Re: omega-point-deity (was: from Italy about exi)

Date: Wed Jul 05 2000 - 17:13:31 MDT

1. Yes he hints at it strongly.

2. You state that there are solid reasons to scoff at Tipler. I read
Bostrom's and Cirkovic's paper on the FAP and found it inconsistent since
Tipler relies on Computational Life to alter the shape of the future, as does
Hans Moravec.

3. Max Tegmark finds it impossible to build Quantum computers out of plasma.
Yet, there is nothing in the universal constants to build non-Quantum plasma
computers. And who knows what we may learn in the future.

4. As to what people do to scientific discoveries and their own belief
systems, adaptation or corruption has been happening for a long time. Shall
we disdain astronomy because the Applegate Cult used the focus on comets. Of
course not. Yet it will go on anyway.

5. Yes Tipler does conclude an Ontological Designer, but especially if you
read a recent article by Marcus Chown that even with advance in M-brane
theory ( I will try to look in up-came out in June) it does indicate the
plausibility of a designer. Yet, combined with other visions in cosmology,
one can also have variations in time as well as space. I am not going to
peddle my pamphlets at the airport and sadly concur with those who agree that
Mrs. God is far away in time and space and we better look out for ourselves
and each other. God's a few Peta-Years away, according to F.J. Tipler-don't
wait up.

In a message dated 7/4/00 8:42:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

<< writes:
> Can't help you with this one. Tipler (in his reclusiveness) never
> seemed to state that he believed in religion, merely that the
> ultimate future appeared to closely resemble some religious aspects
> regarding eschatology.
 He might not be saying "Omega == God", but he definitely hints it
 extremely strongly.
> Most dogmatic scientists, yes I do use that
> word, dogmatism, purposefully, simply disregard Tipler, because he
> messes with their world view.
 Only partially; sure, there are plenty of physicists who think that
 there should be waterproof boundaries between physics and religion,
 but there are many other reasons to scoff at Tipler.
> Of the attacks, I have seen in the last six years; most seem not to
> disagree with the physics behind it.
 I have seen plenty of attacks that disagree with the physics, there
 are many very weak points and assumptions there. Most attackers are of
 course not very detailled, like the SciAm reviewer of PoI they just
 scoff at the notion of a supercomputer built out of nuclear plasma and
 simular undemonstrated wild stuff, but there has been many good points
 raised too (e.g. spacetime quantization, black hole horizons - and of
 course the open universe).
> Of the attacks, I have seen in the last six years; most seem not to
> disagree with the physics behind it. But they are dead set against
> making conclusions regarding the future universe, that might include
> any resemblences to what religion had sugested. That is where Tipler
> has gotten his chops busted.
 Sure. But even if you disregard that, there is a lot of relevant
 criticism. In addition, the idea has now been adopted by many people
 who are twisting it to their own ends in science fiction, religion,
 new age or transhumanism - since it is not firmly based on observable
 facts, especially not in its mutated forms, it can become anything.
 I *like* Tiplers calculations, they were what made me become a
 transhumanist. But when he tried to make the OP not just a possibility
 but a necessity in his cosmology, then he made a big mistake both from
 a science point of view and from a religious point of view.
 Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! >>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:33:59 MDT