"

Edits by Keraunos

Hi, Keraunos. I see you added to, and rearranged, some of this article. I ameliorated some of your additions for accuracy. Below are listed my ameliorations of your edits and my reasons for them:

 You added the edit ""because the temperature of the cosmos rising toward infinity as the final singularity of the big crunch is approached will provide a potentially infinite amount of energy to power the cosmic supercomputer.""

I take it that what you tried to explain here is the energy resource. But actually, that isn't physically accurate. The universal heat diverging to infinity doesn't provide usable energy. Where the usable energy comes from is the gravitational shear (i.e., the universe's Taublike collapses along different axes with each cycle, called Mixmaster oscillations), which provides a temperature differential across the universe whereby usable energy can be obtained. Hence, I went ahead and cut this edit of yours.

If people read further into the body of the article, under the section ""Outline of the physics of the Omega Point Theory,"" some of this is already explained, with references provided for further research (with a number of the references available online for free).

 You added a bit into here: ""the Omega Point represents the resurrection of the dead followed by an infinite-duration afterlife as an avatar in cyberspace, which could take any imaginable form within the metaverse of the cosmic supercomputer due to its virtual nature.""

I kept the ressurection link. I understand from reading your user page that you're into science fiction and transhumanism, but one should avoid loading up this article with needless science fiction terminology and transhumanist terminology, as well as computer terminology which isn't that accurate (such as ""avatar""). The term preceding your edits, ""simulated reality,"" already expresses the ideas you're getting at, and people can follow that hyperlinked text if they're not sure what that means.

 You added most of this: ""engulfed by artificially intelligent life as it approaches the point of maximum expansion, which, according to Tipler, will occur 'between 5 X 10^16 and 5 X 10^18 years from now (in proper time)'.""

One should be more accurate in their terminology, as most people think of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as meaning intelligence via artifically created programs. Yet if uploaded human consciousnesses become a reality, then the programs of their minds would be natural, but on an artificial substrate. Hence, I'm changing this to ""From that point on, the entire visible universe would be engulfed by these 'mind children' as it approaches the point of maximum expansion,"" with ""mind children"" referring to the previously defined mention of the term.

I also removed your quote of Tipler's estimation as to when the universe will be engulfed, as that is from his 1994 book The Physics of Immortality, yet later cosmological observations have been able to define the Hubble shift more accurately, which is what that estimation is based on. So Tipler's current estimation is different now. For more on that, see:

F. J. Tipler, ""The structure of the world from pure numbers,"" Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964. See also here. Also released as ""Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything,"" arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007.

 You added the section ""Criticism from string theory.""

I kept pretty much all of this, while editing it slightly to improve the style and formatting. I changed the section title to ""Implications from string theory,"" since Brian Greene doesn't actually offer any criticism of, or even refer to, Tipler's Omega Point Theory in Greene's book that you referenced.

This section, as it stands now, might have to go entirely, as it appears to fall under Wikipedia's rule concerning original research. As it's written, it's a valid deduction that the Omega Point singularity would be obviated if string theory disallows singularities and if string theory is true, but it's an original deduction.

 You moved the ""See also"" section to underneath the references. You also added a number of links therein.

Based upon Wikipedia's ""Featured articles,"" it appears that the preferred location of the ""See also"" section is where it was previously, before the references. Hence, I moved it back. I removed the link ""metaverse,"" because it's a science fiction term that's perfectly explainable with more acce