Omega point cosmology does not solve the black hole information puzzle, it simply avoids it by hypothesizing a universe that has no event horizons. Tipler’s argument is essentially this:
Argument 1: God exists. The omega point is God because the omega point has the defining characteristic features of God. But the construction of the causal boundary of a model universe won’t result in an omega point unless the model has no event horizons. Therefore there are no event horizons and consequently the black hole information puzzle doesn’t arise in our particular universe.
In this argument the assumption is that God “exists” (or if you prefer, the construction of the causal boundary leads to a unique point on the mathematically constructed boundary, the omega point; i.e. God). That God “exists” is not one of the known laws of the physical universe.
In other places in his book The Physics of Immortality, Tipler takes a different tact.
Argument 2: Tipler invites us to assume the universe has no event horizons (among other assumptions) and proves from those assumptions that an omega point “exists.”
The first argument is somewhat akin to saying, “Missing links would discredit Genesis, therefore there are no missing links, in spite of the fact that science keeps finding more of them.” The second argument is homologous to, “There are no missing links (fossil evident to the contrary) and therefore Genesis is correct.” Either form of the argument employs an assumption that goes beyond generally accepted science.
What is true is that Tipler’s theory doesn’t require extra-dimensions, a holographic principle, multiple universes or other as yet unproven hypothesis of fundamental physics. Rather than forwarding hypotheses concerning fundamental physics (e.g. a hypothesis that would truly address the information puzzle associated with event horizons) Tipler’s hypotheses assume a background physics that is generally well accepted (semi-classical gravity, quantum field theory and thermodynamics). That’s a plus for Tipler. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, Tipler does forward a number of assumptions. Unfortunately they are assumptions that beg his desired conclusion. Worse, they are assumptions (like the universe isn’t expanding or there are no event horizons) that run counter to the current evidence.
A word of explanation: Why do I put “exists” in quotes when paraphrasing Tipler’s conclusion that the omega point “exists”?
Answer: It is alleged that Tipler makes no assumptions that don’t belong to what is generally accepted science. So Tipler doesn’t assume there are multiple universes; i.e. that there is anything outside our own universe. To say something exists is to say it lies within our universe. But the causal boundary of the universe is not something that lies within our own universe. It is an abstract construction that allows mathematicians talk about certain bundles of world-lines as if they were points at infinity outside the universe(much like in the mathematical theory of perspective certain bundles of lines are identified with focal points at infinity). These points don’t exist in the universe. They exist in the heads of mathematicians. At best they exist in Plato’s world of forms. But Tipler can’t assume Plato world of forms; it’s not part of generally accepted science. So Tipler’s omega point can only “exist” as a formal idea in the heads of mathematicians.
I will grant that in these posts you have added to Tipler’s arguments. We now have
Argument 3) If you don’t have the moral stamina to believe each step of the prior arguments you are doomed to perdition. These arguments are designed to save you. Accept or die forever.
Poor Nietsche, he’s no doubt rolling in his grave right now, seeing what Tipler has done to the doctrine of eternal return :)
You really should read this
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hoof...eoristbad.html
