[escepticos] RE: [escepticos] **una cuestión para planetario

["Pedro J. Hernández" <pjhdez@...>]

Planetario, si no es mucha molestia, ¿te importaría indicarme como
suscribirme a la lista de correos de donde proceden estos comentarios de
Tipler?.
Gracias

un saludo

************************************************************
"Lo importante no es lo que diga, sino lo que quise decir"
Richard Feynman
************************************************************
Pedro J. Hernández
pjhdez en post9.tele.dk
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2921/index.htm

-----Original Message-----
De: Planetario <planetario en cin.es>
Para: Lista Escepticos <escepticos en CCDIS.dis.ulpgc.es>
Fecha: sábado 14 de marzo de 1998 8:39
Asunto: [escepticos] RV: TIPLER RESPONDS TO HAWKING/SHERMER


>
>-----Original Message-----
>De: Skeptic Mag Hotline <skeptic-admin en lyris.net>
>Para: Skeptics Society <skeptics en lyris.net>
>Fecha: sábado 14 de marzo de 1998 2:15
>Asunto: TIPLER RESPONDS TO HAWKING/SHERMER
>
>
>>I thought you all might be interested in Frank Tipler's response to
Stephen
>>Hawking (and to me from a previous discussion about God and the soul). If
>you
>>have any thoughts on this exchange please feel free to pass them along.
>Frank
>>didn't want to give out his e-mail, but I said I would pass along any
>opinions
>>on this exchange.
>>
>>Also, another point Hawking made in his big public lecture that I found
>rather
>>interesting (the lecture was entitled PREDICTING THE FUTURE: From
Astrology
>to
>>Black Holes), was that the evidence for string theory is even less than
>that
>>for astrology, but that he believes in string theory but not in astrology
>>because it is consistent with physical laws and the equations.
>>
>>To reiterate, here is my question to Stephen Hawking at Caltech on
>Thursday,
>>March 12, and his answer:
>>
>>"You've been talking about the Omega Point and the Anthropic Principle.
>What
>>is your opinion of your cosmologist colleague Frank Tipler's book, THE
>PHYSICS
>>OF IMMORTALITY, and his theory that the Omega Point will reach back from
>the
>>far future of the universe into the past to reconstruct every human who
>ever
>>lived or who ever could have lived in the ultimate Holodeck?"
>>
>>Hawking sat their for a minute typing out his answer:
>>
>>"MY OPINION WOULD BE LIBELOUS."
>>
>>Frank Tipler writes:
>>
>>I have two basic problems with my colleagues about the Omega Point
>>Theory.  The first is that all the knowledge that almost all of them have
>>of the theory comes from people who are not technically trained in the
>>physics.  For example, in your phrasing that the "Omega Point reaches back
>>from the far future into the past ..."  this is not what happens in my
>>theory.  The future cannot reach back into the past (except in a very
>>subtle sense which is not relevant to the resurrection -- if you were a
>>physicist I would simply say, "least action").  Rather, what happens is
>>that intelligent life in the far future reconstructs all possibilities
>>consistent with what they know about the past.  This is simply a vastly
>>scaled up version of what we ourselves are now doing in trying to
>>reconstruct our ultimate ancestor, the first living cell.  Chemical
>>evolution laboratories all over the world are now systematically trying
all
>>possibilities.
>>
>>That there are only a finite number of possibilities today to try
>>follows directly from the Bekenstein Bound, which Hawking accepts (see the
>>BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME).  That life in the far future will have the
>>capability to try them all, at an insignificant relative cost, follows
>>directly from the mutual consistency of the known laws of physics (see
>>below).  It's a pity that the question of reconstruction was not put to
>>Hawking this way.  You know that David Deutsch, who has just been awarded
>>the Dirac Medal for his invention of the quantum computer, writes in his
>>book THE FABRIC OF REALITY, that I am quite correct that a sufficiently
>>advanced civilization can reconstruct everyone in the computers of the far
>>future.  Deutsch also writes in his book that he thinks my Omega Point
>>Theory will one day be accepted as the correct theory of the far future.
I
>>agree; for all I do in my work is accept the logical consequences of the
>>known laws of physics: quantum mechanics, relativity, and the 2nd Law of
>>Thermodynamics.  I'm not proposing any new laws of physics, just asking
>>people to accept the logical consequences of the laws they claim to
accept.
>>Libelling the OPT is equivalent to libelling the known laws of physics.  I
>>can assure you that the laws of physics are quite indifferent.
>>
>>E pour si mouve!
>>
>>The second problem I have with my colleagues is that almost all
>>contemporary theology STILL presupposes the truth of Aristotelean physics.
>>This being the case, scientists naturally suppose theology is nonsense, or
>>in a separate realm from science.  With the almost unique exception of
>>Pannenberg, theologians encourage them in this latter opinion.  Only if
>>theology is kept separate can it retain its Aristotlean physical basis.
>>
>>Michael, you yourself are a good example of this resistance to
>>using modern science in defining religious concepts.  You repeatedly
insist
>>on defining the "soul" as an "immaterial material" (Hobbs' phrase;
>>"substantial form" was Aquinas' term), a sort of ghostly white stuff
>>inhabiting the body.  From this ridiculous concept arise the equally silly
>>ideas that ghosts could exist, and that the soul of one person could
>>contact the soul of another without the assistence of normal matter
>>(psychic phenomena).
>>
>>To your great credit, you know ghosts and ESP don't exist.  You
>>yourself have provided some of the evidence that they don't by your
>>exposure of psychic frauds.  But you won't give up psychic definition of
>>soul!  You keep the definition, and say, "the `soul' doesn't exist"
>>(correct claim, with this definition).  But words are used to help us
>>understand reality.  Indeed they have no other purpose!  I claim that your
>>traditional approach to religious concepts will inadvertently make you
>>throw out the baby with the bath water.  The reality that the ancients
were
>>trying to capture in the word "soul" is expressed by defining the soul to
>>be a computer program being run on the human brain.  With this
>>re-definition, we can keep the religious concept, and make it consistent
>>with the facts.  But most importantly, the re-definition makes the
>>scientist realize that immortality is perfectly possible:  there's no
>>physical reason why a PROGRAM cannot exist forever.  Some of the programs
>>now coded in our DNA have been around billions of years.  Keeping the old
>>definition makes Hawking want to libel a person whose book's central
>>postulate is that the biosphere can go on forever.  Is postulating the
>>immortality of the biosphere an evil postulate?  Shouldn't we at least TRY
>>to make it so?  Should a person who tries to figure out how to use the
>>known physical laws to make the biosphere immortal be ostracized from
>>scientific society?
>>
>>Similarly for the word "God".  If He is identified with the Omega
>>Point, then the key religious meanings of "God" are retained, with science
>>and religion integrated.  As he wrote at length in his paper that I sent
>>you, the German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg (who has been called one of
>>the three greatest theololgians of the 20th century), agrees that the OP
is
>>in all essentials the God of the Bible.  It's easier for a German
>>theologian to come to this conclusion than an English speaker.  God's
Name,
>>given in Exodus 3:14, was translated by Martin Luther as ICH WERDE SEIN,
>>DER ICH SEIN WERDE.
>>
>>Failing to make this change of definition, which is to say, failing
>>to give up Aristotlean physics, makes it difficult to accept the
>>consequences of modern physics.  These require the universe to terminate
in
>>its ultimate future in an Omega Point, a state of infinite knowledge, and
>>infinite power.  Refusing to change your definition of "God" impells you
to
>>reject modern physics.  (Otherwise, who would care what is meant by
"God").
>>Regreatably, most people think that modern physics is not the answer, and
>>that's why most of them are quite willing to believe in psychic powers.
>>Which is why you have to spend your time exposing psychic frauds.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Frank Tipler
>>
>>APPENDIX:
>>
>>Why the Acceptance of the Known Laws of Physics
>>REQUIRES Acceptance of the Omega Point Theory
>>
>>Astrophysical black holes almost certainly exist, but Hawking has shown
>>that if black holes are allowed to exist for unlimited proper time, then
>>they will completely evaporate, and unitarity will be violated.  Thus
>>unitarity requires that the universe must cease to exist after finite
>>proper time, which implies that the universe has spatial topology $S^3$.
>>The Second Law of Thermodynamics says the amount of entropy in the
universe
>>cannot decrease, but it can be shown that the amount of entropy already in
>>the CBR will eventually contradict the Bekenstein Bound near the final
>>singularity unless there are no event horizons, since in the presence of
>>horizons the Bekenstein Bound implies the universal entropy $S \leq
>>constant\times R^2$, where $R$ is the radius of the universe, and general
>>relativity requires $R \rightarrow 0$ at the final singularity.  The
>>absence of event horizons by definition means that the universe's future
>>c-boundary is a single point, call it the {\it Omega Point}.  MacCallum
has
>>shown that an $S^3$ closed universe with a single point future c-boundary
>>is of measure zero in initial data space.  Barrow has shown that the
>>evolution of an $S^3$ closed universe into its final singularity is
>>chaotic.  Yorke has shown that a chaotic physical system is likely to
>>evolve into a measure zero state if and only if its control parameters are
>>intelligently manipulated.  Thus life ($\equiv$ intelligent computers)
>>almost certainly must be present {\it arbitrarily close} to the final
>>singularity in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually
>>consistent at all times.  Misner has shown in effect that event horizon
>>elimination requires an infinite number of distinct manipulations, so an
>>infinite amount of information must be processed between now and the final
>>singularity.  The amount of information stored at any given time diverges
>>to infinity as the Omega Point is approached, since $S\rightarrow +\infty$
>>there, implying divergence of the complexity of the system that must be
>>understood to be controlled.
>>
>>\medskip
>>Life transferring its information to a medium that can withstand the
>>arbitrarily high temperatures near the final singularity $(T\geq
>>constant/R)$ has several implications: first, $10^{-6} \leq \Omega_0 - 1
>>\leq 10^{-3}$, where $\Omega_0$ is the density parameter, and second, the
>>Standard Model Higgs boson mass must
>>be $220 \pm 20$ GeV.  The details are in {\it The Physics of Immortality}.
>>
>>\vfill\eject
>> \bye
>>
>>---
>>You are currently subscribed to skeptics as: [planetario en cin.es]
>>To unsubscribe, forward this message to unsubscribe-skeptics en lyris.net
>>If this message was forwarded from a friend and you'd like to join
>>the distribution list (it's FREE), e-mail join-skeptics en lyris.net
>>
>