The
Omega Point is a term Tipler uses to describe a
cosmological state in the distant
proper-time future of the
universe. He claims that this point is required to exist due to the
laws of physics. According to him, it is required, for the known laws of physics to be consistent, that intelligent life take over all matter in the universe and eventually force its collapse. During that collapse, the computational capacity of the universe diverges to infinity, and environments
emulated with that computational capacity last for an
infinite duration as the universe attains a
cosmological singularity. This singularity is Tipler's Omega Point. With computational resources diverging to infinity, Tipler states that a society in the far future would be able to resurrect the dead by emulating
alternative universes. Tipler identifies the Omega Point with God, since, in his view, the Omega Point has all the properties of God claimed by most traditional religions. Tipler's argument of the Omega Point being required by the laws of physics is a more recent development that arose after the publication of his 1994 book
The Physics of Immortality. In that book (and in papers he had published earlier), Tipler had offered the Omega Point cosmology as a
hypothesis, while still claiming to confine the analysis to the known laws of physics. Tipler, along with co-author physicist
John D. Barrow, defined the "final anthropic principle" (FAP) in their 1986 book
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle as a generalization of the
anthropic principle: One paraphrase of Tipler's argument for FAP runs: For the universe to physically exist, it must contain living observers. Our universe obviously exists. There must be an "Omega Point" that sustains life forever. Tipler purportedly used
Dyson's eternal intelligence hypothesis to back up his arguments.
Reception Tipler's Omega Point theory has been highly controversial. In the past (1997), physicist
David Deutsch defended the physics of Omega Point cosmology, although he was highly critical of Tipler's theological conclusions and what Deutsch stated were exaggerated claims that caused other scientists and philosophers to reject his theory. However, Deutsch has since rejected the theory, referring to it as "refuted" and "ruled out by observation". Scholars are also skeptical of Tipler's argument that if an immortal entity with advanced technology exists in the future, such a being would necessarily resemble the
Abrahamic God. Researcher
Anders Sandberg wrote that the Omega Point Theory has many flaws, including missing proofs of its claims. Tipler's Omega Point ideas have received vigorous criticism by physicists and skeptics. Some critics say its arguments violate the
Copernican principle, that it incorrectly applies the laws of
probability, and that it is really a theology or metaphysics principle made to sound plausible to laypeople by using the esoteric language of physics.
Martin Gardner dubbed the final anthropic principle the "completely ridiculous anthropic principle" (CRAP). Oxford-based philosopher
Nick Bostrom wrote that the final anthropic principle is "pure speculation" with no claim on any special methodological status, despite attempts to elevate it by calling it a "principle", but considers the Omega Point hypothesis as an interesting philosophical hypothesis in its own right. Philosopher Rem B. Edwards called the theory "futuristic, pseudoscientific eschatology" that is "highly conjectural, unverified, and improbable". A review in
The New York Times described Tipler's "final anthropic principle" argument as "rather circular".
Michael Shermer devoted a chapter of
Why People Believe Weird Things to enumerating what he thought to be flaws in Tipler's thesis. Physicist
Sean M. Carroll stated that Tipler's early work was constructive, but since then he has become a "crackpot". In a review of Tipler's
The Physics of Christianity,
Lawrence Krauss described the book as the most "extreme example of uncritical and unsubstantiated arguments put into print by an intelligent professional scientist".
John Polkinghorne described Tipler as having "extreme
reductionism" and building a "cosmic
tower of Babel". He also mentioned that Tipler's book "reads like the highest class of science fiction". Polkinghorne himself asserted that the hope of resurrection "lies not in the curiosity or calculation of a cosmic computer, but in the personal God who cares individually for each of His human creatures". ==Books==