Russell,
You are right, Tipler basically makes that argument. I just don't know
if he or anyone couched it in terms of the anthropic principle in
explaining what we observe and how we are here to observe it.
I agree that Tipler gets a little too speculative in his book, but I
actually believe (as Deutsch suggests in FOR) that Tipler may well be on
the right track. The whole question boils down to (for me): is our
experience emulable? If it is, you almost have to reject the MWI
concept to preserve any hope of our conception of "fundamental" reality
(meaning reality not brought about by an intermediate, intelligent
information processing cause)
Danny
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russell and Friends,
Having given a talk on this book with my friend David Woolsey, I
would agree with you and add that it seems that Tipler has, as many
others in the scientific community and they grow long in the tooth,
realized the reality of their own mortality and have tried to use
their knowledge to build theories to give themselves some hope of an
"afterlife".
Stephen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Standish"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "danny mayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: has anyone ever proposed a version of the anthropic
principle
Sounds to me what Tipler was arguing in "Physics of
Immortality". Whilst the "Omega Point Theory" developed in that book
is interesting and fun, most of the rest of the book is rubbish.
Cheers
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 10:35:03PM -0400, danny mayes wrote:
to the effect that not only must the universe allow for intelligent
observers, specifically us, but that the universe must allow for
intelligent observers to be able to recreate or emulate their existence?
Maybe a stronger version would be to recreate or emulate infinitely. I
am aware of the final AP, which suggests life, or information
processing, will exist forever. However, thats not quite as strong or
final as what I'm suggesting.
