrong's A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Ch.1, p. 21-22): An excellent resource and a good read. Leaves little doubt as to the origins of the major monotheistic religions. Ironic that she used to be a nun...

[Sensei Meela]

So they 'Ahyeh asher Ea' is total baloney? Good to know...