Customer Reviews

The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(23)

 

 

I enjoy having my brain stretched, so, with that goal in mind, I picked up Dr. Frank J. Tipler's "Physics of Immortality."
There are a number of serious problems with this book, logical, scientific, philosophical, and theological, to wit:

1. The argument is completely circular. (The main thrust is that life, broadly defined, will be able to manipulate the physics of a closed universe in the final moments of its existence in such a way that a form of subjective immortality is possible, for all conscious intelligences, including ourselves.) In order to get from point A to point B, Tipler assumes part of his conclusion. He assumes that life must exist forever, and then uses that assumption in his proof, a definite logical no-no.
Similarly, Tipler includes a "proof" of his argument, saying, in essence that if certain facts about the Higgs boson and the top quark are true, he's right. His conclusions do not follow from his premises at all.

2. Even if one can accept Tipler's main argument, his subsidiary argument is weak. Tipler assumes that his future god-like intelligences will be beings of infinite compassion, who will grant you and I resurrection and immortality, essentially because they're nice guys. This seems like a very slender reed to lean on. The history of intelligent life on this planet (the only intelligence we know anything about) suggests that greater intelligence is not necessarily correlated with greater compassion.

3. Tipler goes off on a strange theological tangent when he attempts to equate his "omega point" being with the God of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). While there are similarities between his concept and those of some theologians, there are very many more differences, the major one being that most theologians would assert that God transcends time and space, while Tipler's omega point is bounded by both. Whether God exists or not is usually not considered a scientific question; his attempt to make theology a branch of physics is somewhat embarrasing.

4. Finally, even if we can assume that Tipler's argument is plausible, (a stretch), it looks as though the Universe is not cooperating with him. While some of the bounary conditions listed in his proof are as he predicted, the most recent observations seem to show that the Universe's expansion is increasing, not slowing down. Most cosmologists conclude from this evidence that the Universe is open, not closed...and unless the Universe is closed, the rest of Tipler's case falls apart. It's far too early to conclude that the Universe is open (the observations of supernovae in other galaxies which underly the current consensus can be explained in other ways), but at the same time, even without the latest observations, there doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough mass in the universe to allow gravity to eventually slow the expansion down.

Frank Tipler was a well respected physicist before this book, and is still regarded as an expert in the field of quantum cosmology. He is not the first world-class scientist to take a flyer on an implausible idea. I think it's interesting that in the book he condemns Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the French Jesuit paleantologist from whom he took the term "omega point" for doing precisely what Tipler does in this book. Teilhard did outstanding work investigating early hominid primates in Asia before he began working on his "omega point" speculations, which attempted to wed evolutionary biology and theology, and then began to believe that his speculations were scientific facts. Tipler has been caught in the same trap.

I give the book two stars, not one, however, because I find the ideas fascinating, and I did spend a considerable amount of time grappling with the physics and philosophy, which is the precise reason I picked up the book. He shouldn't have attempted to present it as a scientific theory, though, at least in my opinion.

The thesis in this book is that God (aka "the Omega Point" - an omniscient entity reminiscent of "Vger" in Star Trek) does not currently exist (but will develop at some point in the future) and will choose to replicate (emulate) exact duplicates of every human who has ever lived, in a virtual-reality Heaven. I made a list of the "if's" mentioned in this book, that all have to happen for this to occur:

IF
*strong (indistinguishable from human) artificial intelligence is possible
AND IF
*we can develop self-replicating interstellar probes
AND IF
*humans can be completely grown/raised/educated from stored DNA
AND IF
*on every planet, these seeded human colonists accept the destiny we assigned to them
AND IF
*nanotechnology is developed
AND IF
*250-gigwatt lasers are feasible
AND IF
*cost of materials relative to wages drops exponentially every 50 years
AND IF
*antimatter exists, can be feasibly manufactured, and harnessed as a means of propulsion
AND IF
*the universe is closed (will eventually contract)
AND IF
*a virtual "emulation" of a person in a computer is the same "consciousness" as the original person
AND IF
*all information in the physical universe can be retrieved without loss or distortion
AND IF
*a simulation of a living being also recreates perfectly its unexpressed internal states
AND IF
*emulations of every person in history can be made without also re-creating their diseases, conflicting ideologies, etc.
AND IF
*the cost of doing good is not significantly greater than the cost of doing evil, then an omniscient entity will choose the good
AND IF
*intelligent beings in the far future will have the desire to resurrect us to a life we will enjoy

THEN
on this basis, we might have hope of eternal life, "heaven," and a benevolent god.

If the thesis of this book is true, it won't matter what you believed anyway - resurrection is inevitable/inescapable. But personally I'm not going to bank my eternal existence on all these dice rolling the right way, billions of millenia from now. In my view, this requires much more "faith" than simply trusting in the conventional claim of Christianity...In my opinion, "Pascal's Wager" is a much better bet.

This was a mind-blowing book for me. Tipler lays out a testable hypothesis (The Omega Point Theory or OPT) about the end of the universe that shows how it would be possible for "life" to last forever in subjective time, even though the universe will end in a finite amount of "proper" time. Furthermore, based on projections of computing power available near the end of the universe, Tipler tries to show that the resurrection (via perfect emulation) of all humans who have ever lived is not only possible, but very likely.

This "Omega Point Theory" comes across as extremely controversial because of Tipler's efforts to integrate religion into his physics. The Omega Point, which is a virtual computer that will have near-infinite computing power, is predicted to have many of the abilities of what most people think of as God. A lot of the book is taken up with passages from religious texts in an attempt to show the the Omega Point corresponds closely to the God referred to in many different religions. There are also discussions of free will, hell and heaven. The section on an Omega Point-created future heaven opens Tipler to easy ridicule by skeptics, since it discusses not only why there will be sex in heaven, but how it will be possible for a man to make love to, not only the most beautiful woman who ever lived, but the most beautiful woman that can theoretically exist!

Tipler takes great pains to make sure that he is presenting a true scientific theory and not just some new age gobbledygook mixed in with particle physics and general relativity. To that end, he makes several testable predictions based on his theory, including a couple that might be resolved soon, the mass of the top quark and the Hubble constant. If recent calculations of the Hubble constant prove to be correct, the Omega Point Theory may have already been proven false.

If you can wade through the math and physics, I highly recommend reading this book. It is a fascinating speculative look at the far flung future.

I read The Physics of Immortality five years ago when it first came out and while I was studying in theological seminary. Recently observing the Amazon.com customer reviews, I was surprised at the number of poor and disfavorable critiques. Yes, it was a challenging book academically. Many people would find it daunting. And Tipler deals with topics about which people can be very sensitive. No one likes to have their sacred beliefs challenged or played around with. Especially by an authoritative and intimidating scientist. Yet for me, as a believer in God and Jesus Christ, The Physics of Immortality was illuminating and inspiring. Why? First of all, I did not expect a cosmological physicist, from his perspective, to confirm my beliefs on terms familiar to me. Second, I learned a lot about science, physics, and the way a scientific mind approaches its object of study. Third, the Omega Point theory was truly astounding. It added a whole new dimension to the way I perceive time, purpose, the universe, God as Creator, and Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega. Fourth, I was inspired to see that a scientist, studying the physical universe beginning from a totally scientific and atheistic point of view, was compelled to acknowledge the probability of God.

Tipler not only acknowledged the likelihood of Higher Intelligence pulling the universe together teleologically, he compiled a logical proof for Gods existence and the resurrection of the dead, supported by laws of physics. I think it is notable that he had to consult other disciplines (philosophy, ethics, sociology, etc.) in order to develop such a comprehensive theory. In the process he deals with love, sex, altruism, genetics, machines, artificial intelligence, life beyond earth, and many other topics.

Tiplers conclusions and speculations are likely to perturb others preconceptions and differing viewpoints. For instance, God is (probably) not a Trinity. Nor is He omnipotent in the traditional absolute sense, although He does possess all the powers that be. The likely existence of multiple, parallel universes. Machines are alive. Human beings (and biological entities in general) can be defined as complex computer programs. Religious visions as precocious contact with the future. Etc.

A conspicuous point is the prominence Tipler awards to information, knowledge and intelligence. But shouldnt we expect that from a non-theistically oriented scientist embroiled in the information age? Although God is a God of goodness and love, that appears to be subordinate to the fact of His being (or becoming) the aggregation of all knowledge.

Whatever its drawbacks, Tiplers vision provides much food for thought and can expand our perceptions of the unfathomable I AM. His ideas offer fertile ground for various religious traditions and scientific disciplines to pursue overlapping interests. For example, the Omega Point Theory should allow physics to join serious discussion with religious sentiments of mystical unity and the omnipresence of God.

Hopefully, people of faith will embrace such scientific endeavors for the good that can come from genuine search for truth, and not blindly condemn new discoveries and new theories simply because they conflict with established world views.

God is Who He is. And He will be what He will be. The perfect example of Christs love shines no less brilliantly because a talented man has written a startling book. But such a book can help scientists to sincerely and intelligently broach the question of God, and eventually open their hearts to His eternal message of love. Its fresh perspective for viewing the universe could allow both scientists and religious people to shed old prejudices. The myriad wonders and underlying unity of Gods creation can be examined and expressed in many ways. Lets keep our minds and hearts open to all of them.

A book like this (and really there is just one) is bound to pique not just a few people, and for contrary reasons depending on their viewpoint. Some here have wondered if Tipler is trying to pull one over on them and others, but one can be assured that the physicalist arguments in this book are for real: Tipler's Omega Point Theory first appeared in book-form at the end of _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_ (1986) co-written by cosmologist John D. Barrow and Tipler, of which said book received almost universally fawning praise by the science media; and while the implications of it there were clear enough to anyone paying very close attention, Tipler did not in that book mention the resurrection mechanism or equate it with God--but infinite computation by any other name would still be as Godly. A later book to come out after _The Physics of Immortality_ which in part presents and defends Tipler's Omega Point Theory is the excellent _Fabric of Reality_ (1997) by physicist David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer and winner of the Institute of Physics Paul Dirac Prize for his work in the field). Thus it cannot be very well maintained that Tipler is some sort of kook or fraud--he is by no means either, and this Theory demands to be taken seriously by anyone who is serious.

Some have reported that not even Tipler believes in his own Theory, and it is true that Tipler did say this in the first part of the 12th chapter of _T.P.O.I._ (and in addition stating that he was still an atheist), but this just goes to show how intellectually honest Tipler was being in presenting his Theory--other than theoretical beauty he did not at that time (1994) have any confirming experimental evidence for it--but he also stated that if the Omega Point Theory is confirmed then he shall consider himself a theist. That was seven years ago, and things have progressed since then. For one, the top quark has been found (in 1995) with the mass as predicted it would be in the Omega Point Theory. Also, Deutsch derived the Omega Point using a completely different methodology (using the Turing principle) in the 14th chapter ("The Ends of the Universe") of his book mentioned above--as a matter of fact, this chapter is available on-line at Tipler's homepage (and with Tipler's replies to it) for anyone willing to do a search for it (which I advise). But probably most convincing are the arguments on the physical restraints (e.g., the Bekenstein Bound, general relativity, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) which seem to _require_ that the universe evolve into the Omega Point in order for some of the most basic laws of physics to be mutually consistent (such as unitarity not being violated)--of which arguments are a later development than Tipler's book, _T.P.O.I._, and so were not included in there (see the Wired article by Tipler called "From 2100 to the End of Time," which is available on-line by doing a search; see also Tipler's homepage). "I'm very encouraged by all these things. It's developing much more rapidly than I had expected," Tipler has told USA Today columnist Sam Meddis--"I'm far more confident now." How much more confident? He's no longer an atheist. (The four-part USA Today series by Sam Meddis on Tipler's Omega Point Theory is available on-line; locate it by doing a search.)

And some have claimed that the recent supernovae data suggesting that the universe's expansion seems to be speeding up shows that the universe is open, as opposed to closed, which would obviate the Omega Point (since it requires that the universe be closed). But as Michael Turner and Lawrence Krauss have demonstrated in a recent paper (_Geometry and Destiny_ [Apr. 1999]; astro-ph/9904020--also available on-line) the supernovae data do _not_ show this. But moreover, the laws of physics _require_ that the universe must end in a finite time, which is only possible in a closed universe. As Hawking has shown, black holes evaporate over time, but if black holes were to evaporate completely away before the universe ends then quantum information would be lost and unitarity would be violated! But unitarity is one of the central postulates of Quantum Mechanics, confirmed again and again by every experiment to date--and indeed, quantum computation would not be possible without it.

In short, I highly recommend this book to any sapient person--along with David Deutsch's _The Fabric of Reality_. Both of these books are real mind benders, but in a good way. Any debate between atheism and theism which does not oft reference these books is still in the dark. Religion has now been subsumed by physics.

A well-meaning relative saved this book from a box of books destined for a landfill, and she thought that as a physicist I might be interested in reading this book. I usually try to avoid books that try to justify faith through science since demanding proof is itself an insult to faith, but decided to give it a chance while waiting for my carpool one evening, I pulled it out and checked the table of contents. Two things caught my eye that I wanted to see his take on:

The first was how he proposed that one solves the Halting problem. The gist of the argument is this: he proposes that one starts with a mechanical Turing machine, then adds energy to the parts until they travel at relativistic speed. He proposes then that one could perform an infinite number of calculations in a finite time, and avoid the halting problem entirely by checking to see if the program was finished.

There are two problems obvious to someone with even an elementary understanding of physics and computation theory: One, this plan requires an infinite amount of energy. More energy than exists in the universe. Two, supposing one was able to do this, it would require one to go on a speed of light voyage and return to the computer later. The problem is that to do this would not actually solve the Halting problem. In fact, it would just allow one to conclude that the computer had or had not stopped for some extremely and possibly even asymptotically large period of time--even if this intractable voyage was possible, it still wouldn't solve the problem. To his credit, the author says that this is merely a proposal and does not say whether it is an actual solution to the Halting problem. However, if he had asked any of his students or peers they certainly could have told him that his understanding of computation theory, relativity, and the nature of mathematical infinities (namely, that all infinities are equal) are seriously questionable.

The next proof of interest was his proof that a resurrection must occur in the future. Apparently, the universe wants to conserve all of the information in it (notwithstanding no satisfactory physical definition of information exists as of my writing this). The universe will run out of space to store said information as it nears its ultimate fate. Therefore, the universe must resurrect every human that ever lived in order to store its information.

Some truly bold assumptions exist here: That the author has a suitable definition of information, that the universe actually seeks to somehow conserve it, that information can only be stored at an appropriate density in humans (I don't know about you, but my memory really isn't optimal or spectacular. The universe should try resurrecting some hard drives.), and that it should take exactly every human that ever lived to store said information.

At this point I wasn't sure whether I should be laughing or should be concerned that the author intended people to take these bold, half-baked "proofs" seriously. The author makes undergraduate-level mistakes in subjects that he is ostensibly an expert of.

If you want to learn about faith, may I recommend a popular book known as the Bible.
If you want to deconstruct the arguments in the Physics of Immortality, I would recommend the undergraduate textbooks, Griffiths "Introduction to Electrodynamics", Griffiths "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics", or Sipser's "Introduction to the Theory of Computation".

Myself, I hid this book behind a series on superconductors, and Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics in case I feel like another laugh when waiting for the carpool.

I personally thought this was a wonderful book. However, many people on this review page have written that the book was fantastic and unbelievable. It should be mentioned that there is a lot of material in this book that, yes, does sound fantastic to a normal person. But the book is sound in the mathematics and physics it is based it - in other words, most people would find relativity and quantum mechanics weird, never mind a book that would attempt to assert on the basis of these two theories that the existence of an afterlife is a good possibility.

Also, it is important to recognize that this is a theory, and like any other theory, the finer points are open to debate. If you do not mind being challenged, and are open minded, you will find this book interesting and thought provoking. However, if you pick up this book assuming that it will be an easy read, you will be severely disappointed. The author, Mr. Tipler, makes full use of his knowledge of physics, and - despite constant explanations of terminology - he will lose the less tenacious of his readers.

In the end, if you're a mathematics/physics genius/savant you'll love this book. If you're a student - or at least have some background in math and physics - you'll have to work to get through the book, and may find the experience rewarding. But if you're unwilling - or unable - to try and understand the concepts Mr. Tipler puts forth you will absolutely hate this book.

Do NOT start reading this book until you have tackled "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by Tipler and his colleague John Barrows. "The Physics of Immortality," which may seem merrily unhinged if you start without this preparation, flows sort of logically, perhaps inevitably, from the last chapter of the earlier work.

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle is a contemplation of a collection of observations to the effect that life is very unlikely in any possible universe; in ours, it happened because a number of physical principles (fairly arbitrary) allow and in fact seem to promote it. Explanations range from a shrug -- in essence, life is amazing simply because you're here to be amazed, like the passenger in an airliner hurtling earthward to disaster who wonders what God has against him, when the alternative explanation is "tough luck" -- to a very strong interpretation that the universe was created FOR life.

This opens all kinds of speculations, one of which Tipler pursues with amazing determination, despite the low likelihood that many readers will follow him. He tries to accomplish the journey without math, but fails because, in a real sense, the story is mathematical. The key point -- what Tipler calls the Omega function, a mathematical statement of a quantum wave function that encodes all possible timelines (as I understand it) -- like a cat with nine lives (and, to satisfy Schoedinger) nine deaths.

The key issue is whether a universe can be purposeful. In this, he extrapolates Teilhard de Chardin, a contemplative Jesuit who conceived of a union of all human intellect racing towards the universal culmination and end, what he called the Omega Point.

In essence, Tipler describes (and, I think, wishes for) an existence with a purpose, orchestrated across timelines, to create an eternal existence when subjective time becomes infinite at the "big crunch."

I'm no cosmologist, so I'll take his logic as reasonably sound piece by piece. However, he loses me when he tries to reconcile this quantum happy hunting ground with Biblical and Thomistic concepts of heaven -- to me, a questionable effort. Had it been my book, I would have tried to use Jung rather than Aquinas, aiming at universality (are Buddhists excluded from Virtual Valhalla?).

Friends, this is a TOUGH READ. If you faint at the sight of an integral sign or have no preparation in physics, go to the SF shelf instead. If you're inquisitive, patient, and willing to follow a very complex road map, read the earlier work as preparation. And good luck.

Tipler says that he used to be an unquestioning atheist, but his work in quantum cosmology has brought him to the conclusion that there is a physically justifiable theory of how "God" and "immortality after death" might make sense. I only skimmed the book, but I have to say that, as a physicist, I was surprised to find the quality of his arguments to be a lot better than I expected.

(Talk about having "proved" the existence of God is greatly overstated. It would be more accurate to say that, if certain physical conditions could be shown to hold, then the existence of something vaguely like God might be remotely plausible based on his arguments. But see the end of this review.)

The compressed version of the theory is... Tipler (as I do) subscribes to the "strong Artificial Intelligence" belief that if you translated the dynamics of what goes on in our brains into another medium (e.g., a futuristic computer), in a sense it wouldn't make any difference -- our "emulated" selves would be as conscious and real as we are. He outlines a scenario under which, in a closed universe, in the final moments of the universe, there could be an infinite amount of computing that occurs. So much in fact, that all the human lives that ever occurred (or ever could have occurred) could be emulated through infinite subjective time. The computing entities that exist at the end of the universe would get there via exponentially replicating intelligent machines that we (or conceivably another intelligent race) send out into the universe. Based on game theory and economic arguments, he makes it plausible that the intelligences at the end of the universe would be highly altruistic. And then based on quantum cosmology, he argues for bidirectional causality between here and the end of the universe (I haven't digested that argument).

Not exactly something most traditionally religious folks would recognize. But, as a theory of how "God" and physics could be merged, to my mind it's pretty brilliant. (Doesn't mean it's right.)

Note, however, that the book was written in the early 90's. Tipler provides some experimental tests one can do to assess whether or not we're in a universe where the conditions are right to make his scenario possible. One of the most important tests -- verification that we're in a closed universe -- has already been answered (we seem to be in a defiantly open universe) in a way that implies we are NOT in a universe where Tipler's scenario could hold true.

Still, very interesting reading.

I was not expecting a lot from this book. I figured it would have to be about as vague and suggestive as one usually finds in a book about physics and religion. I never expected the sort of specific and rigorous statements that Tipler makes (whether they are true or not). I was pleasantly suprised and found the book fascinating.

Tipler may be generous in his view of how accessible this book is to the general public. To really follow the reasoning, one would need to be a physics major or fairly well versed in the popular physics literature. If phrases such as 'phase space', 'many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics', 'strong AI', 'Hawking's no boundary proposal', and so on, are foreign to the reader, they are likely to find the book hard to digest.

The use of computer terminology and concepts to describe the increasing mental capacity of the universe and ultimately god, may put some people off. More etheral sounding terms could be substituted (perhaps a new age tilt could have widened his audience), but if you don't care much for strong AI, then you probably won't care much for god as the Omega point either.

In understanding this book, it helps if you are somewhat familiar with the material in "the cosmological anthropic priniple" which is a previous book by Tipler (and Barrow). The basic idea is that it seems very difficult to dream up a universe in which intelligent life is possible. If you just start picking the number of dimensions, pick some forces and strengths of interaction, etc. one usually ends up with a model that doesn't have the variety or stabity or something to give rise to life and intelligence. Not all Physicists agree that this is a accurate assessment, but those who do often suggest that perhaps there is a selection principle of sorts. Perhaps the whole universe we see is just one tiny inflated bubble out of many. Most of these bubbles don't contain life, so no one is there to ask the questions. Only in the few bubbles that can support intelligent life are th