Ryan Rogers
Class of 2009 Stetson University
Frank Tipler’s “The Physics of Immortality”: A Question of Method
Religious Studies
Mathematics (double major)
April 2009
Pledged: Ryan Rogers (Signature)
Approved: D. Dixon Sutherland, Faculty Advisor
Mitchell Reddish, Chair, Religious Studies
2
Abstract
Throughout history, science and religion have had major problems with one another. As science is able to explain and model more of the universe, religion seems to be able to explain less. Could science, specifically physics, eventually absorb theology? This is the argument that Frank Tipler advocates in his book entitled The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead . This research analyzes Tipler’s methodology for making his claim. It will be argued that contrary to Tipler’s assertion, “immortality” is still a theologically dependent concept that reaches beyond the proper scope of physics. In fact, Tipler’s physics is actually dependent upon theological assumptions. Describing the end of the cosmos, Tipler’s physics leaves too many gaps between physical laws and mathematical principles, which urges theology to step in. Furthermore, the assumptions from which Tipler starts, have no firm scientific groundings. In essence, science seems to rely on the validity of theology. Tipler’s work supports the “immortality of theology” over science. In his case, his theology absorbed his physics. 3
As a major in both Mathematics and Religious Studies at Stetson University, I have sifted through both fields in an effort to find if there might be pathways in one discipline that lead to insights involving the other. After searching for four years, my opinion remains that neither discipline could ultimately be a superior authority with regard to the other. Mathematics works from the most fundamental and agreed upon axioms in the world; it is the universal language, but what makes math possible? Why have so many prominent mathematicians contributed to spiritual or religious thought?
For my senior research in Religious Studies, I have chosen to pursue these questions by a critical inquiry into a book that suggests science, specifically physics, will overcome theology, namely, Frank Tipler’s The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead .1 Being interested by the possibility of both physics’ dependency on mathematics and mathematics’ intriguing relationship with religion, I will undertake an analysis of Tipler’s claims to see how he arrives at his conclusions.
Tipler’s physical eschatology depends on the hegemony of physics over theology.
Has science evolved so fast as to actually compete with millennia of progress in religion in modeling the human experience? According to Frank Tipler’s Physics of Immortality ,
theology will be or already has become a part of physics. With such a far-reaching
conjecture, an analysis of Tipler’s methodology must be conducted. Also Tipler’s
method must be compared to others’ methodologies of how to approach the relationship
of science and religion. After this analysis, Tipler’s argument will be shown to actually
support the opposite of Tipler’s theory; science may be overcome by theology. The main
support for this claim lies in the need of theology for science and the scientific method to
1 Frank J Tipler, The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead, (New York: Anchor, 1997). 4 exist. Both science and religion have the ultimate concern to model the human experience and overlap in forming explanations of how life and the universe may ultimately end.
What happens at the end?
“The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.” 2
“There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the
sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.” 3
The notion of the universe ending at a certain point appears to be inevitable. If
humans do not kill themselves off with nuclear bombs, pollution, or overpopulation,
other threats to the earth—man-made or natural—such as asteroids or space debris
collisions, could do the job quite nicely. Assuming the earth manages to avoid these
catastrophes, the sun is still projected to use up all its energy and expire in another five
billion years. The death of the sun would kill off any and all life that may have managed
to take refuge on other planets in our solar system. Still, this is a distant prospect, and
considering what people have accomplished in far less than a million years, the demise of
the sun may not spell the doom of humans. One can conceive that humankind or any
evolved form of intelligent beings may one day possess the capability of moving to and
inhabiting other planetary systems in sufficient time to miss the death of the sun.
Nevertheless, there are indications that even the known universe will come to an
end in the far distant future. Intelligent life would have no place to hide; it would simply
2 Matthew 24: 29 3 Revelations 22: 5 5 end. If the universe does come to an end, no matter how far into the future, what does this mean for humanity or intelligent life? John Polkinghorne claims that “as cosmologists peer into the future, their story is one of eventual futility rather than one of fulfillment.” 4 What role does intelligence play in the cosmos if it only ends in total vainness? Despite these gloomy ideas about the end of the universe, science also includes other theories that would allow intelligence to last indefinitely. In accord with these optimistic scientific theories, some religious traditions tend to talk about the end of time, filling people with hope of immortality or other eschatological scenarios. This begs the question; do these optimistic scientific theories have religious foundations? Can religion inform science in any way?
In order to see if religion can in any way complement physics, one must be aware of the different scientific views of the end of the universe. Before theories about the Big
Bang began to form, many scientists deeply believed that the universe followed the second law of thermodynamics (see Appendix), which meant that the universe was
“running into disorder,” which provided a dreary outlook for the future. 5 Today, two major theories exist regarding how the universe could end. These two theories correspond to the Big Bang theory and paint a picture as pessimistic as the earlier theory.
They are called the open and closed theories of the universe. One suggests a universe that is forever expanding, while the other claims that the universe’s expansion will end, and the universe will start contracting. 6 If the universe continues to expand forever, as the open universe theory contends, “the galaxies will continue to move apart forever, at
4 John Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” The Ends of the World and the Ends of God, eds. John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 2000), 29. 5 Fraser Watts, “Subjective and Objective Hope,” The Ends of the World and the Ends of God, eds. John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 2000), 47. 6 Willem B. Drees, Beyond the Big Bang , (Lasalle, Ill: Open Court Publishing Company, 1990), 122. 6 the same time condensing and decaying into themselves into ever-cooling low grade radiation.” 7 Because the universe will continuously expand, it will eventually become so cold that life would not be possible, ultimately leading to extinction (this is also known as the “Big Freeze” theory).
The closed universe theory suggests that the universe is finite and will eventually contract into an infinitesimally small ball from the forces of gravity; “the universe will eventually collapse upon itself into the fiery melting pot of the big crunch.” 8 There are
suggestions that perhaps after the “Big Crunch” there will be another Big Bang and the
whole process of the universe will continue again, also known as the Eternal Return.
Despite the universe being created and destroyed indefinitely with this view, human life
would be lost and there would be no signs of intelligent life from each prior oscillation
after each Big Crunch and Big Bang. The universe could continue to exist without end
either by expanding forever or expanding and contracting forever. However, with either
of these views, life appears to be headed towards extinction and humanity would be lost
along with all its achievements. There would be no link between each succession of
intelligent life. This futility of the universe’s destiny leads Steven Weinberg to state,
“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.” 9 There must be a more optimistic view of how human life or simply intelligence can survive in an infinite universe.
F. J. Dyson presumes that if the universe follows the open scientific hypothesis and “cycles of activity and hibernation are chosen well” by intelligent beings, then
7 Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” 31. 8 Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” 31. 9 John Polkinghorne, Beyond Science , (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 95.
7
“survival might be possible for an infinite time with a finite total energy.” 10 This would
allow intelligent life to persist even under the monotonous outlook of a forever-
expanding universe. Willem B. Drees claims that Dyson’s theory implies that there is
more than enough energy in the universe for humanity; “an organization as complex as
the human species today needs, from now till eternity, the amount of energy that the Sun
radiates away in eight hours.” 11 Dyson was able to come to this conclusion because he
made the essence of being human not the body, but “the program which controls the
body.” 12 This theory makes life and processing information to be one and the same thing.
Intelligence, through programs that continue to gather data and information, could continue infinitely in the expanding universe. 13 This seems to be a rather reductionistic view of intelligent life wherein human life could be defined as inclusive of highly developed computers.
Frank Tipler proposed another optimistic view about the end of the universe with what he calls the “Omega Point Theory.” Drees supports Tipler by saying “life shall not perish from the cosmos, but shall grow into the Omega Point.” 14 This allows Tipler to support his Final Anthropic Principle (FAP): “intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the universe and once it comes into existence, it will never die out.” 15 In order for this FAP to hold, the universe must be closed, otherwise the universe
could not evolve into the Omega Point (see Appendix). Tipler and John D. Barrow both
believe that at this Omega Point, intelligent life will encompass the universe; life will
10 Drees, 123. 11 Drees, 123. 12 John D. Barrow, et al, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 659. 13 Polkinghorne, “Eschatology,” 33. 14 Drees, 128. 15 Barrow, 23.
8 have the attributes of “omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence.” 16 At that time, life will have gained control of matter and forces in not just this universe, but also in every other universe that may exist. 17 The first step for understanding these phenomena is to devise a universal theory of everything. With this “wave function of the universe”
(theory of everything), the Omega Point would be used as a boundary condition that would ultimately determine everything. 18 Once this solution is found, the end of the
universe will be apparent and the “program” of intelligence can be made immortal. The
“hardware” of intelligence (i.e. the human body) may be lost in a closed universe, but the
knowledge itself would last forever along with new discoveries without human life.
Although religion has been the sole owner of interpreting the end of the universe, science
seems to have breached theology’s domain. Tipler claims that the Omega Point Theory
has transformed theology into physics. In order to assess Tipler’s argument, one must
analyze his methodology.
Methods of relating science and religion
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” 19
In order to face the argument of whether science and religion is one and the same
thing, one must first examine methods that exist to approaching this relationship. Ian
Barbour created one of the most prominent and agreed upon taxonomies for the
relationship between science and religion. He characterized these taxonomies as conflict,
independence, dialogue, and integration.
16 Drees, 132. 17 Barrow, 277. 18 Drees, 135. 19 Alice Calaprice and Albert Einstein, The New Quotable Einstein, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 203. 9
Barbour argues that conflict between science and religion in Western culture basically centers on their respective methods: science is based on logic and the senses, and religion 20 is based on scripture. 21 He goes further, showing examples of specific
‘conflicts’ between science and religion. Specifically, Barbour speaks of the scientific
materialists who believe that the scientific method is the only path toward knowledge,
and the biblical literalists who contrarily believe that whatever the Bible says must have
happened just as it literally says. 22 With this view, knowledge may only be obtained
through one discipline.
The ‘independence’ taxonomy views science and religion as two domains that
never intercept because they ask different questions and use different methods. 23 A good
example of a religious group that lives inside the ‘independence’ bubble would be the
fundamental Evangelical Christians. Many among them home-school their children,
guaranteeing their offspring will encounter only ‘creationism’ and avoid the influence of
evolution and other scientific “beliefs.” 24
The taxonomy of ‘dialogue’ forms an overlapping view of science and religion,
wherein both often raise questions that depend upon the other for an answer. 25 The two subsections of this taxonomy that Barbour puts forth are presuppositions and limit questions, followed by methodical and conceptual parallels. 26 The former shows that
20 When dealing with religion generally, what is meant is scripture based religions, or revelatory religions. Most authors when dealing with the subject of science and religion will typically say religion when the authors actually refer to Western based Judaeo-Christian-Muslim religions. 21 Ian G. Barbour, Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues, (New York: Harperone, 1997), 78. 22 Barbour, Religion and Science, 82. 23 Barbour, Religion and Science, 86. 24 Jesus Camp . DVD. Directed by Rachel Grady. 2006; Los Angeles: Magnolia. 25 Barbour, Religion and Science, 90. 26 Ian G. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, (New York: Harperone, 2000), 23.
10 science brings up fundamental questions that it cannot answer and needs belief (or religion) as a starting point. For instance, why is there order in the universe, or more fundamentally, why is there a universe at all? The methodical and conceptual parallels reveal that science is not as objective and religion is not as subjective as each claims to be.
The last of Barbour’s taxonomies includes the most unified view of science and religion, that of ‘integration.’ This view starts with natural occurrences, like symmetry and complex anatomy, and shows that there must be a “designer” of this “intelligent design.” 27 Also, the ‘integration’ view does not have to start with science, it can begin with a natural theology, which starts with religious traditions and accepts the incorporation of scientific findings into religion.28 The integration view contends that all
integrated entities have both an inner (religious) and outer (scientific) reality.
Sorting out the relationship between science and religion initiates many
challenges with connecting the two, but it seems reductionistic to consider only four
taxonomies as being a full list of all the possible relationships between science and
religion. However, for the most part, partitioning the relationship between science and
religion into four sections sheds light on the many different ways these two methods of
understanding can relate. Where taxonomies make it easy to introduce the relationship
between science and religion, they cannot be thought of as an exhaustive account of how
science and religion can relate.
Holmes Rolston’s understanding of the relationship between science and religion
focuses more in Barbour’s dialogue and integration taxonomies. According to Rolston,
27 Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, 28. 28 Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, 31. 11 both science and religion offer interpretations of human experience that are rational and differ over time; the scientific interpretation is based on “causality” and religious interpretation is based on “meaning.” 29 Despite science’s claim that their findings are based on objective facts, humans still search within their own subjective paradigms.
Rolston states: “The center of gravity in a rock is as much assigned as it is discovered.” 30
For the scientists to actually believe that their findings exhibit essential truths seems to create dogmas similar to those in religion. How are humans able to discover absolute truths? In order to answer this, it seems that science must rely on religious interpretation
(the opposite of what Tipler suggests).
Assuming the idea that humans are capable of discovering objective facts, the methods of science follow a logical structure, but commit a fallacy in Aristotelian logic.31
Because of this, science can only be proven absolutely wrong or “probably” right.
However, still following the scientific method, it seems that science can only model
relatively simple natural phenomena, such as movements of objects in a medium and
planetary motion, among others. Religion attempts to model the “complex events” of
human interaction where there are many unpredictable and chaotic forces to take into
account. 32
Both science and religion become victim to subjective methodology. Scientists will attempt a project with a particular outcome in mind and will do everything possible to make this finding true. Historically, Copernicus was in the minority of his time
29 Holmes Rolston, Science and Religion, (US: Random House USA Inc, 1988), 1. 30 Rolston 3. 31 The logic of the scientific method can be said to follow the following logical structure: If a theory (T) is true, then certain observations (O) must follow. The scientist then goes in search of O, in order to confirm T. However this is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, O does not necessarily imply T. 32 Rolston, 7. 12 claiming that the sun was the center of the solar system and the earth revolved around it.
Other scientists of the time would make models of the geocentric universe to approximate where planets would be in the sky on a given night. These models produced fairly accurate results. Johannes Kepler, a fellow Copernican, attempted most of his life to place the five platonic solids around the six known planets of the time to tie geometry with cosmology. It was an interesting idea, but dead wrong.
Both science and religion have proven to be very vulnerable to the societal influences of the time, such as money, power, or pride. In order to make it seem that neither is susceptible to change, both will cling to their creeds or theorems for as long as possible, regardless of the need to alter their ways. It takes a lot for a scientist or a theologian to have a dramatic paradigm shift in order to see the actual truth in a discovery. One cannot see what one is not looking for. Stephen Hawking acknowledges the momentous transition that occurred in physics between classical to modern physics with the work of Einstein. “In less than half a century,” Hawking states, “man’s view of the universe, formed over millennia, has been transformed.” 33 But how does this paradigm shift take place?
The critical affirmations in both science and religion should not be considered the actual truth, but rather maps that guide to the genuine facts. A “blik” 34 is a theory that
has become too hardened to be proven wrong by experience. Both science and religion
have these bliks that must be overcome and will be overcome only with much effort and
proof to the contrary. Science and religion have both changed and adapted to the
developing human species. New creeds and theorems have replaced old ones. As
33 Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes , (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 50. 34 Rolston, 11. 13
Rolston rightly contends, “even if their (science and religion’s) respective theories and facts are in some degree objective knowledge, representing the real world, they are inescapably also subjective knowledge, information acquired, achieved and processed by human subjects.” 35 Despite this futile effort to work past subjective paradigms, both of these subjects must recognize this and not stop with one creed or theorem, for ultimately they both seek truth for all. Science and religion function to correct anthropocentric errors to model the known and the unknown, but humans cannot think without paradigms.
Langdon Gilkey provides further critique of those that claim science is the only way to define reality and science provides an exhaustive account of reality. 36 It is wrong to think that science totally determines reality. Gilkey points out that what humans typically believe is true about an object will ultimately “determine for us what we believe its reality to be.” 37 However, Gilkey recognizes that “science is our most reliable and, on one level, our most fruitful way of knowing.” 38 Gilkey sees science as a method that is
dependent on “extra-scientific modes of awareness and knowledge.” 39 He argues that
there is more to know about the world than that which can be discovered with science.
Perhaps it is human nature to believe that what appears to be true is absolute fact, but
Gilkey steps back from the ego to analyze what science is actually uncovering, which he
concludes is basically rough estimates of the cosmos’ behavior.
35 Rolston, 16. 36 Langdon Gilkey, Nature, Reality, and the Sacred: The Nexus of Science and Religion , (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 2. 37 Gilkey, 3. 38 Gilkey, 15. 39 Gilkey, 16. 14
Before much of formalized science was developed, religious truth was thought to reveal facts. For science to become the new accepted truth, one must determine what became of religious truth? Gilkey claims that religious truth has taken more of a liberal definition where it deals primarily with a “personal encounter.” 40 What appears to be fact to one person, such as seeing the risen Lord or other miraculous events, appears to be utter nonsense to someone else. This obviously does not fall under scientific truth, but should one be considered more factual than the other? Science, as it is conducted today, is far from the actual objective science that it claims to be. As Gilkey points out, “We are a long way from the concept of the scientific method as carried on only by a logical and not by a human subject.” 41 There are “leaps of faith” needed in science to see what is not
there and to claim that it can be understood. Gilkey goes further to say, “Not all that we
know is science, lest there be no possibility of science.” 42 Would knowing everything scientifically in itself kill science, as Gilkey states? With the new liberal definition of religious fact and the gaps in scientific understanding, it seems that neither truly makes reality knowable . However, Gilkey gives science its due by saying that science is on the right track to knowing the universe. 43
Science and religion appear to use different paradigms to interpret the human
experience, but ultimately they both remain intertwined. Science operates with the
presumption that there are causes to things, and religion works with the idea that there are
meanings to things. However, both share the conviction that the world is intelligible and
can be interpreted. The ancient Hebrews “disenchanted the universe on the basis of
40 Gilkey, 20. 41 Gilkey, 26. 42 Gilkey, 39. 43 Gilkey 69. 15 monotheism long before science appeared – a finding that subsequently made science possible.” 44
Because both share the same goal (to model the human experience) and share the same tools (the human mind), science and religion will obviously interact with one another, but to say one will overcome the other seems unlikely. It does not seem possible for science, or more specifically, physics, to absorb theology, as Tipler contends. The reason for this is that when famous scientists shift paradigms to see the universe from a different perspective, they must “step back” from their hard and fast claims. What allows them to do this “stepping back?” What allowed Einstein to imagine what the world would look like strapped onto a light wave? This question changed all of classical physics, founded by Newton, and paved the way for modern physics of the 20 th and 21 st
centuries. What made Copernicus believe in a heliocentric world when many of his
colleagues gave very accurate results to the sun orbiting the earth? The reasons for these
shifts in perspective must be analyzed and cannot be examined with science alone.
Religion steps in to find meaning from sciences’ epiphanies. It is the human’s power of
imagination and creativity that seems to fall into the realm of religion, but these
characteristics are utilized and taken for granted by science. It may well be a more
accurate prediction to say that science will become a part of religion, or has taken place
already.
Frank Tipler’s perspective in “The Physics of Immortality”
“Either theology is pure nonsense, a subject with no content, or else theology must
ultimately become a branch of physics.” 45
44 Rolston, 7. 16
The methodology in both science and religion appears to have some overlap in that they both seek the same goals, to some extent. Despite the history of their intertwining, Frank Tipler concentrates on the future and depends upon evolving patterns in how science and religion address issues. This leads him to argue for what he terms the
Omega Point Theory, in which the universe collapses into itself (i.e. the Big Crunch) but by attaining enough knowledge and “moving the universe,” intelligent life will live forever and past life will be resurrected. The Omega Point Theory provides a testable physical theory for an “omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent God who will one day in the far future resurrect every one of us to live forever in an abode which is in all essentials the Judeo-Christian heaven.” 46 Much of the universe’s life exists in the future
(approximately 100 billion more years for the universe to exist), since it was formed not
long ago from the Big Bang (approximately 14 billion years ago). Its past, compared to
its future, is short. Therefore science must concentrate on the future and what intelligent
life may evolve towards. Where the old science claimed that humans simply die, the new
science asks if physical laws can permit life to continue.
Tipler begins “The Physics of Immortality” with basic assumptions in order to
create a physical foundation for an eschatology. For this to be possible, the universe
must be capable of sustaining life indefinitely and total death of intelligent life must not
be inevitable. 47 This seems to be a rather loose foundation from which to start, since life appears to be killing itself off rather quickly with new weapons of mass destruction and global warming. Regardless, Tipler uses both assumptions to springboard into his
45 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 3.
46 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 1. 47 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 11. 17 physics and to show that physics has invaded theology. For this to occur, there must be something in the future that exhibits omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence; something that can exist both in the universe and out of it. This object would be the completion of all finite existence, the Omega Point. 48 Could the Omega Point be God? It appears that the Omega Point exemplifies all the qualities of God, according to Tipler’s model. “The Omega Point probably loves us ( agape ),” he claims, and it will thus resurrect every human in history. 49 He therefore concludes about theology: “Theology is nothing but physical cosmology based on the assumption that life as a whole is immortal.” 50 Because Tipler suggests that physics makes up the study of all of reality, if
God exists, physics must one day find God. For Tipler, physics envelopes theology.
In order for Tipler to display his physics, he must first reject certain views that would not allow for an Omega Point. Tipler rejects the open universe idea because this would not allow life to exist forever. This is due to the fact that life needs energy to progress, energy needs warm temperature, and an open universe would become so cold that energy could not continue. Also, the second law of thermodynamics does not allow for an open universe. Thus, Tipler suggests that with the universe collapsing, there will be an infinite amount of heat, which implies infinite amounts of energy and progress.
With progress accelerating, intelligent life will eventually attain an infinite amount of knowledge at the end of time.
48 Omega Point was not coined by Tipler. Rather, Teilhard de Chardin introduced the theory of an Omega Point in his effort to construct his evolutionary theology (See Appendix). 49 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 14. 50 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 17 18
However, Tipler states that the universe cannot collapse in on itself uniformly from all sides. This would create chaos, according to Einstein’s equations. 51 Therefore,
intelligent life must occupy the entire universe and implement chaos theory. An
illustration of chaos theory from Tipler involves a butterfly that flaps its wings on one
side of the world, which would push the Earth to one side of the galaxy. 52 Fortunately, a
butterfly on the other side of the world would also flap its wings to keep the Earth in
balance. However, if much of the forces on Earth were on one side, the Earth could be
set into different motion. Tipler generalizes this theory out to encompass all of the
cosmos; when the universe begins to collapse inward, intelligent life will have already
occupied most of the universe. 53 In essence, once these intelligent machines have colonized much of the universe, it will then control it. According to Einstein, the greatest source of energy is mass, hence Einstein’s equation E=mc 2 where E=energy, m=mass, and c=speed of light. Thus, if Tipler’s theory that humans will take over the universe is correct, then they can control it. Tipler then places a restriction on how life controls the universe; life cannot stop the collapse, they can only slow it down in some directions. 54
Tipler suggests, “Life will move the universe.” 55 As the universe collapses, heat increases and with heat comes more energy, which Tipler assumes will allow for faster accumulation of knowledge, which will diverge as life approaches the end. 56 Following
Tipler’s logic, without life, the universe would forever expand and contract with a Big
Bang and Big Crunch repeating in a chaotic manner. It appears necessary for life to keep
51 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 117. 52 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 63. 53 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 117. 54 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 64. 55 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 65. 56 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 66. 19 the universe from collapsing uniformly, resulting in another Big Bang. Summarizing
Tipler, as the universe collapses, life will move to one side of the universe to seek the mass amounts of heat being pushed in one direction. The physics that Tipler utilizes shows that the universe will decelerate in one direction and leave a pocket for the incredible heat produced from the other collapsing sides, and all existing life will live there, progressing in knowledge. 57 This sort of shape that the universe would exemplify, according to Tipler, is called the “Taub universe.”58 Because life moves the cosmos, as
Tipler claims, the universe does not fall into chaos from the uniformly collapsing sides of
the universe. Therefore, Tipler contends that the universe needs life so that it may not
fall into chaos at the end of time.
However, when Tipler refers to life at the end of time, he does not mean humans,
or Homo Sapiens . Because the Earth is ultimately doomed, intelligent life must leave
their home and travel elsewhere. Unfortunately, this species is able to survive neither the
high temperatures nor the long duration interstellar travel needed to occupy the cosmos.
Intelligence must take on another form. Intelligent life must be comprised of smart
robots, programmed with the most sophisticated software. These intelligent machines
may be thought of as human beings because they can calculate and think similar to
humans. Robots can even be thought of as offspring of humans because humans created
them, similar to procreation. Humanity may only differ from these robots because they
do not depend on oxygen, shelter, sleep, or nourishment to survive. These robots can
simply live to accrue more information.
57 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 65. 58 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 136. 20
Humans are already creating the next level of intelligent life in computers and programs today. This may appear to be a reductionistic perspective of life, that humans can be reduced to computer software, but humans are ultimately finite. Humans can attain a large number of bits of information (the upper limit being 10 17 bits of storage) but they are not capable of infinite knowledge. 59 Even the known universe can be summed
10 123 up as a finite number of bits ( 10 bits of computer memory). 60 Despite these large numbers, the memory capabilities of computers have already exceeded the upper bound that human beings can store in their minds.
With perhaps many centuries, computers could create a perfect simulation of the entire known universe, with no detail or atom ignored. Such perfect simulations where one cannot distinguish between the simulated and the actual object are termed
“emulations.” 61 As Tipler projects, these emulations are part of a scientific definition of life. As he states “a sufficiently perfect simulation of a living being would be alive.” 62
Tipler argues that the computer software could make emulations of past people that
would be exactly like the original. With this, human kind would be resurrected from
their long sleep and could be programmed to remember everything until the point of their
death. Tipler again summarizes: “A later emulation is identical to the original person….
The substance of human beings is not preserved, only the pattern.” 63 Humanity would simply be reduced to computer software at the end, but they would still exhibit the attributes of humanity. For Tipler, this would be the only way for life to continue indefinitely.
59 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 22. 60 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 220. 61 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 207. 62 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 219. 63 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 235-236. 21
The limitations that computer programs may appear to have are similar to the limitations of humans. Perhaps the difference between human beings and artificial intelligence is the same as the difference between one individual and another. In order for one to evolve, individuals must be able to interact with other individuals; otherwise one may fall into similar thought processes and live a cyclic life of the same thoughts.
Tipler believes that machines will be capable of reproducing other machines and be able to store all the data available in the known universe and even outside the universe. The program could one day think beyond its own programming and create new programs, always evolving and gathering more information. Not only does Tipler propose this, but he further insists that this is necessary in order for life to continue toward the Omega
Point where life can be resurrected and emulated. In the end, the Earth must be transferred from ultimate reality to a virtual reality, “from real space into a cyberspace in a computer’s memory.” 64 Progress will continue forever because life can continue
through machines.
Tipler does not expect this resurrection of emulations of the human species to take
place until mere fractions of a second before the Big Crunch. In order to have life
continue into the Omega Point, Tipler introduces a subjective timescale, using the
theological designations of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas distinguished three types of
duration. The first is called tempus, which is the time scale with which life as we know it
is most familiar. 65 As intelligence escapes the limits of this tempus and matter, they enter the subjective time, aevum. 66 If one person thinks more thoughts than another in the
same time, then the former person has lived longer in subjective time. Because
64 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 109. 65 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 134. 66 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 134. 22 information will be infinite as life approaches the Omega Point, according to Tipler, life will think infinite thoughts and live forever, into immortality. The last type of timescale that Aquinas distinguished was aeternitas , eternity, which refers to the timescale where
God dwells. 67 Everything in aeternitas is experienced at the same time, past, present,
future, along with the subjective timescale. Tipler then concludes, “although a closed
universe exists for only a finite proper time, it nevertheless could exist for an infinite
subjective time which is the measure of time that is significant for living beings.” 68 At the Omega Point, “duration” is regarded as the same as the collection of all experiences of all life that exists in the past, present, and future, which refers to the aeternitas timescale where God resides. 69
With intelligent life evolving from tempus to aevum , any time or place may be emulated for any number of people, whether it is real or fantasy. “The emulation (of a human) can be allowed to develop further to think and feel things” says Tipler, “that the long-dead original person being emulated never felt or thought.” 70 The Omega Point will
not only include the cosmos with which humanity is familiar, but will also include the
other universes of the “multi-verse” or the “Many Worlds Interpretation.” The scientific
evidence for a multi-verse lies within the field of Quantum Mechanics which shows that a
very small object has a certain probability, but not a certainty, of being in a specific
location. This is also known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (see Appendix).
Generally, the principle suggests that a small particle occupies the place it is expected to
be in a particular universe, whether it be the one humanity occupies or another. Because
67 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 134. 68 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 136. 69 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 155. 70 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 241. 23 all universes collapse into the Omega Point, those resurrected may explore the other universes. Further, each universe provides as much information as the known cosmos and there are an infinite number of universes, therefore life will continue to progress always with something new to explore.
Where does God fit in with all this physics? Tipler chooses to use a hybrid definition of God from Paul Tillich and Wolfhart Pannenburg. Tillich imagines a God that “is not a being, but He is being itself.” 71 God is not an individual, but a much more abstract entity that incorporates all things. Pannenburg believes God is still in the process of coming to be. 72 From this abstract being, Tipler envisions God progressing to a more familiar form that will one day intervene with humanity. This occurs at the Omega Point.
God does not become part of the computer programs; God is the program. Tipler states that the Holy Spirit is equivalent to the program that lets humans exist. Because humans at the Omega Point cannot see the program that allows them to exist, God remains distant from the resurrected people.
The afterlife that Tipler suggests in his book correlates with the afterlife of the great world religions. Taoism espoused the idea of individual immortality very early in its history. 73 Hinduism believes that humans will have a different body in paradise,
which may still be able to experience the pleasures enjoyed by the present body. 74 In
Judaism, God resurrects the dead body into immortality by direct action, just as the
Omega Point wakes the dead person’s pattern from death into infinity. 75 The Qu’ran states that there is a lack in subjective time between death and resurrection, just as the
71 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 3. 72 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 4. 73 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 270. 74 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 273. 75 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 284. 24
Omega Point Theory postulates the human programming to sleep from death until resurrection close to the Omega Point. In Christianity, many theologians have argued for the resurrection of the body. For Aquinas, the soul was thought of “as a genetic code” that would be the essence of an individual in the resurrection; the soul may also be interpreted as the program of the person needed to be emulated at the Omega Point. 76 For
Christianity, eschatology remains one of its main subjects. In fact, much of the Bible refers to a God in the future tense; when God replies to Moses, “I will be what I will be.” 77 This suggests a God that exists primarily in the future, as Pannenburg describes
God, “God’s being is still in the process of coming to be.” 78
After Tipler displays his Omega Point Theory, he encourages people to find meanings to their lives because they will be resurrected and live again. Today people can find meaning in their lives even if they do not believe in anything after death, but Tipler suggests, “they would find more meaning in their lives if they believed in the Omega
Point Theory.” 79
If the afterlife is going to be so much better than life now, with death, pain, and evil, he asks, why must humans bear their lives now? The simple answer to this is because the Omega Point needs humans in order to exist. Otherwise, the universe would fall into chaos and nothing would be remembered; life would be forever lost and forgotten. Intelligent life must exist in order for progress to take place and eventually lead to eternal life.
76 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 293. 77 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 4. 78 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 4. 79 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 82. 25
The Omega Point Theory also carries its own system of ethics. Because computers will emulate humanity and intelligence, racism and segregation must not exist at the Omega Point. Does everyone get resurrected at the end, or does the program determine who gets chosen? Tipler addresses this with the mathematical field of Game
Theory: “A person can maximize his own utility if he uses the strategy, ‘assume others are going to treat you as you would like to be treated.’” 80 There is plenty of room in the
future for the infinite numbers of resurrected individuals. However, it would be in the
interest of those near the Omega Point to resurrect those who may only contribute to
progress, not hinder it. The programs would allow those who have led evil lives to
change their ways in a sort of purgatory. Those who did not want to change their evil
ways would stay infinitely in this purgatory, corresponding to a Hell. The Omega Point
does not allow for people who do not exhibit kindness because it would be a
contradiction to the love, which the Omega Point has for the emulated beings. It appears
to be the individual’s choice whether to make Hell exist or not. Hell would then exist
because the Omega Point’s love refuses to abandon any person, no matter how much evil
they exhibit.
Tipler addresses that his proposal seems to be a very reductionistic view of the
human experience. Reductionism is the method of trying to show that “every phenomena
is ‘at bottom’ a physical phenomena capable of being described by physics.” 81 He claims that his method “has been to use reducibility to physics as a touchstone of truth for a higher-level theory.” 82 Tipler labels himself as an atheist who does not himself believe in
the Omega Point. Rather, he believes it to be a viable scientific theory, but it is still
80 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 246. 81 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 294. 82 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 297. 26 purely theoretical. Once the Omega Point is confirmed, Tipler will admit to being a theist. Until then, Tipler explicitly rejects Christianity, for he deems it to be based on
“mass delusion” of a risen Jesus. 83 Due to the “eternal punishment” to which Matthew
25:41-46 refers, Christianity does not seem to be entirely consistent with the Omega
Point Theory, for the Omega Point would not allow this. Tipler resorts back to science.
Science can establish two essential points, “a personal God who created the universe exists;” and “this God will ensure that we will live in happiness after death.” 84 Tipler
continues, “Religion can be based on physics only if the physics shows that God has to be
personal and the afterlife is an absolutely solid consequence of the physics.” 85 Therefore, the religion ultimately becomes a subject of physics. Tipler believes that sacred texts are mere creations of humans, and the words change meaning in every generation. The only
“book” that does not fall victim to human interpretation and thus gives the most reliable guide to the true character of God, is the “book of nature,” according to Tipler. He states,
“theology is nothing but physical cosmology based on the assumption that life as a whole is immortal.” 86 Physics has taken over other fields, such as medicine and astronomy, which once relied heavily on religion. Physics made these disciplines more accurate and allowed them to survive. Tipler predicts the same will ultimately occur with religion.
A critique on “The Physics of Immortality”
“If the Omega Point Theory is confirmed then I will consider myself a theist. ”87
83 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 310. 84 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 321. 85 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 327. 86 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 338. 87 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 305. 27
Tipler not only presents a scientific theory for the possibility of immortality of humans, but he further claims that theology becomes physics because of this scientific theory outlined in his book. However, Tipler has many assumptions for his theory. The human species cannot truly implement science, for it always thinks and observes in its own paradigms. Physics has not absorbed religion, as Tipler argues, but has found a point of contact with religion. Physics and religion are colliding subjects, but one may logically be able to accept both perspectives. Physicists believe there to be a dual nature to light, that it can behave both as a particle and as a wave. For a fundamental property in science to have such a paradoxical behavior, why must the human experience be reduced to one perspective? Gilkey addresses this issue, “The fact that the entire universe is governed by simple natural laws is remarkable, profound, and on the face of it, absurd.” 88 There must be more to reality than simple laws. For this reason, theology
does not become physics. Rather physics needs theology in order to change paradigms
and propose a theory such as the one Tipler has constructed. The foundation of physics
relies on the scientific method, but humanity is not capable of being absolutely objective;
emotion, personal gain, or other things usually take precedent. Gilkey points out that
what humans know is constructed with human made symbols or signs, which is not a
duplication of what is known. 89 It appears that Tipler’s claim that physics absorbs
theology should be reversed. A more critical question may be, does Tipler use a
theological argument to support physics?
These issues regarding Tipler beg the question, is Tipler a notable character in the physical and theological realms? Why examine specifically his work on immortality?
88 Gilkey, 56. 89 Gilkey, 40. 28
The answer is that there are prominent theologians and scientists who accept the possibility of Tipler’s theory. Some view the science as valid toward the Omega Point, and some accept the theology that Tipler displays at the end of his book to show the parallel between the Omega Point Theory and pre-existing theologies. Wolfhart
Pannenberg agrees with Tipler that the God portrayed in the original Hebrew Bible is a
God that saves in the future: “He is the saving future that constitutes the core of His promises.” 90 Also, the Omega Point Theory does not involve a material continuity or
identity with an earlier existence. This idea remains consistent to the Christian doctrine
of the resurrection of the person but not of the body. The body of the afterlife is a
spiritual body, not the original material body. Tipler acknowledges this in the Omega
Point Theory by allowing emulations. The original person, regardless of the hardware,
remains the same in the sense that it is the essence of the original hardware. God does
not need to resurrect humans after death, but chooses to because of His divine love. The
Omega Point, which will resurrect everyone, also portrays this divine love; even those
who are evil so that they may one day personify good qualities. However, this choice is
still left to the individual, making free will also consistent with the Omega Point Theory
and Christian theology. Perhaps the similarities between the Judeo-Christian God and the
Omega Point are not coincidence at all. Tipler may have made his science consistent
with theology in order to have theologians support his theory. It appears that Tipler
assumed the theology to be already true, and then he went in search to verify his physics.
Physics did not prove a loving Omega Point. Tipler’s framework for his theory placed
this assumption before the calculations.
90 Wolfhart Pannenburg, “Modern Cosmology: God and the Resurrection of the Dead,” Innsbruck Conference, University of Munich, Innsbruck, June 1, 1997.
29
The physics of Tipler also finds agreement from some of the leading physicists of this time. One of the most prominent and openly accepting of Tipler’s work is David
Deutsch, winner of the Dirac Medal in physics. Deutsch believes theories about the universe are becoming fewer and deeper, ultimately leading to replacing myriad old theories with a single theory. With the universe becoming more explainable with fewer computations, he believes that one day the entire universe will be known with a “theory of everything.” This would allow Tipler’s fate for humanity to take place, in the far distant future. Also, computers today seem to be able to replace humans in communications. When a machine is able to fool a person into thinking that he/she was talking to another individual, then that machine has passed the Turing Test (see
Appendix). When computers can “out-human” humans, the more it seems physically possible that at the end of time there may be a universal virtual reality generator that could allow life to acquire infinite knowledge. Deutsch contends, “knowledge will continue to be created until the end of the universe.” 91 Deutsch also agrees that free will
is consistent with physics, due to the Many Worlds Interpretation of the universe (or
multi-verse) and Quantum Mechanics, which is based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle. This interpretation of the cosmos is agreed upon by the most prominent
scientists of the present day, including Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins. All the
choices of individuals are happening simultaneously in some other universes, and
individuals decide themselves which option they will pick for ultimate reality. It appears
that Deutsch agrees with most of Tipler’s main scientific points because he feels that
intelligent life is progressing toward replacing humanity by attaining more and more
91 David Deutsch, The Fabric of Reality, (Boston: Penguin, 1998), p. 351. 30 knowledge. “The universe in the end” claims Deutsch, “will be intelligent thought processes.” 92
It is when the theologian and scientist switch fields, however, that they become skeptical of Tipler. Tipler points this out on his personal website: “Amusingly, the theologian Pannenberg is dubious about some of my physics, and the physicist Deutsch doesn’t like my theology!” 93 Perhaps the ether between these supposedly independent
subjects is where true criticism of Tipler’s theory must come.
In order to begin his calculations, Tipler must posit certain assumptions, thus
forcing his physics into the theological realm. The first ingredient of Tipler’s Omega
Point Theory is to assume that the universe ends in an Omega Point. Before this occurs,
however, Tipler allows life to exist everywhere in the universe slightly after the universe
begins to collapse back into itself. Because life will be everywhere, Tipler postulates that
life will be able to manage the collapse of the universe in such a way as to allow life to
continue to exist. In order to make Tipler’s theory work, life will not take on the form of
human beings; rather life will be super intelligent machines, which can build even more
intelligent robots to continue progressing. With these powerful machines that Tipler
requires for his theory, people will be able to be emulated perfectly and those who are
“good” will definitely be emulated in the future. Further, Tipler assumes that all the
information that existed from recorded and prerecorded history will be available at the
Omega Point.
Many people take offense at Tipler’s reduction of human beings to machines.
Many also find his projections more like science fiction than science. Tipler’s theory has
92 Deutsch, 364. 93 Frank J Tipler, "The Omega Point Theory," The Physics of Immortality . www.math.tulane.edu:80/~tipler/tipler/tipler2.html (accessed May 24, 2000). 31 been referred to as “a piece of fantastic speculation.” 94 Why would the universe allow life to continue existing when there was no life at the proposed Big Bang? If life did not exist there, why is life guaranteed to live forever after being formed? Many of the issues that Tipler uses in his speculations do not lie in physics, yet he uses certain laws of nature to prove irrelevant topics. Speculators do not tend to (or just may not want to) believe that a computer emulation of someone can still be that entity. Something, some would call it the soul, is missing. Tipler uses “basic” assumptions supported by an illusory physics. Ultimately, the foundation for the Omega Point Theory rests not on science, but on philosophical and theological presuppositions. As Graham Oppy states, “Reasons for thinking that the physical credentials of the theory (life lasts forever) are more than a little suspect.” 95
In order to look toward the distant future, one must observe patterns that exist today. The rate of progress with computers, entertainment systems, and travel is accelerating faster each day. However, it is not this type of progress that Tipler must analyze. Of course computers will get faster. Consumers experience this when they buy a top of the line computer one week, only to see it dethroned the next week. Tipler needs to analyze the dramatic shifts that cannot be placed on a time scale. Newton’s discoveries enabled centuries of progression, and Einstein paved the way for science and rebuilt physics after the nineteenth century. These drastic changes to the scientific world do not appear to follow any evolutionary trend; rather they simply occur. Einstein had dropped out of school, for his teacher had told him he would never amount to anything.
94 Graham Oppy, "Critical Notice: Frank J Tipler (1995) The Physics of Immortality," Secular Web , http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html (accessed February 7, 2009).
95 Oppy. 32
As Einstein rode his bike through a park one day, he was struck with a thought that no one else had contemplated. What would the world look like traveling along the top of a light wave? What physics would change? Armed only with this unique question and the drive to answer it, Einstein produced the general theory of relativity. This made
Newton’s equations mere approximations to how the world works. It required no special schooling for Einstein to ask a question that no one else had asked. Thus, how can Tipler say that computers are evolving to replace humans? This level of “computation” transcends any mathematical or scientific equation.
Have computers manifested any theory independent of humans? The imagination and creativity of humans have been the primary attributing force to explaining the universe. Whatever the cause of these characteristics, humans appear to be unique in their ability to change paradigms. Had Einstein lived the same time as Newton, would
Einstein still have thought of traveling on a light wave? It appears that Einstein’s question was not time dependent, at least as far as knowing that light travels like a wave and moves very fast. The next paradigm shifting scientific discoveries could happen simultaneously or with several centuries between. There does not seem to be any pattern to these major discoveries; perhaps these revelations could even be called chaotic, not capable of being modeled.
Due to the unpredictability of new scientific theory, it does not seem possible to
create a program that creates new science without the aid of the imagination of human
beings. This does not mean that computers cannot explore the cosmos. Voyager I and II,
launched September 5, and August 20, 1977, are already exploring beyond Earth’s solar
system. Powered by nuclear fission, these spacecrafts can take first hand pictures and 33 send them back to Earth via radio waves. With today’s technology, it seems possible for new spacecrafts to catch up to both Voyagers after a certain amount of time, reducing decades of work to a smaller scale. With this progression rate, Tipler’s hypothesis that electronics may encompass the universe seems possible. However, it does not seem to predict accurately the progression of science and technology by theorizing that artificial intelligence will replace humans. There has yet to be a computer to come up with one unique theorem. If humanity’s future rests on such ability, the past or present has not given a hint of this occurring. With no physical observations or data and following the scientific method, Tipler cannot conclude that computers will replace humans. Tipler seems to have reached into his own belief system, or religion, to pull out this unwarranted conclusion. His conclusion is in effect, part of his assumption. Not following science,
Tipler has fallen victim to theology.
Despite trying to remain objective, Tipler falls victim to paradigms that every human must face. Without a lens through which to look, how else would humans view the world? The best way a scientist can overcome this flaw is to accept it and try to look past one’s own paradigm and analyze other views. Kepler unfortunately fell into the problem of not seeing beyond his own outlook. Kepler was raised in a Lutheran church where he studied mathematics and theology. He believed that “geometry is the foundation of the likeness or imageness between God and the human being.” 96 He placed great emphasis on geometry and claimed that it was the language that God spoke and by translating it, humans were capable of seeing the hand of God. However, it was because of this belief that Kepler was not able to see clearly the spacing of the planetary orbits.
96 J. S. Kozhamthadeam, Discovery of Kepler's Law, (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994), 24. 34
By inscribing and circumscribing the five regular polyhedra (solid figures each with faces of the same kind of regular polygon), Kepler found that the positions of the spheres closely approximated the spacings of the six known planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth,
Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.97 This gave reason to why there existed six planets and not any other number because there were five regular polyhedra, which corresponds to the five spaces between the six planets. 98 However, Kepler could not make this work, nor
could he abandon it. The discovery of Uranus would have immediately proven Kepler’s
geometric spacings false. This argument placed too much emphasis on the relationship
between God and geometry and had little foundation in mathematics; it was simply a
belief.
Kepler went on to discover that the orbits of the planets are ellipses with the sun
at one of the two foci, but he never discarded his platonic solids relation with the planets’
spacings from the sun. Tipler has also fallen victim to this need to shift in paradigm in
order to be a true physicist. Tipler fails to accept that perhaps both views are
simultaneously valid or, completely contrary to Tipler; physics is already a part of
theology - at least his theology. Tipler suggests “theology must become a branch of
physics if it is to survive.” 99 It appears that physics needs a certain belief system, such as
total objectivity and the complete accuracy of the scientific method. With this belief
system, physics becomes theology.
Conclusion
97 Owen Gingerich, The Great Copernicus Chase and Other Adventures in Astronomical History , (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 123. 98 Hans Blumenberg, The Genesis of the Copernican World , (London: The Mit Press, 1989), 693. 99 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 10. 35
“Tipler’s argument seems to remain, provisionally at least, more theology than physics. ”100
With all the ominous scientific theories of the end of the universe resulting in total destruction, Tipler’s view brings light to scientific eschatology. However, while Tipler displays his theory, he fails to consider the “leaps of faith” he makes among physical theories. Also, Tipler’s foundation in his assumptions can hardly be called axioms. They are not consistent with other scientific theories. Despite the failure of science never being able to be fully objective, Tipler leans heavily on the subjective view of the universe, similar to the perspective of a theologian. With scientific theories and mathematics providing the science, the grand scheme lies in theology, yearning for meaning or purpose of the universe and the human existence in it. This is not to say that
Tipler’s argument must be thrown away. Simply, Tipler’s claim that theology becomes physics, must be reproved. Tipler’s argument shows that no matter the topic, science must also have a foundation in theology; otherwise, where would any spark of imagination or insight come from?
Looking back to Barbour’s taxonomy, Tipler has failed to look at immortality from the integration view instead of the conflict view. One needs both science and religion in order to study the universe. While humans are incapable of looking at things totally objectively because they must look through their own paradigms, this does not discount science. Science proves to be a rather good approximation of the universe, potentially exact. Some form of A.I. cannot replace the progression of science because the individual is able to shift paradigms and perspectives. Once humans shift perspective, science finds something profound. Tipler shifted the negative scientific
100 Pannenburg, “Modern Cosmology.” 36 interpretations of the ends of the cosmos. What caused the shift? Considering the complexity of the human being and science’s inability to model basic individual and collective responses, Tipler does not provide a comprehensive scientific theory. One of the tenets of the scientific method is to observe certain phenomena and, from observation, develop a theory. In that quest, Tipler ultimately fails. 37
Appendix
The Second Law of Thermodynamics : In order to define the second law of thermodynamics, an entity called entropy must be described. Entropy is a physical quantity that measures the degree of disorder of a particular system. Knowing this, Hawking states that the second law of thermodynamics involves “the entropy of an isolated system always increas(ing), and that when two systems are joined together, the entropy of the combined system is greater than the sum of the entropies of the individual systems.” 101 An illustration of this law involves two gases, such as oxygen and hydrogen, in separate containers. Once they are released into the same container, it is nearly impossible to isolate the two gases from their original state. If one were to place the two gases back into their own containers, this would take a lot of energy or heat, which would be released into the vast universe and contribute to higher entropy. It takes more energy to put things into order than to let them go into disorder. This is due to there being more disordered states in the universe than ordered ones.
Teilhard de Chardin’s Omega Point: Teilhard de Chardin describes his interpretation of the Omega Point in his book
The Phenomenon of Man well before Tipler used it in his physics. 102 Rather than using
the Omega Point as some boundary condition to the mathematical equation that governs
everything, as Tipler does, Chardin looks at an evolutionary theology of how human
101 Hawking, 102. 102 Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man ¸ Translated by Bernard Wall, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1955). 38 consciousness progresses toward an Omega Point. Chardin is in agreement with Tipler that humans are achieving more, “which can guide the human species up the path of progress to higher levels of hominisation.” 103 In order for an Omega Point to exist where all of space-time coalesces to a single point, Chardin argues that love will bring the universe to an Omega; “Driven by the forces of love, the fragments of the world seek each other so that the world may come to being.” 104 Attributing the attractive force of gravity to universal love can hardly be a scientific theory. Further, Chardin believes that love can only truly exist on a personal level. 105 Therefore, in order for the universe to collapse into an Omega, it must be “supremely attractive” and “supremely present.” 106
Tipler’s Omega Point veers greatly from Chardin’s classification of the Omega Point, and
must be seen only as borrowing the term, not Chardin’s content.
Turing Test: Alan Turing proposed that a machine could be intelligent if it satisfies the Turing
Test. 107 Passing this test involves not being able to distinguish between responses from a computer or a human being. There are several scientists, including Roger Penrose, who say computers will never pass the Turing Test. However, Tipler claims that the difference between two people is the same as between a person and a computer, or between two computers.
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: As Hawking describes it, “One can never be exactly sure of both the position and
103 Chardin, 17. 104 Chardin, 264-265. 105 Chardin, 267. 106 Chardin, 269. 107 Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, 20. 39 velocity of a particle; the more accurately one knows one, the less accurately one can know the other.” 108 This imposed an unavoidable element of randomness to science.
This discovery forced Einstein not to accept his own findings, for he thought, “God does
not play dice.” 109
108 Hawking, 187. 109 Hawking, 56. 40
References
Barbour, Ian G. Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues . New York: Harper Collins, 1990.
Barbour, Ian. When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers or Partners? . London: Society For Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2000.
Barrow, John D, Frank J. Tipler, and John A. Wheeler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle . New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Blumenberg, Hans. The Genesis of the Copernican World . London: The MIT Press, 1989.
Brooke, John Hedley. Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Calaprice, Alice, and Albert Einstein. The New Quotable Einstein . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
De Chardin, Teilhard. The Phenomenon of Man . Translated by Bernard Wall. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1955.
Deutsch, David. Fabric of Reality . London: Penguin Books, 1998.
Drees, Willem B. Beyond the Big Bang . Lasalle, Ill: Open Court Publishing Company, 1990.
Gilkey, Langdon. Nature, Reality, and the Sacred: The Nexus of Science and Religion . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.
Gingerich, Owen. The Great Copernicus Chase and Other Adventures in Astronomical History . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes . New York: Bantam Books, 1988.
Jesus Camp . DVD. Directed by Rachel Grady. 2006; Los Angeles: Magnolia.
Kozhamthadeam, J. S. Discovery of Kepler's Law. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994.
Oppy, Graham. "Critical Notice: Frank J Tipler (1995) The Physics of Immortality." Secular Web . http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/tipler.html (accessed February 7, 2009). 41
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. "Modern Cosmology: God and the Resurrection of the Dead." Innsbruck Conference, University of Munich, Innsbruck, June 1, 1997.
Polkinghorne, John. Beyond Science: The Wider Human Context . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Polkinghorne, John. “Eschatology.” The Ends of the World and the Ends of God . Eds. John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 2000.
Tipler, Frank J. The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead . New York: Anchor, 1997.
Tipler, Frank J. "The Omega Point Theory." The Physics of Immortality . www.math.tulane.edu:80/~tipler/tipler/tipler2.html (accessed May 24, 2000).
Ward, Keith. God Chance and Necessity . Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1996.
Watts, Fraser. “Subjective and Objective Hope.” The Ends of the World and the Ends of God . John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 2000.