Re: has anyone ever proposed a version of the anthropic principle

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 19:11:36 -0400

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" <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
To: "danny mayes" <dmayes.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
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.
>
Received on Thu May 26 2005 - 19:14:11 PDT