That was in Tipler's paper. It was peer reviewed and published in a respected physics journal. From that paper, he wrote a popular book with John Barrow from Cambridge. It isn't some fringe science that he just made up. The math is solid, and to be honest, this is the only time I've ever seen people question that part of his results.Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
The thing is, I'm not advocating Tipler's theological beliefs. Nor am I qualified to critique his math other than to say that I did not see any errors in it. I can't post the paper on here because that would be illegal. I attempted to find a free link to it and I could not but your local college library should have it.
It's not up to me to show his math is correct. I told you what paper it was in and I directed you to where you could read it. No one in the know has ever, to my knowledge, said it was wrong. All he was saying in this paper was that the computational capacity of the universal computer system would diverge to infinity as the universe was shrinking. You're attacking a straw man here because the issue isn't how we get the computational capacity of the computer to diverge to infinity. That was already shown in the paper. The issue is whether or not any of the millions of highly unlikely events leading up to that point could ever reasonably be expected to happen and whether or not if it did happen if it would constitute a resurrection. My opinion is that the events leading up to it could not happen, and if they could that it still would not constitute a resurrection.
Reply With Quote