>Um, of course the "proof" floating around in Tipler's
>"The physics of immortality" is just an outline of a proof
>(because a formal derivation would go way beyond the scope
>of that book), but aren't the other ones supposed to be
>rigorous proofs?
None of the "proofs" of The Bekenstein Bound that I know of have held up very
well under close scrutiny, in spite of this I still think it's probably true,
and my opinion plus 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. Tipler never
claimed to have proven it, he just stated reason for thinking it might be
true. If The Bekenstein Bound is true then it would certainly ace Tipler's
argument that a copy of me accurate down to the smallest quantum level would
indeed be me, but that's overkill. Tipler has said, and I agree completely,
that his Omega Point Theory does not rise or fall on the validity of The
Bekenstein Bound. A less than perfect copy of me would still be me, I'm the
same man I was a half a second ago. I think.
For me the key unknowns in the Omega Point Theory are, will there be a
Big Crunch, and if so, can the universe make an infinite (and not just
astronomical) number of calculations between now and then?
John K Clark johnkc@well.com