The only advice I can say is that despite the fundamental divulgation attempt to share some knowledge about this complex relationship, this marvelous work is very hard for beginners. But it is really worth it! ( )

When I studied engineering at college level a fundamental rule was "don't extrapolate a curve beyond the last data point". We now have proposals for a multiverse of multiverses ranging from the quantum to the cosmological. When I see some data that supports the existence of any of them, I will start to take them seriously. Until then, it looks as if physicists have reinvented the Deus-ex-Machina. And most leading physicists do accept the Many-Worlds Interpretation as true. The political scientist L. David Raub conducted a poll of 72 leading quantum cosmologists and other quantum field theorists regarding their view on the truth of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. The possible answers were: (1) "Yes, I think the MWI is true"; (2) "No, I don't accept the MWI"; (3) "Maybe it's true, but I'm not yet convinced"; and (4) "I have no opinion one way or the other." If I remember correctly (I may be mistaken in the percentages), the results of the poll were: 58% said yes; 18% said no; 13% said maybe; and 11% said no opinion. In the "yes" category were Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, and Murray Gell-Mann, while the "no" answers included Roger Penrose…Something wrong in this picture?

Some have suggested that the universe's current acceleration of its expansion obviates the universe collapsing (and therefore obviates the Omega Point). But as Profs. Lawrence M. Krauss and Michael S. Turner point out in "Geometry and Destiny" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 31, No. 10 [October 1999], pp. 1453-1459; also at arXiv:astro-ph/9904020, April 1, 1999), there is no set of cosmological observations which can tell us whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse. There's a very good reason for that, because that is dependent on the actions of intelligent life. The known laws of physics provide the mechanism for the universe's collapse. As required by the Standard Model, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the positive cosmological constant. But if the baryons in the universe were to be annihilated by the inverse of baryogenesis, again via electroweak quantum tunneling (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number [B - L] is conserved), then this would force the Higgs field toward its absolute vacuum, cancelling the positive cosmological constant and thereby forcing the universe to collapse. Moreover, this process would provide the ideal form of energy resource and rocket propulsion during the colonization phase of the universe.

Nor does this represent the destruction of the universe for the superintelligent societies near the final singularity, as their experiential time will be of infinite duration due to the universe's computational speed diverging toward infinity, i.e., a supertask of computation is completed before the end of proper time. And so for the societies near the Omega Point, their experienced time never ends.

Or... all particle phenomena are nothing more than wave phenomena, and it is the waves that 'actually exist';-)

My question is: Is it safe to say we're close to alone in this Universe as we haven't encountered any other A.I. leading to a singularity from another life form? I mean, from everything I know about the singularity, which is just through readings and videos, it seems that the singularity will eventually end up being a Universal event, where the knowledge is so vast that it affects the Universe itself? So either Nick Bostrom's take on the Fermi Paradox is true, and or maybe the A.I. singularity has happened and his simulation argument is true. It can be argued we're either close to unique in this Universe, or a universal singularity has happened, and the reason we're not affected by it right now, is because we're not part of the original universe in which it took place Or universes. A singularity may happen in this Universe, giving rise to another simulated Universe were another singularity will occur. Hmm…

Personally, I'm going to stick with Leslie Ballentine's healthy conservatism together with an Isham's book-motivated scepticism about the microscopic 'reality' and 'existence' of any classical concepts unless and until there is some concrete evidence to favour many-worlds or something like it. Wow, Tipler’s all over the place, full of logical leaps and astounding conclusions. Too much of the Space Nutter "the species is doomed" nonsense. Evolution is still happening, there won't be anything remotely resembling us in a million years, never mind a billion. Just shows that past a certain age, the human brain is just Swiss Cheese...Let the old mumble to themselves, let's read some real physics book please! ( )

I admit that this book was over my head scientifically. I took a class called "Physical Science" in 9th grade and this remains my only exposure to physics -- until now. As a Christian, I cannot accept all of Mr. Tipler's theories. I would recommend, however, that skeptics read the book. I'm sure physicists won't be able to accept all of his theories, either...but maybe a few. ( )