Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Omega Point and Total Creativity

  1. Dec 15, 2006 #1
    Hi folks,

    Firstly I would like to introduce myself. My name is Owen and I am a science teacher from Australia.

    I am a bit of a ponderer and after watching a doco on string theory I started thinking about our existence, as I often do, you know, the basic things such as...

    "Why is there stuff? Why not just nothing?"

    Anyway, on this particular day I pondered the duality between evolution and destruction, or put another way, order and entropy. I decided that our role in life, as evolving concious beings, was to aid in evolution, to bring order and to seek knowledge on a path to some divine orderly endpoint where conciousness, regardless of how it arose to begin with, is all encompassing and omnipotent... In other words, God.

    The evolution could be objectively summed up as right, whilst destruction and entropy is bad, and all through life, according to our arrow of time, good and bad exist in an eternal dichotomy, but good SHOULD be the victor.

    So yeah, here I was thinking I was so clever for thinking such profound things (it also gave me a headache) when today I started reading about the Anthropic Principle to find that all this stuff had been thought of before. But the good thing is that now I have literature to persue on the topics of...

    a) The Omega Point - The point of omnipotence we're heading towards - put forward by Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and written about by Frank Tipler.

    b) Total Creativity - The concept put forward by John David Garcia discussing our role as sentient beings to combine ethics and intelligence to create things, bring order, etc... to ultimately lead us to the Omega point.

    I hit up Amazon and purchased two books...

    The Omega Point: The Search for the Missing Mass and the Ultimate Fate of the Universe by John Gribbin

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

    I'm excited about them even though the latter is supposedly poorly written and sounds a bit far fetched.

    I was hoping some of you guys knew of some really good books I could buy on the topic, stuff that specifically explores the concepts of The Omega Point and Total Creativity....

    Lastly, I hope that you folks will share some of your thoughts on the topic, I could use the enlightenment!

    Thanks!

    Owen.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 15, 2006 #2
    Someone replied to this but it has since vanished...

    What's with that?

    I didn't even get to visit the link they posted...

    It's not very inviting for a newbie to have replies to their threads just vanish!
     
  4. Dec 15, 2006 #3
    I believe you have stumbled upon the wrong forum, perhaps it was caused by semantics or nomenclature. This cosmology forum refers to the theoretical and experimental physics of the universe when applied to a large scale (250 megaparsecs or so).

    This link should provide you with better understanding of physical cosmology.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology_(physics)

    Your post seems to encompass metaphysics, philosophy and spirituality as opposed to the empirical paradigm of physics.
     
  5. Dec 15, 2006 #4
    I posted this after reading about multiverses and the anhtropic principle...

    Would you consider these topics Cosmology?

    I thought that cosmology had an element of philosophy to it, or is it ALL practical?
     
  6. Dec 15, 2006 #5

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That particular reply was someone promoting a personal theory--something not allowed on PF. Please don't take it personally. And welcome to PF.

    As far as your original post, I think it's a better fit for the philosophy forums (as complexPHILOSOPHY suggested) than for Cosmology--I will move it there.
     
  7. Dec 17, 2006 #6
    What?... physics, "philosopical"...?... nahhhhhh... well, starting with the unproofed assumption for infinity, and stretching well beyond the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, yes, the cutting edge is quite full of it. Which is okay, since there is theoretical support for bits and pieces of it, but unfortunately, many of the mentioned interpretations and unproven assumptions aren't considered to be up for review, in lieu of new evidence, and in spite of the fact that quantum gravity theory, as well as vital parts of the standard model are much closer to a state of total collapse than you'll ever hear someone admit.

    I think that putting consciousness on a pedestal via quantum observer relevant interpretatons of the anthropic physics are stoooopid.

    Tipler's anthropic reasoning might be perfectly valid science, (in context with "stooopid", anyway), until he makes his unfounded leap of faith to god and and time-independent causation.

    http://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/summary.html
    I also argue that the ultimate future state of the universe, the Omega Point, should be identified with God. I have presented my argument in detail in my book The Physics of Immortality, but a main reason for my identification Omega Point = God, comes from Exodus 3:14. In this passage, God is speaking to Moses from the Burning Bush. God gives Moses His Name: EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (in Hebrew, of course). God's Name is best translated into English as I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. In other words, God is telling Moses that His essence is future tense. If we regard God as something Ultimate, then He is telling us that He is the Ultimate Future. Hence my identification Omega Point = God. My translation of EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is taken from the Oxford University Study Bible (Revised Standard Version), but the great German religious leader Martin Luther translated EHYEH ASHER EHYEH the same way into German: ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE. Luther's translation of the Bible was to the German language as the King James version was to the English language.

    Oh brother.. er.. AhMAN!... I mean... or something like that... :wink:


    These are the facts, much to the chagrin and in spite of many on both sides of the warped world of "stooopid":

    http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/
    It is an unavoidable fact that the anthropic coincidences are observed to be uniquely related to the structure of the universe in a way that defies what our projected models expect. If you disallow unproven and speculative physics theory, then an evidentially supported implication does necessarily exist that carbon-based life is somehow relevant to the structure mechanism of the universe, and weak, multiverse interpretations do not supercede this fact, unless a multiverse is proven to be more than cutting-edge theoretical speculation.

    That's the "undeniable fact" that compells Richard Dawkins and Leonard Susskind to admit that the universe "appears designed" for life! There is no valid "weak" interpretation without a multiverse, because what is otherwise unexpectedly observed without the admission of speculation, is most-apparently geared toward the production of carbon-base life, and even intelligent life. Their confidence comes from the fact that their admissions are qualified by their shared "beleif" in unproven multiverse theories, but their interpretation is strictly limited to equally non-evidenced "causes", like supernatural forces and intelligent design.

    These arguments do not erase the fact that the prevailing evidence still most apparentely does indicate that we are somehow relevantly linked to the structure mechanism, until they prove it isn't so, so we must remain open to evidence in support of this, or we are not honest scientists, and we are no better than those who would intentionally abuse the science. We certainly do not automatically dismiss the "appearance" by first looking for rationale around the most apparent implication of evidence.

    That's like pretending that your number one suspect doesn't even exist! There can be nothing other than self-dishonesty and pre-conceived prejudicial anticipation of the meaning that motivates this approach, and often *automatically* elicites false, ill-considered, and, therefore, necessarily flawed assumptions, that most often elicite equally false accusations about "geocentrism" and "creationism". That's not science, it's irrational reactionary skepticism that is driven without justification by sheer disbelief and denial.

    At the very least, we can't honestly deny that an evidentially supported implication for a direct anthropic connection to the forces *most-apparently* does exist, unless we are willing to say that Leonard Susskind and Richard Dawkins, (as well as other historically noted and respected physicists), are lying to us about their true perception of the evidence. We must, therefore, be open to science that might be indicitive of this, or we cannot call ourselves honest unbiased scientists.

    As such, it is unavoidable that we embrace the logically implicated possibilty that a true anthropic constraint on the forces of the universe might *necessarily* include a reciprocal connection to the human evolutionary process. Scientists should think long and hard about that, because this relates the human evolutionary process to the ever elusive structure mechanism, so the answer to the riddle of the near-flat expanding universe and the rest of the anthropic coincidences is expected to be revealed via this thermodynamic feature of the least action princple. Given the significance that any remote possibility that this is true carries, it is not unreasonable to expect scientists would give it equal time to other possibilities, since the anthropic connection is the *most-apparent* implication of the evidence.

    There can't be any argument about the fact that the implication exists, unless someone can prove that the multiverse exists, or if you can otherwise prove that the stability mechansim is not inherently geared toward the production of carbon based life for some very practical physical reason, over a "golden region" of the observed universe.

    That's what makes Leonard Susskind say that "we will be hard-pressed to answer the IDists"... if the landscape fails, although Lenny doesn't seem to be aware that *natural bias* is the default, if we're not here by accident, so ID doesn't even enter the picture and can't be inferred without direct proof.

    There is no valid basis for invoking weak multiverse interpretations to wipe-away the otherwise indicated significance, unless you're just debating with an extremist creationist. A scientist is obligated to accept the fact that she or he is being directed toward a bunch of balance points in nature that are intricately related to both the structure of the universe and the existence of carbon based life, and this is expected to somehow account for the otherwise completely unexpected structuring of the universe.

    You can know that you're dealing with a self-dishonest scientist if they do not recognize that the above statements are factual and correct.
     
  8. Dec 19, 2006 #7
    This reminds me a lot of Hegel and his dialectical method. I'm only a tad bit familiar with his Phenomenology of Spirit, and I'm even less familiar with these ideas of omega point and total creativity, but I think a little research on some of this philosophy might point you in the right direction as well. Mainly because for any theory someone provides about the way history, society, or humanity on the whole progresses, you'll ultimately come back to this German idealist philosophy. My guess is, the two philosophers you mentioned were familiar with Hegel's work as well, given the theories they argued.

    If you do decide to look up this kind of philosophy, I should warn you...they write really tough books filled with horribly structured sentences. A couple of study guides had to help me...although I suppose I am a little younger than many of the posters here.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2006
  9. Dec 19, 2006 #8
    Asian Sensation,

    It always bothered me that books about deep subjects somehow need to be written in a way that requires one to re-read many of the sentences just to understand what's going on. I have a decent grasp of the english language and am quite intelligent, so I hereby accuse the authors of being poor writers. I see absolutely no reason why a book about complicated philosophy should be at all complicated to read. It should flow, it should be enjoyable, and it should pleasurably provide us with enlightenment, not a headache.

    This is exactly why I started this thread. I really want to know of great books on the topic that are enjoyable to read. I am doing this for recreation, not study, so I see no reason why I should strain my brain over it.

    Island,

    I'm a bit lost as to what you're trying to say... Are you saying that anthropocentrism is "stoopid" but seems rational when looking at evidence?

    My belief is that the universe is geared towards complexity, and this complexity will bring itself to greater things (Omega Point?). That complexity doesn't need to be humans, it doesn't even need to be carbon based life... When I say why are "we" here I mean why are elemental particles here and why is energy here... why is there not nothing? And my only answer is some very raw concepts about Order vs Disorder and the journey of our arrow of time towards a more complex universe. I'd like to learn more.

    So yes, I'm not so self centred that I believe complexity needs to be carbon based. Could some strange self replicating or self-aware systems even appear somewhere else in OUR universe in the deep plasma of a stars fusion reactions? I'm not a physicist so I can't say no, but that's the sort of thing I ponder.

    Furthermore, the passage you posted from blogspot is a classic example of poorly written reasoning... What I am trying to avoid, thanks for posting it though, but let me explain... I had to re-read a lot of the sentences to figure out what was going on, it was like studying Shakespeare at age 14... After much deconstruction I came to the conclusion that the Author was merely trying to say "We don't know if there are other universes, OUR universe is evidently geared towards producing life, so therefore we must not completely discard the anthropic principle" although I still admit I could be wrong.

    But thanks so much for your thoughts guys, please share your thoughts further and please reccomend to me books on the subject that are a pleasure to read and not convoluted babble that will confuse people.

    Thanks!
     
  10. Dec 19, 2006 #9
    Oh yeah, they suck. I once remember a professor remarking, "if you guys write like the guys we're reading, you'll be on the fast track to a C."

    The reason I recommend it is because there might be a couple of nice resources or essays to be found about some of these idealist philosophers which will be enough to give you a flavor for this particular brand of philosophy, and whether or not it relates to what you're researching.

    And, I've found a nice resource on the dialectical method of Hegel which I mentioned earlier.

    http://www.marx.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/easy.htm
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2006
  11. Dec 23, 2006 #10

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Tipler is considered by colleagues to have lost it with his God theories. This is being discussed in S&D already.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130610&highlight=tipler
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The Omega Point and Total Creativity
  1. Creativity (Replies: 2)

  2. Creativity and freedom (Replies: 0)

  3. Creativity in Physics? (Replies: 2)

  4. Creative Works (Replies: 11)

  5. Studying with creativity (Replies: 18)

Loading...