Talk:Omega Point (Tipler)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pseudophysics?

Does Tiplers Omega point theory really deserve the categorisation of "pseudophysics"? --Gustafullman 13:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Uhhh, yes

Either that or it's a dis-service to the term "pseudophysics" which may have been the point of the original question.

I think it falls under something more of "prospective physics," as it is building off what we know to create a model for the future. Pseudeophysics would imply that it is built on false or incorrect assumptions, at least from the connotation of the word. --Ristlin (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The Last Question

Should some mention be made on this page of Asimov's short story The Last Question?

Hmmm. Similar enough I guess, but certainly not directly related. I'd have to say no, IMHO. Maury 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

"The CorenSearchBot has performed a web search with the contents of this page, and it appears to be a substantial copy of the Wikipedia page Omega point (Tipler). If the CorenSearchBot is in error: Simply note so on the this article's discussion page and remove the tag."

Yes, it's in error. I moved the article over to "Omega Point (Tipler)", since Prof. Tipler capitalizes the term. Hence, per the above directions, I'm going to remove the tag.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The page was cut-and-pates moved. In the future, please use the move feature. It that's impossible, you can request a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Anyhow, the page histories have now been merged. Cool Hand Luke 08:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Keraunos

Hi, Keraunos. I see you added to, and rearranged, some of this article. I ameliorated some of your additions for accuracy. Below are listed my ameliorations of your edits and my reasons for them:

• You added the edit "because the temperature of the cosmos rising toward infinity as the final singularity of the big crunch is approached will provide a potentially infinite amount of energy to power the cosmic supercomputer."

I take it that what you tried to explain here is the energy resource. But actually, that isn't physically accurate. The universal heat diverging to infinity doesn't provide usable energy. Where the usable energy comes from is the gravitational shear (i.e., the universe's Taublike collapses along different axes with each cycle, called Mixmaster oscillations), which provides a temperature differential across the universe whereby usable energy can be obtained. Hence, I went ahead and cut this edit of yours.

If people read further into the body of the article, under the section "Outline of the physics of the Omega Point Theory," some of this is already explained, with references provided for further research (with a number of the references available online for free).

• You added a bit into here: "the Omega Point represents the resurrection of the dead followed by an infinite-duration afterlife as an avatar in cyberspace, which could take any imaginable form within the metaverse of the cosmic supercomputer due to its virtual nature."

I kept the resurrection link. I understand from reading your user page that you're into science fiction and transhumanism, but one should avoid loading up this article with needless science fiction terminology and transhumanist terminology, as well as computer terminology which isn't that accurate (such as "avatar"). The term preceding your edits, "simulated reality," already expresses the ideas you're getting at, and people can follow that hyperlinked text if they're not sure what that means.

• You added most of this: "engulfed by artificially intelligent life as it approaches the point of maximum expansion, which, according to Tipler, will occur 'between 5 X 10^16 and 5 X 10^18 years from now (in proper time)'."

One should be more accurate in their terminology, as most people think of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as meaning intelligence via artifically created programs. Yet if uploaded human consciousnesses become a reality, then the programs of their minds would be natural, but on an artificial substrate. Hence, I'm changing this to "From that point on, the entire visible universe would be engulfed by these 'mind children' as it approaches the point of maximum expansion," with "mind children" referring to the previously defined mention of the term.

I also removed your quote of Tipler's estimation as to when the universe will be engulfed, as that is from his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality, yet later cosmological observations have been able to define the Hubble shift more accurately, which is what that estimation is based on. So Tipler's current estimation is different now. For more on that, see:

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. See also here. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything," arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

• You added the section "Criticism from string theory."

I kept pretty much all of this, while editing it slightly to improve the style and formatting. I changed the section title to "Implications from string theory," since Brian Greene doesn't actually offer any criticism of, or even refer to, Tipler's Omega Point Theory in Greene's book that you referenced.

This section, as it stands now, might have to go entirely, as it appears to fall under Wikipedia's rule concerning original research. As it's written, it's a valid deduction that the Omega Point singularity would be obviated if string theory disallows singularities and if string theory is true, but it's an original deduction.

• You moved the "See also" section to underneath the references. You also added a number of links therein.

Based upon Wikipedia's "Featured articles," it appears that the preferred location of the "See also" section is where it was previously, before the references. Hence, I moved it back. I removed the link "metaverse," because it's a science fiction term that's perfectly explainable with more accepted terms such as simulated reality. I removed the links "general relativity" and "singularity (gravitational)" because these are already linked in the body of the text, and because they're concepts that are so general that I don't think someone following them from the "See also" section would come to understand the Omega Point Theory itself any better (since, again, said links are so general and basic in their scope). Being linked to in the body of the article is appropriate, because if someone doesn't know what the terms refer to then they can click on them as they come across them.

I removed the link "singularity (technological)" as it doesn't actually apply to Tipler's Omega Point Theory, because the "technological singularity" refers to an explosive growth of technology whereby we cannot predict what comes after (in analogy with the laws of physics having no meaning at a cosmological singularity). Whereas Tipler's Omega Point Theory maintains that the known laws of physics constrain what the future will bring, and hence what the future state will be and how it will come to be.--209.208.77.109 (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keraunos' reply

With regard to the string theory criticism, it is interesting that I e-mailed Dr. Tipler about that very problem in May 2006, and he replied that he doesn't believe in string theory, explained why in terms of the physics of Richard Feynman and attached that same paper you cite and provide a link to above---"The structure of the world from pure numbers"---as part of his reply. So I attached that paper to the end of the paragraph about implications from string theory. Keraunos (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You certainly seem knowledgeable about physics. I would suggest that you establish a user name for Wikipedia and then you can establish a user page and a personal talk page to make it easier for you to communicate with other people on Wikipedia. Are you a student of physics or are you a practicing physicist? Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Archeology

The AFD for Quantum Archeology has seen a suggestion that the article be merged, possibly to Omega Point (Tipler). The discussion might therefore benefit from commentary from editors familiar with this area. --Sturm 14:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The article is conspicuously missing discussion of criticism of the theory, so I have tagged it NPOV. Superm401 - Talk 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if criticism exists, notice there are only a few (I counted 3) references from this decade by people other than Tipler himself, and of those I know two of them are only to validate the Standard Model (Wilczek's and Quinn's refs). It's doubtful any meaningful research is being done on this subject, other than by Tipler of course. 24.255.9.173 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has a section mentioning that string theory may contradict Tiplers' theory. That's enough for me as I can't find any direct criticism of the theory from reliable sources. I cannot personally see any WP:NPOV issue. Hence, tag removed. If you disagree go ahead and post it at WP:POVN. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't remove the tag until Superm401 has replied. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the Omega Point

For the benefit of ill-formed minds....

From a reasonable perspective, it would definitely seem plausible that the Omega Point as a theory has been designed more for the purpose of satisfying the (purely anthropocentric and quite psychological rather than scientific) need to reconcile religious truth with scientific truth, rather than any objective considerations of rationalism and scientific fact (as would be the case when considering the philosophies of David Hume or Bertrand Russell, which is something for which Tipler should be given SOME credit for - even though his theories do initially seem completely delusional from the perspective of a scientifically minded skeptic).

It also appears to be the case that THE THEORY MAKES NO VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS ABOUT REALITY (if it does - why aren't these stated within the article?). Thus, the "theory" (which makes no predictions) should not be associated with science. THERE SHOULD DEFINITELY BE A WARNING ON THE ARTICLE INDICATING THAT THE IDEAS ARE NEITHER WIDELY USED, NOR WIDELY ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC OR ACADEMIC COMMUNITY!

There should also be some information about Tipler - what were his degree grades, what's his IQ, what past publication record does he have, what are his other credentials. NOT that I would wish to evoke ad hominem arguments against him (though must in politics these days would seem to revolve around PURE ad hominem), his credentials would likely be indicative of any truthful validity to his theorems.

However, a quick purview of what the Scientific Method is (in a mathematical and scientific sense if one were to attempt to formalise it via the use of Algorithmic Information Theory in order to enable an objectively impartial computer to determine the truthful validity of certain scientific assertions about physical reality) shows the following failures when considering it as a scientific theory :

• Characterizations (observations,[24] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)

Well, the subject of inquiry would seem to be the whole cosmos. Which is fair enough, but I'm not quite sure whether that satisfies the remit of what phenomena the scientific method is applicable to. Most degree level courses, for instance, focus upon physics for which there is some constructive methods of defining a limited scope concerning what the theoretical method is applicable to. But, anyway, I digress - as the next section contains the failure of the Omega point theory.

• Hypotheses[25][26] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[27]

What are the hypotheses of the theory? What ASSUMPTIONS does it make? It appears to me that the theory may very well ASSUME what it is trying to prove!

That is, the constants within the infinite series expansion of the formula given ARE, in one way or another, effectively the set of all possible physically observed phenomena that reality allows to exist (Newton's/Einstein's theory of gravitation is widely accepted, in part, because a few key hypotheses can explain many results - but surely a theory which requires a, admittedly countably infinite, number of different constants to be placed within it has lost something in the way of explanatory power, especially if one accepts that reality does not permit uncountable infinites in any of its phenomena). So the explanatory power of the theory is *tentatively* equivalent to that of the Anthropic Principle, which I do believe is NOT a correct form of scientific reasoning (the use of the world *tentatively* relates to the fact that my reasoning may be flawed).

• Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[28] from the hypothesis or theory)

As stated above, NO EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIABLE PREDICTION seem to be made by this theory AND this implies that the Omega Point is NOT A SCIENTIFIC THEORY!!! If the theory makes predictions - could someone create a section to state what they are?

• Experiments[29] (tests of all of the above)

No experiments for verifying any of the predictions of the theory are mentioned or would seem to be physically possible. So common sense suggests, again, that this IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC theory as it is NOT scientifically verifiable (if it is, could someone state the possible experiments?)

Of course, IF you are willing to change the definition of what a Scientific Theory or the Scientific Method is, then this MAY be a permissible theory. But that seems a lot like cheating (though, perhaps, it may be correct). It would seem that the heart of the matter of some of what is stated is the issue of "explantory power" which relates to algorithmic information theory (and Chaitin's constant) in that phenomena (such as gravitation) which can be consistently explained using simple mathematical laws (like an inverse square law) are instances of information being "compressed" (ie: using a few mathematical laws to explain a diverse array of phenomena). So it may be the case that the cosmos CANNOT be simplified/consistently predicted in any sense (which rings true of some of Godel's work and the Chaitin constant theory). This is the heart of the idea of using infinitely many terms within the series of the article and the evocation of the Lowenheim-Skolem theory. This all seems quite unscientific though. Most people know that there's nothing more useless than a scientific theory which doesn't make consistent predictions in and of itself (as stated before, the theory is effectively made to MATCH experimental results as the constants in the series are placed in AFTER experiments are carried out, rather than having the constants predicted). It also occurs to me that one of the other assumptions made in this whole framework is that reality is consistent (which it obviously is, BUT THAT'S still an ASSUMPTION).

ConcernedScientist (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Omega Point Theory does make a number of testable predictions, one of them which has already been confirmed: that being the mass of the top quark (which turned out to be different than the mass predicted by CERN).

For more regarding predictions, consult Prof. Frank J. Tipler's following article:

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. 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

Nor did Prof. Tipler set out to physically prove the existence of God. Tipler had been an atheist since the age of 16, yet only circa 1998 did he again become a theist due to advancements in the Omega Point Theory which occured after the publication of his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality (and Tipler even mentions in said book [pg. 305] that he is still an atheist because he didn't at the time have confirmation for the Omega Point Theory).

Tipler's first paper on the Omega Point Theory was in 1986 (Frank J. Tipler, "Cosmological Limits on Computation," International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 25, No. 6 [June 1986], pp. 617-661). What motivated Tipler's investigation as to how long life could go on was not religion (indeed, Tipler didn't even set out to find God), but Prof. Freeman J. Dyson's paper "Time without end: Physics and biology in an open universe" (Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 51, Issue 3 [July 1979], pp. 447-460 http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt ).

Further, in a section entitled "Why I Am Not a Christian" in The Physics of Immortality (pg. 310), Tipler wrote, "However, I emphasize again that I do not think Jesus really rose from the dead. I think his body rotted in some grave." This book was written before Tipler realized what the resurrection mechanism is that Jesus could have used without violating any known laws of physics (and without existing on an emulated level of implementation--in that case the resurrection mechanism would be trivially easy to perform for the society running the emulation).

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 the article "Omega Point (Tipler)" and Prof. Tipler's above 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper.

-----

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 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.--67.232.56.99 (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit by 56.0.143.25

Hi, 56.0.143.25. Please refrain from removing the paragraphical blockquote formatting of the last blockquote, as the formatting of said displayed quotation comes out wrong without the HTML paragraph tags. Without the aforesaid tags, the parenthetical number "(3)" for the numbered equation is rendered as part of, and at the beginning of, the paragraph starting with "This is the qualitatively unique ...," which is incorrect.--67.232.59.169 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit by Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53

The user Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 on 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC) wrote:

"The so-called "appeal to authority" information on Deutsch quickly details who he is and his major claim to fame, hence why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. Therefore, deletion reverted."

He has an article about him on Wikipedia listing his work and publications, I've transferred the information about him on the Omega Point (Tipler) article there (as I stated before). His work on quantum computers is irrelevant to Cosmology (he may have other work which is relevant, such as his book which references Tipler's theory). Putting such comments about his irrelevant "qualifications" in an already overloaded article with an NPOV tag is unnecessary, a waste of space, and lends more credence to the NPOV claims. Please reference Deutsch's book, not his other work. We don't need to know anything else about him on this page, we can quickly click a link to find out everything else about him.

I'm reverting your revert. If this revert of mine is reverted I'm going to arbitration (you're welcome to file for arbitration before I do).

It is standard in factual works that when introducing a new person one gives a brief background as to whom he is and his major claim to fame in the body of the writing in which that person is being invoked (particularly with a person who is not commonly known, as opposed to say, e.g., Hawking), hence, e.g., why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. And in this case, contrary to your assertion, it is relevant as to why anyone would bother to quote Prof. Deutsch's conclusions because it demonstrates that he is apparently very good at doing physics.

Nor have you cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, which makes it appear that you are making up your own rules as you go along to suit your own desires.

Moreover, that passage has existed in the article since August 17, 2007.

And whom are you quoting with the word "qualifications" in quotation marks?

Since you have not cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, I'm going to revert your deletion.--71.49.14.40 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This theory is so obscure that ANY mention of it, good or bad, by a scientist as prominent as Deutsch should be mentioned in my opinion. It is also relevant, considering much of the Omega Point Theory rests on quantum computing which Deutsch is a titan in.

Savagedjeff (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is the parenthetical of David Deutsch's quantum computer "first" in the History section relevant?

Questions/Issues:

1. Are parentheticals such as this appropriate in the HTTP version of a predominantly hyper-reference encyclopedia?
2. Is this a relevant qualification for this part of the article?
3. Is it a necessary or worthwhile addition that introduces David Deutsch's comments on the Omega Point?

Relevant text:

(who in 1985 pioneered the field of quantum computation by being the first person to formulate a specifically quantum computational algorithm)

Full context of David Deutsch's comments on the Omega Point Theory:

Physicist David Deutsch (who in 1985 pioneered the field of quantum computation by being the first person to formulate a specifically quantum computational algorithm) in his 1997 book The Fabric of Reality defends the physics of Tipler's Omega Point Theory in Chapter 14: "The Ends of the Universe" (of which chapter concentrates mainly on the Omega Point Theory):

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.)

Deutsch later comments within a concluding paragraph of the same chapter regarding the synthesis of his "four strands" of fundamental reality, which includes the strengthened version of mathematician Alan Turing's theory of universal computation in the form of the Omega Point Theory:

It seems to me that at the current state of our scientific knowledge, this is the 'natural' view to hold. It is the conservative view, the one that does not propose any startling change in our best fundamental explanations. Therefore it ought to be the prevailing view, the one against which proposed innovations are judged. That is the role I am advocating for it. I am not hoping to create a new orthodoxy; far from it. As I have said, I think it is time to move on. But we can move to better theories only if we take our best existing theories seriously, as explanations of the world.

Below is the back-and-forth which took place on this article's talk page, and on the talk page of User:74.4.219.197 (The first sentence in quotation marks is the edit history comment of 74.4.219.197s first reversion of my edit):

---

"The so-called "appeal to authority" information on Deutsch quickly details who he is and his major claim to fame, hence why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. Therefore, deletion reverted."

The title "Physicist" before his name quickly details his area of expertise and why anyone would bother to quote his conclusion.

He has an article about him on Wikipedia (therefore he's notable enough to have an article) listing his work and publications, I've transferred the information about him on the Omega Point (Tipler) article there (as I stated before). His work on quantum computers is irrelevant to Cosmology (he may have other work which is relevant, such as his book which references Tipler's theory). Putting such comments about his irrelevant "qualifications" in an already overloaded article with an NPOV tag is unnecessary, a waste of space, and lends more credence to the NPOV claims. Please reference Deutsch's book, not his other work. We don't need to know anything else about him on this page, we can quickly click a link to find out everything else about him.

I'm reverting your revert. If this revert of mine is reverted I'm going to arbitration (you're welcome to file for arbitration before I do). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is standard in factual works that when introducing a new person one gives a brief background as to whom he is and his major claim to fame in the body of the writing in which that person is being invoked (particularly with a person who is not commonly known, as opposed to say, e.g., Hawking), hence, e.g., why anyone would bother to quote his conclusions. And in this case, contrary to your assertion, it is relevant as to why anyone would bother to quote Prof. Deutsch's conclusions because it demonstrates that he is apparently very good at doing physics.

Nor have you cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, which makes it appear that you are making up your own rules as you go along to suit your own desires.

Moreover, that passage has existed in the article since August 17, 2007.

And whom are you quoting with the word "qualifications" in quotation marks?

Since you have not cited any Wikipedia policy against this standard practice, I'm going to revert your deletion.--71.49.14.40 (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer quotations to scare quotes. Call it a personal predilection I thought was understandable in context of the sentence.

I know of no wikipedia policy either. I pay attention to the content of wikipedia, not it's policies (except when they stab me due to my not knowing about them). I call these things on my own usually. (As if many of wikipedia policies weren't originally thought of by one person who convinced others it was good.) And I haven't really noticed this standard practice for factual works (though that is probably me reading over such entries in practice); I don't think this practice should apply to a hyper-referenced work, for reasons I stated above in my third-to-last sentence.

Coming from a scientific background, I like the credentials cited as reasons to listen to a Point of View to be as relevant as possible. While the Omega POint does talk a bit about quantum computing, it seems fundamentally a cosmological theory.

Perhaps I wouldn't have such an issue with the qualifications discussed if this article was titled "Omega Point (theory)", or somesuch.

Fine whatever, I'll send this to arbitration or moderation, who'll either ignore it or send it somewhere it would be better addressed (hopefully as a wikipedia "policy", whichever way it turns out). --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 00:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind about the arbitration, I saw a link to "Requests for Comment" on the arbitration page --Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Hello, I came here from the request for comment. My view is that the parenthetical isn't in itself a problem, it's that it's too wordy. I propose "David Deutch (a pioneer in the field of quantum computation)...". As 71.49.14.40 argues, it's relevant to the article that David Deutch is a pioneer in quantum computation, and not classical fluid dynamics (on the one hand), and not quantum cosmology (on the other). It is, however, quite irrelevant to the article that he was a pioneer in quantum computing because he was the "first person to formulate a specifically quantum computational algorithm", and not because he was the first person to propose a quantum computing experimental architecture, or the first person to prove that quantum computing can be more efficient than classical computing, or whatever else. The precise nature of his pioneering contribution says nothing new about his qualifications to comment. So get rid of that extraneous information, and you'll be left with, in my view, a concise and topical and non-distracting parenthetical.

Also, before the parenthetical can go back in, it needs a good source: A neutral, reliable, third-party source that refers to Deutch as a "pioneer" (or some synonym) in the field of quantum computation. Here's one, for example, but it appears to be self-published. Can anyone find something better? :-) --Steve (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto as regards Steve. I am also here from WP:RFC/SCI. I'll have a look and comment in the next couple of days. Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As no one appears to have found a neutral source as regards his status as a "pioneer in the field", I'd propose "David Deutch (a researcher in the field of quantum computation). I don't personally see any problem with the parenthetical. It's the lack of a neutral source that's an issue. Nk.sheridan   Talk 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Outside RFC comment. Short reminder parentheticals are fine in an HTTP encyclopedia, but this lengthy one is a plea to authority, which is inappropriate in an NPOV encyclopedia. Support Nk.sheridan's concise wording above. Cool Hand Luke 04:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RFCStyle Comment: Ditto again to Steve. Parathenticals are OK, if they are used to explain context of something that wouldn't obviously make sense to the reader. Answering the question "Who is this guy?" in 5 words, so people don't have to click the Wikilink should be your goal. The original one probably was a bit wordy and POV. Nk.sheridan's suggestion looks spot on. Livitup (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations tage in intro

I added the tag because, although the rest of the article is heavily cited, the intro has none, and it contains plenty of questionable content. 128.196.208.1 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Omega Point in fictional literature

For every scientific theory, there is a wealth of fictional stories based upon them. Nanotech/Grey goo, wormholes, warpdrives or the technological singularity which bares some relation with the Omega Point.

I find these fictional stories a great way to read about these theories.

Would references to books containing fictional stories which implement these theories be usefull for a better understanding? The only references made to literature now are not very interesting to non-scientificly minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.93.172.114 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow and Tomorrow by Charles Sheffield dealt with the Omega point and used it as a plot device, and was a great hard science fiction read as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.207.203 (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Zeno machine

Isn't this exactly the same as building a Zeno machine (Or any Hypercomputer) and running a simulation inside?

Also a Zeno machine/Omega Point computer assume that computation power can be increased infinitely. If one did build such a machine, and let it run for, say, five seconds and then measure the power, would it have infinite power? --88.24.143.194 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Omega Point singularity itself has infinite processor speed, infinite memory space, and infinite power. During the collapse phase, every moment within spacetime is finite yet continuously diverging to greater computational resources, and in experiential time one never reaches the final singularity. If one were to measure the power used during the last five second (in proper time) of the universe, it would indeed be infinite (although one could measure the power within any duration of proper time and so long as it included the final singularity it would be infinite power).

Some people may be curious as to where all this infinite energy comes from. The energy required to manipulate an infinite number of bits of information is accounted for in the Omega Point Theory, as due to the Taublike collapse of the universe (i.e., Mixmaster oscillations), gravitational sheer energy diverges to infinity, which creates a temperature differential across the universe as it collapses.

The net energy of the universe is zero. The net energy of the universe has been zero in all times in the past, is zero now, and will be zero in all times in the future. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote in his book A Brief History of Time, Chapter 8: "The Origin and Fate of the Universe":

The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. This does not happen in the normal expansion of the universe in which the matter energy density goes down as the universe gets bigger. It does happen, however, in the inflationary expansion because the energy density of the supercooled state remains constant while the universe expands: when the universe doubles in size, the positive matter energy and the negative gravitational energy both double, so the total energy remains zero. During the inflationary phase, the universe increases its size by a very large amount. Thus the total amount of energy available to make particles becomes very large. As Guth has remarked, "It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."

In order to make the positive energy go to infinity, one makes the negative energy of gravity go to infinity. During the universe's collapse into the solitary-point singularity, gravitational energy diverges to infinity, thereby forcing the positive energy to diverge to infinity--and therein maintaining the total net energy of the universe at exactly zero.--67.232.56.99 (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sampi point&Sho point

Beyond Omega Point=Final Singularity of Universe is too Sampi Point=final state of whole creation (Heaven+Hell-Purgatory-Universe), understood as retaining by God in future only Heaven and Hell, while eliminating in future Purgatory and Universe, because all then former inhabitants of then former Purgatory will be then in Heaven, while all then former inhabitants of then former Universe will be in Heaven (both directly and through then former Purgatory) or in Hell. 79.162.51.29 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Er... what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.5.235 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Universe and Purgatory are temporary God's creations and are destined by God to turning into nothing at their future end, as opposed to eternal Heaven and Hell. Thus Sampi Point after end of Universe and Purgatory is obvious. 91.94.23.109 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

According to above image, we too have Sho point, which by above reduction principle means GOD ONLY, excluding all creation. 79.191.252.45 (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Tags

rm

{{Multiple issues|article=y|POV=April 2008|refimprove=June 2008}}

because no apparent discussion of same since then. As with the main article.

Cleanup request Wikipedia:Cleanup#May.2C_2009

The following was posted at the above link:

Like the general reader, unfamiliar at this point with the theory and so unclear what relation (I suspect none) between heat death of brane and increasing computational capacity. Also, current physical evidence doesn't provide a path for the so-called big crunch so unclear if theory not therefore moot, has been adjusted, or what. Lycurgus (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

In responding to the Cleanup request, I edited the top part of the article. I am not a scientist but a writer and editor, so I await your corrections as to the substance of the rewrite. Once the top part is OK, we can move on to the rest of it. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The lede is now clearer overall except that the third ¶

According to Tipler's Omega Point Theory, as the universe comes to an end at a singularity in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe would accelerate faster and faster. In principle, then, a program run on this universal computer could continue forever in its own terms, even though the universe would last only a finite amount of proper time.

which I had tagged still has the problem stated above although the run-on part is addressed. Also, except for forces which act at a cosmological scale such as gravity or so-called dark energy, the pattern in nature is that even if there is geometric/expoential growth it is practically limited from achieving a concrete infinity (such as "forever") which is what seems to be asserted. Thank you. Lycurgus (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

On this topic, the article needs to establish why Tipler believes a contracting universe leads to exponential growth of information processing capacity. --NEMT (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's already explained in the "Physics" section.--67.232.56.99 (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

The article needs a thorough criticism section, as most of the claims are largely regarded as nonsensical (see also: everything Tipler says). --NEMT (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt that you're right - but do you have sources? Fences&Windows 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a physicist and someone who frequently receives emails full of "crackpot physics", I have to say that the burden of citation here is a heavy one. Because these theories are (to a professional physicist) so ludicrous, they do not merit the time to be specifically rebutted. Therefore, there do not tend to be references for Wikipedia to cite in criticism of such blatantly fringe ideas. Perhaps the criticism section could be taken care of by moving this article out of WikiProject Physics, as it doesn't belong there (or even in Pseudophysics).Fizyxnrd (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

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 the article "Omega Point (Tipler)" and Prof. Tipler's below 2005 Reports on Progress in Physics paper:

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. 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

-----

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 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.--67.232.56.99 (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Modified a new edit

I cut the newly-added section "Problems with the theory" as said section is based on string theory (the AdS/CFT correspondence--see S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes," Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8, 084013 [October 2005]; also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171 ), which is already addressed in the "Implications from string theory" section (i.e., that string theory, if true, would seem to rule out an Omega Point); and the section makes the anti-factual claim that most physicists believe Hawking's proposal, which is definitely untrue. I'm unaware of a single physicist other than Hawking who has endorsed Hawking's proposal.

Lastly, the section then goes on to talk about observations indicating an expanding universe. Apparently the person who wrote this section didn't even bother to read the article, as this is already addressed in the "Physics" section.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the information from this cut section about Stephen Hawking's proposal regarding unitarity to the "Implications from string theory" section, while properly referencing it (as the cut section had provided no citations).--71.0.146.150 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit on 16:07, 8 March 2010

Hi, Arthur Rubin. Your edit on 16:07, 8 March 2010 violates Wikipedia's policies of regarding no original research, reliable sources, and truth.

The reason you gave for the same edit on 21:49, 7 March 2010 was "Added ; unitarity does not require predicitability. Even if the quote is accurate, some tags need to be placed)". The citation given in the quotation to which you added the "[not in citation given] " tag is in the original, of which original source qualifies under Wikipedia's policy of reliable sources.

Hence, if you truly believe that Prof. Frank J. Tipler is mistaken in citating that source, then the only way in which you would be able to handle this under Wikipedia's above-stated policies is to find a reliable source (i.e., a peer-reviewed paper in a science journal) which specifically states that Tipler is mistaken in citing that source in that specific passage, and then write a sentence stating something to the effect of "However, person X [writing in peer-reviewed paper Y in journal Z] maintains that Tipler is mistaken in citing this source here."

You then still would not be able to add the "[not in citation given] " tag to Tipler's passage under Wikipedia's policies of truth, reliable sources, and no original research, because that would require a truth-judgement on the part of a Wikipedia editor, which is not allowed. It's not the purview of Wikipedia editors to decide what is or is not true, but rather merely what is verifiable in the sense of reliable sources. Hence, if there exists conflicting reliable sources, all that we qua Wikipedia editors can do is to let said sources speak for themselves.

But in fact your claim is false: Hawking's paper "Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse" (Physical Review D, Vol. 14, Issue 10 [November 1976], pp. 2460-2473) is the paper wherein Hawking proved that if black holes evaporate to completion then unitarity is violated. As physicist Prof. Jacob D. Bekenstein wrote in "Black holes and information theory" (Contemporary Physics, Vol. 45, Issue 1 [January 2004], pp. 31-43 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0311049 ): "Hawking [28] was led by this to assert that gravity violates the unitarity principle of quantum theory", with reference No. 28 being "[28] Hawking S.W., 1976, Phys. Rev. D, 14 , 2460".

Your confusion on this matter apparently stems from Hawking not using the word "unitarity" in his said paper. Hawking instead therein refers to the unity of quantum probabilities, which is a different way of referring to the quantum mechanical law of unitarity.

It's through Hawking's above-cited paper that the position that unitarity would be violated if black holes were allowed to completely evaporate became the standard position in physics: it's what's known as the black hole information paradox. In standard physics (i.e., general relativity and quantum mechanics), unitarity unavoidably would be violated if black holes were allowed to completely evaporate. There have been proposals to preserve unitarity while still allowing complete evaporation (such as Hawking's 2005 proposal which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based AdS/CFT correspondence), but they all involve unconfirmed new physics.

Your misunderstanding here provides a good illustration of why Wikipedia's policies on no original research, reliable sources, and truth are good policies, as otherwise we get people not knowing what they're talking about attempting to use Wikipedia's articles in order to argue the truth-value of various matters.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's still wrong. Citations within quotes should be placed in a separate citation section so we (Wikipedia) do not take credit for the attribution, correct or not. There's a way of doing that, but I don't know what it is. (Furthermore, as I don't presently have a copy of that paper, but Hawking's been wrong before, and he now agrees that at least that interpretation of his paper is incorrect. If it were in our text, it would require more caveats. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I found the reference of how to do it.... Add group="T" to all <ref tags within the block quotes, and add a separate section with <references group="T"/> to collect the references. I can't get my script to do it automatically, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed Wikipedia's policy that quoted citations appear within their own section, then I'll do the work of transferring them over (assuming you haven't already).--71.0.146.150 (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's a Wikipedia guideline that quoted text not have wikilinks; in the case of referring to names, I'd consider it allowable, but it's otherwise our interpretation that the author means the same thing we do. In the case of "unitarity", I'd have consider that "not proven", at best.

The reference discussion is merely a logical extension of that, in that references in quotes should not be checked under WP:V (verifiability) or for whether the author misinterprets the the reference, and should be so tagged. The simplest way I can think of to tag it is to put them in a separate reference section entitled "Tipler's references". An acceptable alternative might be to place a template {{verification irrelevant}}, but even that wouldn't prevent deletion if copies outside the quoted section were found to be not verifiable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If that were the case, then it wouldn't make sense, as then by that logic nothing could be written on any matter by a Wikipedia editor: Wikipedia articles could then by that logic only purely consist of quoted passages, since any writings by a Wikipedia editor have to consist of the assumption that he has understood the source material in order to provide additional explanation (or at least understood it to the level required to provide whatever level of explanation has been written by a Wikipedia editor). And of course, all Wikipedia articles do consist of such explanations written by Wikipedia editors, with many Wikipedia articles not even containing any quotations.

The whole point of the reliable sources policy is that a Wikipedia editor's explanations, and provided quotations, are backed up by said reliable sources: not that a Wikipedia editor is not allowed to provide explanations.

By the way, that Hawking paper really is the one where Hawking showed that if black holes completely evaporate then unitarity is violated (per standard physics, i.e., general relativity and quantum mechanics). Besides the Jacob Bekenstein paper that I already cited above, see also Daniel Gottesman and John Preskill (Journal of High Energy Physics, Vol. 2004, Issue 3 [March 2004], Art. No. 26 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311269 ), wherein they write: "Hawking argued [2] that a process in which a pure quantum state collapses to form a black hole, which then evaporates completely, violates unitarity ...", with reference No. 2 being "[2] S. W. Hawking, “Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse,” Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460 (1976)."

Physics papers are often written in an abstruse manner using terms of art consisting of indirect and implied references, since they're written for fellow specialists in their field.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Skolem Löwenheim

The article cites Tipler saying: "I pointed out in an earlier section that the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem suggests there is no real difference between a theory with a countable number of axioms and a theory with a finite number of axioms". The Skolem Löwenheim theorem says that every infinite model is equivalent to a countable model (in model theory). A model with a finite number of axioms (or just one: the conjunction of these) is a different thing. This Tipler (I heard today for the first time about him on a forum about the Rybka chess engine :-)) seems to me indeed a lunatic. Otto (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the professional physicists at the Institute of Physics (Britain's main professional body for physicists) entrusted with refereeing this paper are also "lunatics". Rather than charging professional mathematicians and physicists with lunacy due to your lack of understanding, it might help you if you were to read all of the Reports on Progress in Physics paper that you're quoting from. For example:

A major theoretical reason for thinking there is no fundamental difference between a finite number of postulates and a (countable) infinite number of postulates is the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem: Let M be a model for a collection T of constant and relation symbols. Then there exists an elementary sub-model of M whose cardinality does not exceed that of T if T is infinite and is at most countable if T is finite (Cohen 1966, p 18). The proof of this theorem uses a weak version of the Axiom of Choice (hereafter AC); see Boolos and Jeffrey (1974, pp 133 and 158). Skolem regarded this theorem as an argument that ZFC cannot form a 'reasonable' foundation for mathematics because it implies there is a countable sub-model for the uncountable set of real numbers (Yandell 2002, p 64). If we want an axiom system for the real numbers that yields only the uncountable real numbers as a unique model, we will have to have an uncountable number of axioms. If we regard the continuum as the fundamental entity in reality, and if we want the postulates giving the real numbers to yield only the real numbers, then the continuum must be governed by an uncountable number of postulates. A finite axiom system will yield a countable number of consequences, but so will a countable number of postulates. Our preference for a finite number of axioms may just reflect our human finiteness. I shall argue below that a countable infinity of axioms in the form of having a countable infinity of terms in the Lagrangian (all the invariants that can be formed from the Riemann tensor and all of its covariant derivatives) allow unitarity to force the finiteness of quantum gravity coupled to the SM of particle physics. It has been known for decades that even if you start the Hilbert action for gravity, the path integral will give you the entire countable infinity of terms, and these additional terms, if artificially suppressed, will yield a quantum theory of gravity that is either non-renomalizable, or not unitary. Conversely, if we accept quantum field theory, the fact that gravity is curvature (and recall that Cartan showed even Newtonian gravity is curvature—see Misner et al 1973), and locally special relativistic, then we have to accept the countable infinity of terms in the fundamental Lagrangian. Physicists have always hoped that when the equations of the Theory of Everything were found, it could be shown that there was only one model for this system of equations, namely the actual universe. What the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem demonstrates is that this hope cannot be fulfilled with a finite set of equations, or a finite set of constants, if the actual universe is actually infinite. If we regard the boundary conditions on the universal wave function as an 'axiom', then the boundary conditions on a continuous function will be in effect a set of axioms whose cardinality is that of the continuum. A system with a countable number of terms in the gravitational Lagrangian and an uncountable number of 'axioms' in the boundary conditions may, by the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem, have a unique (uncountable) model.

From pp. 909-910 of 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. Mirror link. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing new in your comment. Most of it has nothing to do with the Skolem Löwenheim theorem. I think the whole theory described in this article is quite dubious to say the least and that this should be mentioned somewhere. Please don't see this as a personal attack. Of course you are free to believe what you want, but putting it forward as established scientific knowledge goes far beyond expressing a belief. Otto (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire paragraph that I quoted from Prof. Tipler's 2005 Reports on Progress in Physcis paper concerned the Löwenheim–Skolem Theorem, its implications for axiom sets, and what that implies for quantum gravity theories. It's common for people who are not professional mathematicians and physicists who are also experts in the areas under discussion to have misunderstandings about such matters, which is why the peer-review process is not left to armchair commentators, but rather experts who can assess such matters. If you feel that the professional physicists at the Institute of Physics (Britain's main professional body for physicists) entrusted with refereeing this paper are wrong, then you're free to write your own paper disputing this paper and attempt to have it peer-reviewed and published in a physics journal.

Regarding your statement that you "think the whole theory described in this article is quite dubious", Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point Theory has been published in a number of the world's leading peer-reviewed 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 Theory:

• 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 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. Mirror link. 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 97-114.

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, "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 (mirror link); an invited paper in the proceedings of a conference held at and sponsored by NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, August 12-14, 1998; . Document ID: 19990023204. Report Number: E-11429; NAS 1.55:208694; NASA/CP-1999-208694. Mirror link.

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. 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 2001-94694, 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. Mirror links here and here; also available here. Also at arXiv:0704.0058, March 31, 2007.

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. Mirror link. Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

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. 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.

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 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.)

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.

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.

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 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.--71.0.146.150 (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)