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

[planetario@...>]

Pues lo cierto es que no lo se... (de verdad... lo ignorito...) Posiblemente
lo supe, pero no tengo ese emilio que siempre hay que guardar...
Intenta mandar un mensaje a la lista, y posiblemente te devuelvan un mensaje
indicandote la manera de realizar la suscripcion.
Suerte,

javier armentia

-----Original Message-----
De: Pedro J. Hernández <pjhdez en post9.tele.dk>
Para: escepticos en CCDIS.dis.ulpgc.es <escepticos en CCDIS.dis.ulpgc.es>
Fecha: sábado 14 de marzo de 1998 13:02
Asunto: [escepticos] RE: [escepticos] **una cuestión para planetario


>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
>>>
>>
>
>