Mathematical Theology And The Physics Of God Pdf
See a Problem?
Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Friend Reviews
Community Reviews
Shor's Algorithm: "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler
Prof. Frank J. Tipler points out on pg. 95 of The Physics of Christianity, "if the other universes and the multiverse do not exist, then quantum mechanics is objectively false. This is not a question of physics. It is a question of mathematics. I give a mathematical proof of [this] in my earlier book ..." That book is: "The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God an
If you're into stuff like this, you can read the full review.Shor's Algorithm: "The Physics of Immortality" by Frank J. Tipler
Prof. Frank J. Tipler points out on pg. 95 of The Physics of Christianity, "if the other universes and the multiverse do not exist, then quantum mechanics is objectively false. This is not a question of physics. It is a question of mathematics. I give a mathematical proof of [this] in my earlier book ..." That book is: "The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead" (New York: Doubleday, 1994), Appendix I: "The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics," pp. 483-488.)
...more
It all seems appropriately and wonderfully wackadoo—another reviewer makes the believable claim that Tipler is nuts. Brilliant, interesting, compelling, but nuts. This book comes across as a genius's urgent need to heal the pain of the Holocaust by resurrecting the dead in the grandest thought-experiment of all time. But I'll be damned if I don't appreciate another fellow taking the time and effort to put his own private visions into understandable prose and formulae, taking them to the absolute limit while holding fast to his convictions, and then making them available for the inevitable scorn and mockery that will attend to them—as, apparently, it does to people like Esteban. Attaboy, Tipler!
...more
Well, okay, I'll stomach that one and move on to a later chapter, but THAT, my friend, was when I simply tossed my cookies. Let me see if I can provide a brief (why would I subject anyone to more of this crap than needed? I'm not a masochist for God's sake) quote concerning his next topic of import:
After tangent upon tangent at disproving the Turing Test, he then goes on to say that it won't be God's Second Coming that will raise us from our mortality and transform us into glorified beings; nor will it be simply understanding and taking a closer look at the actual Laws of Physics themselves that will help to supply some answers to coming events. (Sorry gang--I'm a BIG Hawking/Penrose fan on this one.)
His quote: "But the fundamental reason for allowing the creation of intelligent machines (thus tying it back to the impassable Turing Test) is that without their help, the human race is doomed. With their help, we can and will survive forever. To see this, let us first see how they could help us colonise space." THAT is his answer, folks! He used the rest of the book for finding practical ways of making these machines a reality. The kicker? Inside the first flap is this sub-title: "What if science, in its relentless drive to uncover the secrets of the universe, discovered God?"
I SO wanted to like this book. It borders on my Astrophysics Physics Thesis. But it sucks eggs. And not any old egg--a Turing Egg.
...more
As some modicum of hope stirred within me, disturbing - for a brief moment - the pessimistic cynicism that I have operated under ever since apostatizing at the age of seven, I pulled the book from the shelf and began reading on the sp Wandering the library, comfortably lost in more ways than one, I found myself gravitating towards the physics section. Scanning the spines of hundreds of potential candidates to fill in my spare time, I happened across one curios title... The Physics of Immortality.
As some modicum of hope stirred within me, disturbing - for a brief moment - the pessimistic cynicism that I have operated under ever since apostatizing at the age of seven, I pulled the book from the shelf and began reading on the spot.
It started out terribly hopeful. I was so excited, honestly. Despite the many arguments I've had with theists, where I speak with such condescending conviction; I was looking forward to finding how wrong I have been...
I read on... To find more promises of accrediting the after-life, the existence of a soul etc. He claimed religion was merely a branch of physics, which had a fantastical ring, to my mind...
A few hours passed, the guy persisted in bringing the reader up-to-speed on modern physics, which really was a topic in itself for other books, I thought to myself. Soon it just felt like he was procrastinating and displaying how much he knows about physics. Self-indulgent musing. Tedious... I found myself growing skeptical.
His appendix was impressive, he obviously knows his stuff, I resolved. Then I found myself thinking: 'hey, why haven't I heard of this book?!' And when I flipped to the start to find it was published over a decade ago, I just shat bricks. Really.
I. Shat. Bricks. All over the floor of the aisle.
It wasn't wholly due to the fact that I was really hoping for his outrageous theory of the Omega Point to be law, it was also because of the pompous language he uses in parts of the book. He talks like he's the next fucking Issac Newton. And he waves his equations around in order to overwhelm his more laymen readers into accepting that he must be right because he obviously knows his shit. But his mathematics have no apparent relevance to anything he talks about.
I might as well construct some wild theory that cheese contains the only particle capable of resisting the gravitational pull of black holes, and that one day all matter will be sucked into a black hole, only to leave an abundance of cheese floating in space, wherein the dairy product will eventually clump into spheres, become massive enough to warp space and develop a gravitational field. Then a species of cheese dwellers will evolve.
It's going to happen, you'll just be dead, so you don't know if I'm right or not.
It's highly credible, I assure you, let me just toss some formulas and equations at you to make sure. *hurls massive clump of math*
Now we just need to figure out a way to splice human DNA with cheese.
EDIT - I don't usually utilize the fools method reductio ad absurdum, mind you, but the proposition in question is of such absurdity that it requires no reduction whatsoever.
...more
This book was written in 1995
Unfortunately irritatingly presented philosophy, theology and pointless Bible citations mixed in with musing on speculations in the guise of cosmology and physics. It's a pity that the author is somewhat of a clown because there is a story that is worth telling that almost gets told but not quite because of the author's myopic fixation on God (he'll call it the Omega Point), false framing of complex relationships and his lack of comprehension concerning philosophy.This book was written in 1995 and he proactively predicts as confirmation for his theory the Higgs Boson twice as massive as what it turned out to be and he requires a collapsing universe in order to get at his Omega Point rather than the currently accepted expanding universe.
Heidegger was oddly a big influence for this author. The author drops a lot of philosophy and selectively quotes philosophers in support of what he is arguing for. I've been recently listening to Heidegger's 'Basic Problems' and this book over the same time period, and I will give an illustration why Tipler is shallow. Both books had big discussions on Kant's 'existence is not a predicate' and Tipler really had no idea what he was talking about while Heidegger makes perfect sense. Most readers will gloss over Tipler's physics and not get bothered by his obvious inadequate comprehension of philosophy. I found he was both shallow and unintentionally misleading with his theology, philosophy, logic, history, wild ass speculation and at times his logic, and his simplistic take on natural evolution, Godol incompleteness, Turing universal complete machines and the author's simplistic progress driven world view with too much pernicious teleology driving his thinking.
Tipler is on to something but he doesn't have the wherewithal to put the pieces together correctly and he definitely mixes it up way too much with his religious mumbo jumbo. Yeah, he says he's not a believer and blah blah blah, but why bore me with the Bible, the Koran, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jesus' words, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Barth, medieval scholastics and so on. For example, he says Luke must have been written earlier than what most scholars would say because Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple and Luke would have noted that; bad, bad, stupid logic. It is irrelevant to his big theme in the book and so what if the author thinks of himself as being not a theist, just don't bore me with religious tropes when they add nothing but distractions.
The author can't appeal to the multi-verse in 1995 (though he does bring up Hugh Everett III and his MWI) or the expanding universe because overwhelmingly the world thought in terms of the singular event of the big bang and a collapsing universe with time being not even rationally defined before the singularity; the author says that in so many words. I want to say that Neil deGrasse Tyson says we are living in a simulation in his hosted debate on the topic (check out that debate, it is well worth it). I don't want to dismiss everything the author says or mock him because it's possible to slightly reframe what he is saying into a slightly different bucket and in such a way that we are in a simulation or are just one universe within a multitude of other universes. Though, his telling me that dogs will not be there with me in his version of heaven means that with certainty I don't want to go (if dogs can't go to heaven, I'm not going. Nuff said).
What led me to this book was a review I read last week on Neil Stephenson latest book 'Fall'. It said that that book was inspired by Deutsch's 'Fabric of Reality', and Deutsch says that his book is an elaboration of this book by Tipler. Deutsch took out the bad physics, the theology and replaced the shallow philosophy with his own shallow understanding of philosophy, but even then it's possible to see a sketch for an outline of a science fiction worthy novel that could be worthwhile to understand. There is some merit in this book but it takes a lot of shoveling of the muck to get at it.
Tipler twice mentioned how Frederick Hayek's view of capitalism as being similar to his Omega Point theory and Tipler assumes existence needs meaning outside of ourselves similar to what Gilder did in 'Life after Google', and both of these authors comment on the inadequacy of Markov Matrices for capturing meaning. There are overlaps between these books and they each including Hayek have an implicit appeal to mystically magical thinking that is best appreciated by teleological thinkers.
If the author wasn't so weak on philosophy and theology and if he did not appeal to religious mumbo jumbo as he was claiming that he didn't believe in it in the first place and if the author did not appeal to other just as irritatingly unsupported assertions inadequately derived from physics and logic this book could have been a worthwhile listen, but take away all of those things and it would not be the same book, and therefore I can't recommend this book.
...more
This is definitely a very odd book. Two decades ago, Frank Tipler, a seriously bright cosmologist and mathematical physicist, attempted to prove that the core revelation of religion - that God exists and we are immortal - could be derived from contemporary physics.
Tipler writes quite well so, noting the sections of pure science that cannot be easily understood (and their appendices 'for scientists' that perhaps only a handful of humans can comprehend), this can be read as serious entertainment a
This is definitely a very odd book. Two decades ago, Frank Tipler, a seriously bright cosmologist and mathematical physicist, attempted to prove that the core revelation of religion - that God exists and we are immortal - could be derived from contemporary physics.
Tipler writes quite well so, noting the sections of pure science that cannot be easily understood (and their appendices 'for scientists' that perhaps only a handful of humans can comprehend), this can be read as serious entertainment at least by intelligent lay people.
His intelligence is not in doubt. He does not, at any time, fall into some of the more obvious traps of those who want religious revelation to be true but the book is ultimately unpersuasive. It stands as a theory of possibility and speculative science but no more.
The problem throughout is one of base-line assumptions. To get to the point where God exists, as absolute information at Omega Point, and can reconstruct us in physical form as an immortal physical sub-programme, he has to make a number of early leaps in the dark.
I do not doubt what I cannot understand - the mathematical physics - but I can reasonably doubt these assumptions and so the attempt to create a modern science-based primordialism becomes interesting and even entertaining but not something that will change my life.
As with many of my reviews, my interest is less on the claims of the author but why such claims appear culturally at a particular point in time and particular place - in this case, the United States in the final fifth of the twentieth century.
Perhaps the best way of approaching this is to look for the cultural clues when Tipler abandons science and starts looking into revelation and opinion - into theology, other religions and American Deism. Why does he even need to do this? Just to connect to his readers?
Surely his Omega Point Theory should stand on its own two feet as theoretical science and lead us to the conclusions without any requirement for any reference to the beliefs of the past. Is he suggesting that great minds in the past 'intuited' scientific truth?
There is an ambiguity and woolly-mindeness here that he corrects himself frequently but which will puzzle the European reader in particular. It reads a little as a variant of 'Fox Mulderism' - if not 'I want to believe' then 'I know you need to believe'.
What seems to be going on here is that a sincere mathematical physicist thinks he has found a theory of cosmology that ends up with outcomes close to those of the great religions and he wants to connect with his confused and less bright audience by offering hope.
One can imagine that some people might grasp at this straw - though I see no evidence that either scientists or theologians have en masse taken his theories very seriously. It is a straw that hopes to reintegrate science and religion, the liberal dream of the age.
There are clues to the ethical motivation throughout - family horror at the Holocaust (a nightmare that has become demonically symbolic for American liberals), the problem of evil, the fear of extinction, the quiet unusually ignorant rage against existentialism.
This is a cry for help from a decent man whose science has stripped away all hope in a culture that still believes in non-sense on no scientific basis at all. Science is superior to faith so someone needs to give faith a scientific basis! He tries. He fails.
It is a cry from the depths of an America that suffers from a cultural internal contradiction that is playing itself out with even more intensity two decades later - between simple stupid faith and the complexities of a science understood by only a few.
Recent decades have seen many attempts, often laughable, to reconcile religion and science, faith and reason. They usually end up a liberal spiritual mush that evades and avoids deep thought.
Tipler is rightly critical of liberal theologians who actually believe in nothing but a vague good will and an ethics based on no serious consideration of their origin. His is not a soft option by any means. His notes are sometimes worth reading on this score.
But we are not dealing with one of the more ridiculous appropriations of science to invent reasons to believe - you know the sort of thing: that quantum physics has proved that spirit inhabits all of existence. Aum! No, it does not.
To his credit, Tipler sweeps all this nonsense away so that his theory is not non-sense - it makes good sense once certain assumptions are taken for granted - but science of a sort. Unfortunately, it is highly speculative science. Little can be built on it.
'Speculative science' has its logic but it sits between the science of experiment and science fiction. It is science but not reliable or true in itself, a source of wonder which yet cannot be taken as a description of the world. Still, it drives the liberal imagination
However, frustrating though the book has been, there are insights into a wide variety of areas - and not just science. Unusually among scientists, Tipler has a breadth of knowledge that applies critical thinking to fields as diverse as history, ethics and religion.
I cannot really recommend this book ultimately to anyone looking for meaning in the universe - to find meaning in it would be to be guilty, I think, of 'mauvaise foi' - nor is it entertaining as such but I can suggest it to any intelligent reader for its nuggets of insight.
This is a book that could only have been written in the United States during a crisis of faith by a man of fundamentally liberal values faced with the internal contradictions of his own culture.
The book may last not as science but I think it may do as a text that helps document that crisis, a crisis that has since gone global ...
...more The author, apparently a distinguished Physicist, feels equipped to hold forth in what must be described as a
I must admit I only read about 40 pages of this book, and usually under those circumstances I would not feel able to offer an opinion. However, the grandiose claims made in the introduction are followed by such deeply inadequate arguments that I feel able to make the following comment. I am confident, on the basis of the first 40 or so pages, that the rest of the work is utter nonsense.The author, apparently a distinguished Physicist, feels equipped to hold forth in what must be described as a rather condescending manner on issues philosophical and theological. Unfortunately, he seems to barely understand what is at stake in the issues he discusses. His treatment of John Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment is a particularly laughable case in point. He objects to Searle's conclusions on the basis that, in the scenario Searle envisages, the person in the room would be unable to access a sufficiently large amount of information in a sufficiently short time to pass a Turing test convincingly.
As first-year undergraduate philosophy students the world over will tell you, this is utterly irrelevant. Thought experiments do not, in most important respects, have to mimic an actual possible set of events to be accurate; what they isolate is the meaning of concepts. In this case, Searle is pointing out that processes can be designed to manipulate symbols in a way which is meaningful to an end user, but this does not mean that the process user, or the process itself, actually understands what is being done. His point is that thought cannot be boiled down to computation, so there is no way that a computer could 'think' irrespective of how great its computational powers were.
On the basis of this dreadful nonsense, I felt able to discard the book without further inspection.
...more
False / baseless assertions:
1) Humans wish to live forever;
2) Humans are the only "intelligent" species in the un
The month when this book was released was also the month that astrophysicists reported that the expansion of this universe has been observed accelerating; while latest results and conclusions about astrophysics have utterly destroyed Professor Tipler's bizarre and false beliefs, some of his many baseless assertions were known to be wrong decades to centuries before he wrote this book.False / baseless assertions:
1) Humans wish to live forever;
2) Humans are the only "intelligent" species in the universe;
3) Humans will one day inhabit all planets in all star system in the universe that can support humans, including heavily modifying environments to do so;
4) The energy in the universe can be, and will be, utilized by humanity;
5) Emulating via computer all possible humans, in all possible existences, is a version of"immortality;"
6) The near-infinitely powerful computer humans are "going to" create (not "if" but "when" according to Professor Tipler) will be what he called "god," and it will emulate all possible versions of humans.
7) The universe will collapse into a "big crunch" ("Omega Point") and humans will not only still exist at the time, but will be spread among the universe.
Needless to say, Professor Tipler's god is no more rational, and no more possible, than all of the other gods humans have so far believed / believe existed / exist. Like every other god, Tipler's will be created by humans.
When I mentioned these flaws to Professor Tipler, he told me that I "obviously did not understand the book;" *NO* *ONE* "understands" this book--- it is irrational.
...more
On the other sid
Religion and science...ahhh, those classic antagonists. The Catholic Church sees fit to torture poor Galileo and Copernicus, whose observations do not fit in with the Ptolemian geocentric universe that so nicely fits in with its philosophy. Petr Beckmann's fine History of Pi takes the Church to task for the Dusk and Night of scientific discovery in the Middle Ages. The litenay of new atheist books out, from Dawkins to Hitchens, claims we cannot have science and religion together.On the other side, Hasidim take the plethora of evidence we have for the age of the universe and tell us that it was all planted by G-d to test our faith. (Faith?!?) Yes, really, the Earth is 5768 years old. And don't even get me started on this evolution business; I mean, c'mon, everyone knows it's just a theory. (Gravitation, too, is "just" a theory...it's hard to type while I float away.)
Or, can religion and science live together? Many of my fellow science geeks (me included) live in a world where we depend on accepted and experimentally proven scientific principles to advance our careers, and yet, we still manage to have some religion while not feeling like complete hypocrites. I justify this by defining the scientific universe to be that space of ideas that we understand enough to model, while religion concerns those ideas that cannot be proven or disproven. Yes, there are nuances, but it is a simple division that helps to guide me as I work and raise children.
Now comes along one Prof. Frank Tipler, who, with The Physics of Immortality (TPOI), takes everything one giant step further by asserting that science and religion not only can coexist, but religion is in fact a branch of physics. Holy mind-bend, Batman!
The first hint the reader has that this is all a bunch of mush is that this book came out nearly 15 years ago. If the theology as branch of physics idea had any legs, well...don't you think it's a big enough idea that you may have heard of it by now?
Yes yes, some ideas are so good, so ahead of their time, that they take at least that long to sink in.
In any case, Tipler, who co-wrote "The Cosmological Anthropic Principle," is continuing on a theme in that book: that there exists a singularity in space-time which he calls the Omega Point. His interpretation of this singularity is such that all life is resurrected in the Judeo-Christian sense when we reach this Omega Point in space-time. The rub is that Tipler claims to have a pure physics explanation and proof of this.
The main part of the book is a review of philosophy and cosmology, from Marx & Engels and Heidegger to Penrose and Turing. In one sense, the book fits right into the genre popularized by Hofstadter and Penrose about the science of consciousness and intelligence. Much discussion is given to computing bounds, testable physical theories, quantum mechanics, and general relativity (in the most general sense possible). Much better discussions of these things, and more, can be found in Penrose's "The Emperor's New Clothes."
In another sense, this book tries to cover the realm of human knowledge in about 300 pages, discussing technology, economics, religion, science, etc. It makes for a dizzying experience to try to keep a narrative going, and one gets the feeling that Tipler is merely showing off how much he's read over the years.
The death knell for this book, however, is the "Appendix for Scientists." I must simply quote the beginning to give you a flavor of the attitude he holds toward his readers:
"Unfortunately, even for the expert, the science in this Appendix for Scientists is extremely interdisciplinary. To comprehend it all without reference to a research library would require Ph.D.'s in at least three disparate fields: (1) global general relativity, (2) theoretical particle physics, and (3) computer complexity theory. My own Ph.D. is in (1), and I myself can understand (2) and (3) without the Ph.D.'s only because I've spent the past 15 years teaching myself those fields. I've done it, so you can do it."
In trying to democratize his knowledge ("I've done it, so you can do it."), Tipler is actually daring the reader to verify that the contents of the book are simply bullshit. Hey, it should only take us, what, 15 years? By the way, the equations are correct as far as I can tell, but what they have to do with the truth of his asinine hypothesis, I have no idea This appendix is the biggest snow job I have ever seen.
There is, however, valuable information in the book, so long as you try to take it out of context. It's just that you can find it elsewhere, better written, and with an actual point to be made that won't have you howling.
...more
The cultist knows that there is no evidence for his Christanic gods, leave alone any gods, so of course he set about to try to pretend that he could find some evidence using his fractured science and -- wotta surprise -- managed to find some, and wouldn't ya also know it, they're his Christanic gods, too, another surprise.
Had the cultist been born in to a Muslim family, the gods he thinks h
I read most of this long ago, it was so bad that I set it aside and years later tossed it in to the trash.The cultist knows that there is no evidence for his Christanic gods, leave alone any gods, so of course he set about to try to pretend that he could find some evidence using his fractured science and -- wotta surprise -- managed to find some, and wouldn't ya also know it, they're his Christanic gods, too, another surprise.
Had the cultist been born in to a Muslim family, the gods he thinks he found -- or wants to pretend to have found -- would have been the Islamic variants.
There was no science in this manifesto, none. I can see why cultists who also think that they have Christanic gods would find it worth while, they're all looking at actual science and seeing the progress that reality makes and they can see the high esteem in which science is held, then they look at their occult delusions, admit that they have no evidence and thus no logical reason to pretend they have gods, and they set out to try to pretend that science supports their delusions.
And wouldn't you know it, the gods they find are exactly like them, just as they were raised to believe.
...more
The idea that the future ultimate computer ca It's a wild idea, God as the infinite Turing machine at the collapse of the universe. He finds the idea of the eternal return very repugnant. Given the current guesses about the state of cosmology, I would have to reject the basic premise as having been tested and found to be false. The universe is flat and expanding forever, at least until it hits another brane. We live in a multiverse and that would imply an infinite number of infinite Omega Points.
The idea that the future ultimate computer can resurrect every possible human is flawed. Assume that the UC is benevolent (a rational hope!.) Now if the computer resurrects all beings with all possible memories (roughly 2^10^17 according to Tipler) the vast majority of these beings are going to have disjointed memories that make no sense. They will be in schizophrenic. It would be hellish to resurrect these beings. But, according to the halting theory of computer science, it is impossible to determine if the output of a computer program halts or if it produces an infinite sequence of gibberish. Therefore, a benevolent UC would NOT resurrect every possible human out of concern that it would be condemning the vast majority of those resurrected beings to a hellish existence.
Also, a problem with eternal life. We are finite state machines so it is inevitable that we would enter into a previous mental state and then evolve away from that state in a loop, destined to repeat the same things over and over in a infinite loop. Ok, but I don't think that is what most people think of when they think of eternal life. ...more
He states that by his definition cars are alive. Then it came to this definition:
I shall say that life continues forever if: (1) information processing continues indefinitely along at least one wordline () all the way to the future :c-boundary" of the universe, that is till the end of time.
(page 132)
okay so as long as we have machines that can keep going we have life - not so interested and I am sending the book back to th okay I got to the point where I had to stop because it just got too weird.
He states that by his definition cars are alive. Then it came to this definition:
I shall say that life continues forever if: (1) information processing continues indefinitely along at least one wordline () all the way to the future :c-boundary" of the universe, that is till the end of time.
(page 132)
okay so as long as we have machines that can keep going we have life - not so interested and I am sending the book back to the library. ...more
The physics explanations are extremely complex and incomprehensible, so when he uses his conclusions to support his omega point theory, there is really no way the reader can weigh the results or obtain even a basic understanding of what this guy is talking about. Definitely not effective at catering to the non physicist reader as he claims is his intention. I had to force myself to finish it.
Imagine the entire cosmos conquered by nanotech self-replicating machines? That's just one of the far-out ideas to chew on in this book. Even if the whole theory doesn't hang together, a lot of the parts are extremely interesting.
Note: Readers without a background in science or engineering will find this tough going.
Imagine the entire cosmos conquered by nanotech self-replicating machines? That's just one of the far-out ideas to chew on in this book. Even if the whole theory doesn't hang together, a lot of the parts are extremely interesting.
Note: Readers without a background in science or engineering will find this tough going.
As mind-tingling as that vision is, the book is burdened with non- and pseudo-scientific speculations and diversions into philosophical rabbit holes.
As a sci-fi reader and writer-in-development, I love the seemingly very plausible idea that, given the exponential rate of technological progress (especially with applications of AI), at some point, it will be possible for advanced minds to deposit themselves in subjectively lifelike simulations. This could explain the Fermi paradox--why the universe should be full of intelligent life but we don't detect anyone out there. I've read several decent sci-fi novels based on such speculations, as well as on the notion that latter-day mega-minds will have learned how to squeeze the nth degree of energy efficiency from every source in the universe. Given all of this, I marvel at Tipler's insight regarding both last-times (a) energy harvesting and (b) subjectively realistic simulation.
...more The author (a physicist) claims to prove that resurrection is 100% certain using physics.
I stand to be corrected on the following:
His notion of resurrection is that you are essentially a clone in some sort of self-reproducing robot and the end of the universe is the omega point. The 100% comes from the notion that humans MUST survive to the end of the universe and thus MUST learn to reproduce through This book was a gift in the mists of time (1995/6 ish) and I only just got round to reading it.
The author (a physicist) claims to prove that resurrection is 100% certain using physics.
I stand to be corrected on the following:
His notion of resurrection is that you are essentially a clone in some sort of self-reproducing robot and the end of the universe is the omega point. The 100% comes from the notion that humans MUST survive to the end of the universe and thus MUST learn to reproduce throughout the universe (by the robots method).
The last approx 100 pages of this book are an Appendix for Scientists. I've ummed and ahhed about reading it, and finally decided that I would simply page through the Appendix marvelling at the fact that there was a time in my life when I used to know and answer exam questions using these very equations! I did not attempt to read every word and understand every nuance.
I've also read somewhere that the author has somewhat modified his views or approach since then but haven't followed it up.
It was ok but I don't think I'll try reading it again! It's only really because there's a message from my late father inside that I'll keep it. ...more
If the religion puts you off, read Dyson's "Infinite in all Directions", which has a very different but complimentary view of the phyiscal e
Great book! Not convinced about the "Final Anthropic Principle", but I think that this does a good job in relating cosmology and other physics to what we can do with the time given us. I think he makes a good case that we can avoid extinction under any circumstances, even those obtaining in the so-called "heat death" and other possible fates of our universe.If the religion puts you off, read Dyson's "Infinite in all Directions", which has a very different but complimentary view of the phyiscal eschatology.
...more
News & Interviews
Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
Mathematical Theology And The Physics Of God Pdf
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/106434.The_Physics_of_Immortality
Posted by: jacksonhimmen1955.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Mathematical Theology And The Physics Of God Pdf"
Post a Comment