Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (48 page)

None of this deterred Tipler, who continued without John Barrow in
The Physics of Immortality.
He submitted a rough draft to his publisher, Oxford University Press, who sent it out for review. The book was rejected. Tipler received the "anonymous" reviews, but by accident their names were not blocked out on the photocopy. One of them, a physicist who is one of the world's leading proponents of integrating science and religion, "said he could recommend this book be published only if I would write it as if I didn't really believe this stuff" (1995).

A longer, more detailed manuscript was submitted to and accepted by Doubleday for publication. While sales were better in Europe (especially Germany) than in America, the reviews for the most part were devastating. Well-known German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, who believes in God as a future being, offered his support in
Zygon
(Summer 1995), but most scientists and theologians echoed astronomer Joseph Silk's review in
Scientific American:
"Tipler, however, takes the search for a science of God to a ridiculous extreme. Humility in the face of the persistent, great unknowns is the true philosophy that modern physics has to offer" (July 1995, p. 94).

Frank Tipler faces the great unknowns not with humility but with eternal optimism. When asked to summarize his book in a single sentence, Tipler offered, "Rationality increases without limit; progress goes on forever; life never dies out." How? Tipler's complex arguments may be summarized as three points. (1) In the far future of the universe, humans— the only life in the universe, says Tipler—will have left Earth, populating the rest of the Milky Way galaxy and eventually all other galaxies. If we don't, we are doomed when the Sun expands to envelope the Earth and burn it to a cinder. Therefore, if we must we will. (2) If science and technology continues progressing at its current rate (consider how far we have come from room-size computers in the 1940s to today's laptops), in a thousand or a hundred thousand years, not only will populating the galaxy and universe be possible, but supercomputers with supermemories and super-virtual realities will essentially replace biological life (life and culture are just information systems—genes and memes—to be reproduced in these supercomputers). (3) When the universe eventually collapses, humans and their supercomputers will utilize the energy of the collapsing process to recreate every human who ever lived (since this is a finite number, the supercomputer will have enough memory to accomplish this feat). Since this supercomputer is, for all intents and purposes, omniscient and omnipotent, it is like God; and since "God" will re-create us all in its virtual reality, we are, for all intents and purposes, immortal.

Like Wallace and Paley, Tipler attempts to ground his arguments in pure rationality—no appeals to mysticism, no leaps of religious faith. But can it be pure coincidence that their conclusions create a cosmology in which humankind has had and will continue to have a place . . . forever? "Wouldn't it be better if it were true that you actually made a difference to universal history rather than if whatever you do is ultimately pointless?" Tipler insisted. "The universe would be a happier place if that were true, and I think it is irrational not to at least entertain the possibility that the universe is this way" (1995).

This may sound like hope springing eternal, but Tipler claims that it "is a logical consequence of my own area of research in global general relativity." And though he thinks that part of the problem is that his colleagues "are trained to detest religion so ferociously that even the suggestion that there might be some truth to the statements of religion is an outrage," Tipler says "the only reason the bigger names in the field of global general relativity, like Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, have not come to the same conclusion is that they draw back when they realize the outlandish consequences of the equations." Although Penrose and Hawking may retreat in deep understanding, in a revealing comment Tipler explained that most simply will not get it because "the essence of the Omega Point Theory is global general relativity. You have to be trained to think of the universe in the largest possible scale and to automatically view the cosmos in its temporal entirety—you envision the mathematical structure of the future as well as the past. That means you have got to be a global relativist. And there are only three out there better than I am, and only two that are my peers" (1995).

A prominent astronomer I spoke with said that Tipler must have needed money to have written such a ridiculous book. But anyone who talks with Tipler about his book for any length of time quickly realizes that he is not in it for the money or fame. He is deadly serious about his arguments and was fully prepared to take the heat he knew he would get. Frank Tipler is a man who, in my opinion, cares deeply for humanity and its future. His book is dedicated to the grandparents of his wife, "the great-grandparents of my children," who were killed in the Holocaust but "who died in the hope of the Universal Resurrection, and whose hope, as I shall show in this book, will be fulfilled near the End of Time." Here is a deeper motivation. Perhaps Tipler never really abandoned his Baptist, fundamentalist upbringing after all. Through hard work, honest living, and, now, good science, immortality is ours. But we will have to wait. In the meantime, how can we restructure the social, political, economic, and moral systems of society to ensure that we survive long enough to resurrect ourselves? The Dr. Pangloss of his time, Frank Tipler, will venture an answer in his next book, tentatively titled
The Physics of Morality.

I enjoyed reading Tipler's book. On any number of subjects—space exploration, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, quantum mechanics, relativity—he writes with clarity and confidence. But I found six problems, the first four of which could be applied to any number of controversial claims. These problems do not prove that Tipler's theory, or any other theory, is wrong. They just alert us to exercise skepticism. Although Tipler may very well be right, the burden of proof is on him to provide empirical data rather than relying almost exclusively on clever, logical reasoning.

1.
The Hope Springs Eternal Problem.
On the first page of
The Physics of Immortality,
Tipler claims that his Omega Point Theory is a "testable physical theory for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who will one day in the far future resurrect every single one of us to live in an abode which is in all essentials the Judeo-Christian Heaven" and that "if any reader has lost a loved one, or is afraid of death, modern physics says: 'Be comforted, you and they shall live again.'" So, everything we always believed to be true based on faith turns out to be true based on physics. What are the chances? Not good, I am afraid. And, after 305 pages of concise and cogent argumentation, Tipler finally admits, "The Omega Point Theory is a viable scientific theory of the future of the physical universe, but the only evidence in its favor at the moment is theoretical beauty." Beauty by itself does not make a theory right or wrong, but when a theory fulfills our deepest wishes we should be especially cautious about rushing to embrace it. When a theory seems to match our eternal hopes, chances are that it is wrong.

2. The Faith in Science Problem.
When confronting a limitation in one's scientific theory, it is not enough to argue that someday science will solve it just because science has solved so many other problems in the past. Tipler states that to colonize our galaxy and eventually all galaxies, we will have to be able to accelerate spacecraft to near the speed of light. How are we going to do this? No problem. Science will find a way. Tipler spends twenty pages chronicling all the amazing advances in computers, spacecraft, and spacecraft speeds, and in his "Appendix for Scientists" he explains precisely how a relativistic antimatter rocket could be built. All of this is relevant and fascinating but in no way proves that because it
could
happen it
will
happen. Science does have its limitations, and the history of science is replete with failures, wrong turns, and blind alleys. Just because science has been enormously successful in the past does not mean that it can or will solve all problems in the future. And can we really predict what beings in the far future are going to do based on what we think (and hope) they will do?

3. 
The If-Then Argument Problem.
Tipler's theory runs something like this: if the density parameter is greater than 1 and thus the universe is closed and will collapse;
if
the Bekenstein bound is correct;
if the
Higgs boson is 220 ± 20 GeV;
if
humans do not cause their own extinction before developing the technology to permanently leave the planet;
if
humans leave the planet; if humans develop the technology to travel interstellar distances at the required speeds;
if
humans find other habitable planets;
if
humans develop the technology to slow down the collapse of the universe;
if
humans do not encounter forms of life hostile to their goals; if humans build a computer that approaches omniscience and omnipotence at the end of time;
if
Omega/God wants to resurrect all previous lives;
if. . .
;
then
his theory is right. The problem is obvious: if any one of these steps fails, the entire argument collapses. What if the density parameter is less than 1 and the universe expands forever (as some evidence indicates it will)? What if we nuke or pollute ourselves into oblivion? What if we allocate resources to problems on Earth instead of to space exploration? What if we encounter advanced aliens who intend to colonize the galaxy and Earth, thus dooming us to slavery or extinction?

No matter how rational, an if-then argument without empirical data to support each step in the argument is more philosophy (or protoscience or science fiction) than it is science. Tipler has created an extremely rational argument for God and immortality. Each step follows from the previous step. But so many of the steps might be wrong that the theory is essentially speculative. In addition, his clever switch of the temporal frame of reference to the far future contains a logical flaw.
He first
assumes the existence of God and immortality toward the end of time (his Omega Point boundary conditions—what he previously called the Final Anthropic Principle) and
then
works backward to derive what he has already assumed to be true. Tipler claims this is how all general relativists work (i.e., when they analyze black holes). Even if true, I suspect that most general relativists withhold confidence in their assumptions until there is empirical data to support them, and I have seen no other theories by general relativists which attempt to encompass God, immortality, heaven, and hell. Tipler has made a few testable predictions, but he is a long,
long
way from proving our immortality, and the end of the universe is, well, a long,
long
time away.

4.
The Problem of Analogies.
In
The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism
(1975), physicist Fritjof Capra claims that these "parallels" are not accidental. Instead, he argues, there is a single underlying reality that both ancient Eastern philosophers and modern Western physicists have discovered. Although the language of description is different, Capra can see that both groups are really talking about the same thing. (See Gary Zukav's
The Dancing Wu Li Masters
for a similar analysis.) Really? Or is it more likely that the human mind orders the universe in only so many ways and that there are bound to be vague similarities between ancient myths and modern theories, especially if one wants to find them.

Tipler has one-upped Capra. He is not just finding similarities between ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines and modern physics and cosmology, he is redefining both to
make
them fit together: "Every single term in the theory—for example, 'omnipresent,' 'omniscient,' 'omnipotent,' 'resurrection (spiritual) body,' 'Heaven'—will be introduced as pure physics concepts" (1994, p. 1). With each, the reader finds Tipler straining to make the term fit his physics, or vice versa. In starting with God and immortality and reasoning backward, Tipler is not so much discovering these connections between physics and religion as he is creating them. He claims this is both good physics and good theology. I claim that without empirical evidence it is good philosophy and good speculative science fiction. Just because two ideas from separate realms seem to resemble each other does not mean that a meaningful connection between the two exists.

5. 
The Problem of Memory and Identity.
Tipler argues that Omega/God, toward the end of the universe, will reconstruct everyone who ever lived or ever could have lived in a super-virtual reality that will include their memories. The first problem is that if memory is a product of neuronal connections and our flawed and ever-changing reconstruction of these neuronal connections, how will Omega/God reconstruct something that does not really exist? There is a vast difference between every memory that
could
be reconstructed and an individual's actual set of memory patterns, the vast majority of which are lost to time. The controversy over false memory syndrome is a case in point. We have very little understanding of how memory works, much less how to reconstruct it. Memories cannot be reconstructed in the sense of playing back a videotape. The event occurs. A selective impression of the event is made on the brain through the senses. Then the individual rehearses the memory and in the process changes it a bit, depending on emotions, previous memories, subsequent events and memories, and so on. This process recurs thousands of times over the years, to the point where we must ask whether we have memories or just memories of memories of memories.

We have another problem, too. If Omega/God resurrects me with all of my memories, which memories will they be? The memories I had at a particular point in my lifetime? Then, that won't be all of me. All the memories I had at every point in my life? That won't be me either. Thus, whatever would be resurrected by Omega/God, it cannot possibly be me, with my very own memories. And if a Michael Shermer is resurrected, and he does not have my memories, who will he be? For that matter, who am I? These problems of memory and identity must be worked through before we can even begin to speculate well about resurrecting an actual person.