Sjoerd L. Bonting

[Note: I am following here the original English text of Tipler's reply as published in Gamma, vol.10, no.2, pp.14-23, 2003. References to page and paragraaf, so (14-2) means p.14, par.2]

Omega Point(14-2). Frank Tipler starts his reply¹ to my earlier comments² on his book³ by saying: Bonting’s depiction of my Omega Point Theory (OPT) is so inaccurate that I shall not reply to his "criticisms" directly (since these criticisms do not apply to my theory). I merely wrote: In Tipler's thinking the Omega point assumes divine qualities: personality, omnipresence, omniscience and eternity. In his reply Tipler seems to confirm this, when he boldly states: I identify the singularity of spacetime with God. This is a theological enormity: A singularity is a point in time; how can God the Creator be a point in time? Moreover, for Tipler it is a point at the end of time, at which according to his thinking a 'big crunch' will take place. His theology doesn't wash. But neither does his science: observations of the fine structure of the cosmic background radiation in recent years confirm a universe that is 'flat' in the Einsteinian sense, and which is therefore not expected to end in a big crunch. In addition, there is the recent (as yet unexplained) evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Quantum mechanics and chaos (20-2). Tipler accuses me of rejecting quantum mechanics (which I do not) or being unfamiliar with it (I do not claim a full understanding of it). He then talks about 'chaos' without specifying which kind of chaos he means: chaos as disorder (as in my chaos theology) or chaos as unpredictability (as in chaos theory). Therefore, what he says in his paragraph on chaos is uninterpretable, but I can assure him that I neither reject quantum theory, nor my chaos theology. What strikes me in the entire essay is that Tipler seems to see physical laws as an active agency in the universe, and quantum theory as the crown of all the physical laws. However, as astrophysicist William Stoeger says, physical laws are our way of describing the fundamental regularities that we observe in nature, but they are not the source of these regularities.⁴ And about quantum theory mathematician Ian Stewart writes that quantum 'indeterminacy' is not a sign of anything irreducibly probabilistic about the universe, but a sign of the inescapable ignorance of the observer.⁵

Requirements of physical laws (15-2). Tipler promises to 'show that the mutual consistency of of the laws of physics (quantum mechanics, general relativity, the Standard Model, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) requires: (1) the universe must be closed; (2) life must survive to the very end of time; (3) the knowledge possessed by life must increase to infinity as the end of time is approached. I have already indicated that present observations make (1) highly unlikely. On (2) Tipler argues that for survival of life an unlimited supply of energy is required and that this will be supplied by the conversion of gravitational energy at the final collapse of the universe (16-1). He forgets that another requirement would be the existence of atoms and molecules, but that at the exorbitantly high temperatures during the big crunch no matter will remain. Nobody in his right mind would expect conditions at the final singularity to be conducive to the survival of life.

Survival of life (16-3; 17-1). Tipler then concludes that life must be present to the end, using a string of complex and partly circular arguments: black holes evaporate, this would violate 'unitarity, a fundamental law of quantum mechanics' (nowhere in books on quantum theory, not even in Tipler's book, do I find 'unitarity' mentioned), so universe must collapse, but 'event horizons' would force information and entropy to approach zero, this contradicts second law, thus event horizons do not exist, thus information goes to infinity, thus the universe is closed and goes to final singularity, but without life this would yield an infinitely improbable state, this contradicts second law, thus life must be present to guide universe to final singularity, thus event horizons are absent. I am reminded here of Festus' remark to Paul: You are out of your mind, Paul! Too much learning is driving you insane! (Acts 26:24).

I note that the occurrence of a singularity in the development of a mathematical formula forms a physical embarrasment. For instance, in going backwards in time from the present universe, calculations based on the big bang theory yield perfectly meaningful results until we reach t = 0, where we find a state with infinite energy, temperature and density and zero dimension. For such a state we cannot give a meaningful physical description. This is the reason why many physicists are busily searching for a Theory of Everything, which must remove the t = 0 singularity. But Tipler (incorrectly) says that all physical laws must have a singularity, where these laws do not apply (18-3), and thus he seems to think that singularities can solve all mysteries of life, cosmos and even God.

Second law and survival (17-2). In other words, says Tipler, the validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics REQUIRES life to be present all the way into the final singularity, and further, the Second Law requires life to guide the universe in such a way as to eliminate the event horizons. But the second law doesn't require life to be present at all in any system to which it is applied, whether a closed can of water or a closed bowl with live fish. And can the presence of life in the thin biosphere shell covering the earth in any way 'guide' the vast universe with its myriads of stars and billions of galaxies? But that question is answered by Tipler in the next paragraph.

Strangely, in his reply Tipler does not refer (except in 19-2) to the solution for life surviving to the final singularity offered in his book: humans turning themselves into computers that will multiply and colonize the universe, and that will reverse the contraction of the universe, thus preventing the 'big crunch'.

In passing, he invents a new sort of time, 'experiential time', and says that it is infinite at the final singularity. I do not understand this, since we can estimate the time in which the universe will reach the final singularity in billions of years, which is not infinite. And all biblical stories about the last Day invariably speak about this as an event in the time.

Life becoming omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and transcendent (17-3). As life is to guide the entire universe, it must become omnipresent, says Tipler. But to execute that formidable task, it must also become omniscient. And in order to handle the immense amount of energy released by the collapsing universe, life must become omnipotent. Finally, life will become transcendent, because the final singularity is outside time (actually it is at the end of time, on the border of spacetime, so 'semi-transcendent' would be a more appropriate, but meaningless term). Note that with these qualifications life becomes divine in Tipler's view.

Multiple universes and evil (19-3,4). I am glad to note that Tipler's and my 'heavens' are identical. Nevertheless, he says that mine is a gnostic heresy. Why? And what about Tipler's multiple universes: will each have its own parousia and its own heaven? Notwithstanding Tipler's enthusiastic argumentation that quantum theory requires multiple universes, I stubbornly maintain that this is not so, either mathematically or physically. It is a hypothesis invented to explain the fine-tuning of the universe without having to resort to a Creator, similar to the invention of the anthropic principles of Tipler and Barrow. Tipler also claims that with his multiple universes idea he can solve the problem of evil (20-3): God has maximized the good... by creating not just this universe, but all universes which eventually evolve into Him, who is the Omega Point. Spreading evil over multiple universes is not a very satisfactory solution for the 1800-year old problem of evil in my opinion.

Son and singularity (21-2). Tipler's theological adventurism is inexhaustible. He writes: the Son...is required by physics to be the Second Person of the Trinity. He then promises to show that the Son and the Spirit are also singularities. Actually, he merely 'proposes' to consider the Father as the Ultimate Future, the Spirit as the Ultimate Past (based on the multiverse hypothesis and Gen.1:2!), the Son as the trait-d'union between these two. Does Tipler mean that the Father is merely the final singularity and the Spirit merely the initial singularity at t = 0, the initiation of creation? [actually, it is more likely that the Hebrew ruach in Gen.1:2 must be translated as a 'mighty wind' sweeping over the waters, i.e. part of the initial chaos, tohu wabohu] ⁶. Later he claims that the singularity is a 'substance' in the same sense as electrons and protons are 'substances'. But at t = 0 electrons and protons did not yet exist according to the big bang theory. Neither will there be any in the final singularity, as the universe will then have regressed to a matterless state like that existing at t = 0. Yet, Tipler happily concludes that his idea of the three singularities establishes that the orthodox (trinitarian) view of God is the correct one, and that it definitely refutes the modalist heresy. He sees the Holy Spirit as a manifestation in the physical universe as a "guiding influence" in the universe. I can go along with this to the extent that the Holy Spirit can be seen as God the Communicator, who transmits information to the creation.⁶ However, I do not agree with his statement: The laws of physics themselves are one expression of this guiding influence of the Holy Spirit. The regularity of physical phenomena that we call the physical laws.must have been implanted at the initiation of creation, within a fraction of a second after the big bang.

The Omega Point. Finally, I like to make a remark about the term 'Omega Point'. In the bible the word 'omega' or 'the last' is used only seven times, always in combination with 'alpha' or 'the first', and always referring to God (or the Son in the last four texts):

• Isa. 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
• Isa. 48:12 Listen to me, O Jacob, and Israel, whom I called: I am He; I am the first, and I am the last.
• Rev.1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.
• Rev. 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,
• Rev. 2:8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: These are the words of the first and the last, who was dead and came to life:
• Rev.21:6 Then he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.
• Rev.22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

The combined use of Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, signifies that God controls his entire creative work from the beginning to the end. Teilhard was, therefore, taking a liberty, when he separated Alpha and Omega by introducing the term 'Omega point' as the endpoint of the evolutionary process of creation. However, he still accepts God's ultimate control by having the Omega point coincide with the return of Christ. But Tipler reduces the Omega point to a singularity, a special point in the plot of a mathematical equation. Not only does he lose sight of the majesty of the biblical sayings, but he seems to make creatures complete creation when he speaks about 'life guiding the evolution of the universe into the final singularity', and has in his book humans, transformed into computers, reverse the cosmic contraction to prevent the 'big crunch'. Mere man appearing to counteract God's creative plan! And in identifying the triune God with a set of singularities, he completely secularizes the main tenet of the Christian faith.

1. Frank J. Tipler, Het Punt Omega en het christendom, Gamma jrg.10, nr.2, 2003, pp.14-23.
2. Sjoerd L. Bonting, Opstanding en hiernamaals, reactie op Tipler en Pannenberg, Gamma jrg.10, nr.1, 2003, pp.20-28.
3. Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, Doubleday, New York, 1994.
4. William R. Stoeger, Contemporary Physics and the Ontological Status of the Laws of Nature, In: Robert J. Russell, Nancey Murphy, C.J. Isham, eds., Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature, Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications, and Berkeley, CA: Center for Theology and Natural Sciences, 2nd ed. 1999, pp.207-231.
5. Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The New Mathematics of Chaos, Penguin Books, London, 2nd ed. 1997, p.342.
6. Sjoerd L. Bonting, Who or What is God’s Creative Agent? Bulletin of Ordained Scientists no. 31, 6-15, 2002.