Would anybody dare ask a question, on this forum, about (gulp) life after death?

[primummobile]

Still hasn't shown how it would be infinite.

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.

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.

[Hlafordlaes]

(gulp) ... the possibility, or impossibility, that consciousness could carry on, somehow, after death of the body and brain...

That's actually a pretty horrible prospect for those with Alzheimer's or dementia, perhaps also those with severe psychological conditions, if you think about it. Too, what about the prolonged sensory deprivation for a disembodied mind? Madness would follow.

At any rate, anesthesia showed me when my brain is off, I lose my internal clock and all sense of "being" during the time under. If the brain is off, I am gone.

just wondering, since I am getting quite old

I'm pretty happy to be recycled stardust, sharing atoms over my lifetime with beings, and stars, who have gone before. Someday part of one of us many be the tip of the finger of a descendant on another world altogether. Better yet, part of its brain.

Barring the fancy tech discussed in the thread, the only possibility that any semblance of "me-ness" might persist lies in the entirely unsubstantiated speculation that some sort of quantum entanglement ties the particles that are "me" together even after physical dispersal, and that that can sustain my "operations." Nah, don't think so.

[Noclevername]

Too, what about the prolonged sensory deprivation for a disembodied mind? Madness would follow.

Assuming that that's what a disembodied mind actually experiences. If there were some unknown mechanism for preserving the informational patterns found in the brain without a brain, there might also be some mechanism for stimulating the sensory portions of that pattern.

[Solfe]

Still hasn't shown how it would be infinite.

Well, I know they are still squashing bugs. I didn't want to mess up the DB with the entire thing. : )

(When are we going to get real smilies again?)

[Noclevername]

(When are we going to get real smilies again?)

In the last moment at the end of the universe there will be infinite smilies.

[DoggerDan]

If the program is calculating all digits of pi it won't produce any Shakespeare sonnets.

Yet if pi is truly random, all of Shakespeare's sonnets are in there, somewhere.

[Chuck]

Every CD and DVD ever published is also probably somewhere in the binary expansion of pi, so all copyright holders are claiming strings of bit that already existed and aren't original works.

[Noclevername]

Even if a finite-universe-sized computer with infinite time did exist, it still wouldn't have infinite memory storage, so it couldn't retain even one of the universe-sized simulations it came up with and still have room for its own operating system.

[potoole]

Stated by Hlafordlaes :
"Too, what about the prolonged sensory deprivation for a disembodied mind? Madness would follow."

When we dream, we walk, we talk, we observe, we experience beautiful as well as ugly occurances. We see faces of humans who we have never met in our lives. We speak and communicate with thos people. We also visit with old friends, some of whom are long dead. Since our bodies are immoble (asleep, and unmoving), aren't our minds essentially disembodied at the time?

[potoole]

Stated by Hlafordlaes :
"I'm pretty happy to be recycled stardust, sharing atoms over my lifetime with beings, and stars, who have gone before. Someday part of one of us many be the tip of the finger of a descendant on another world altogether. Better yet, part of its brain."

Not me. The idea that a few of the atoms of my body, and a couple of atoms that once were part of my conscience brain will end up as atoms that will make up an infinitesimal part of a snail's shell, or a rock, or the tip of a tree's leaf. Well, that isn't very satisfying. I'm sure you are right, but its sad. Very sad that life should have no more meaning than ending up as 'stardust'.

[Noclevername]

Very sad that life should have no more meaning than ending up as 'stardust'.

The meaning in life lies in your effect on the world around you. Helping others or just making people happy, or contributing in some way to making things better, even a little bit.

[primummobile]

Even if a finite-universe-sized computer with infinite time did exist, it still wouldn't have infinite memory storage, so it couldn't retain even one of the universe-sized simulations it came up with and still have room for its own operating system.

I don't argue that. That's why I said it would simulate each moment an infinite number of times, but there wouldn't be any continuity other than the illusion of continuity created by the memories of each quantum state. The simulations probably couldn't tell the difference, but to an outside observer it would appear to just be a jumbled-up mess.

[Noclevername]

I don't argue that. That's why I said it would simulate each moment an infinite number of times, but there wouldn't be any continuity other than the illusion of continuity created by the memories of each quantum state. The simulations probably couldn't tell the difference, but to an outside observer it would appear to just be a jumbled-up mess.

Ah, got it. So it's basically just a huge random number generator, that just coincidentally sometimes gets patterns that happen to map to the memories of someone who once lived.

[primummobile]

Ah, got it. So it's basically just a huge random number generator, that just coincidentally sometimes gets patterns that happen to map to the memories of someone who once lived.

Yes. At least, that's my take on it.

[Noclevername]

Yes. At least, that's my take on it.

But what about the dynamic and interactive aspects of the brain's functions? If all it's duplicating are memory patterns and quantum states, is the duplicate just a static "imprint" of a mind or is there really conscious awareness? It sounds to me like drawing a picture of every atom in your kidney and expecting the drawing to work like a kidney.

[primummobile]

But what about the dynamic and interactive aspects of the brain's functions? If all it's duplicating are memory patterns and quantum states, is the duplicate just a static "imprint" of a mind or is there really conscious awareness? It sounds to me like drawing a picture of every atom in your kidney and expecting the drawing to work like a kidney.

I don't really know. It makes me a little dizzy when I really start thinking about what it would be like, or even if you could call it consciousness. I think it would be more like a static imprint. Aristotle said that the creator of the universe was a being outside of time who was caught in an eternal moment of contemplation of himself and was completely unaware of anything outside of himself. That's what I always think of when I read anything about Tipler's Omega Point theories.

[HenrikOlsen]

Ah, got it. So it's basically just a huge random number generator, that just coincidentally sometimes gets patterns that happen to map to the memories of someone who once lived.

Yep, though how that could be considered a resurrection by any moderately sane definition of the word eludes me.
Sounds like an attempt at introducing the rapture under the guise of technobabble.

[primummobile]

Yep, though how that could be considered a resurrection by any moderately sane definition of the word eludes me.
Sounds like an attempt at introducing the rapture under the guise of technobabble.

You're not too far off. Try reading one of his more recent books.

[Romanus]

RE OP:
"Hey, I ordered a cheeseburger!"

Apologies to Gary Larson...

[potoole]

RE OP:
"Hey, I ordered a cheeseburger!"

Apologies to Gary Larson...

"Sombody bring me a cheesburger !"
Apologies to 'Deep Purple'.

[Noclevername]

"Cheeseburger! Cheeseburger! Cheeseburger!"

Apologies to John Belushi.

[James Redford]

(gulp) I'm almost ashamed to bring up the subject. You know, the possibility, or impossibility, that consciousness could carry on, somehow, after death of the body and brain. I know most scientists abhor the subject, because it gets too close to 'religion'. I'm not a religious person, but just wondering, since I am getting quite old, if there coud be a scientific possibility.

I once read a book entitled "The Physics Of Immortality" written by a Physicist, in which he gave a difficut to understand idea of how once concious critters could be brought back into conciousness at the end of time.

Thank you:o

Hi, Potoole. For more on the subject of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Aug. 6, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708,

Below is the abstract to my above article:

""
ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which itself is also required by the known physical laws. With infinite computational resources, the dead can be resurrected--never to die again--via perfect computer emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. The Omega Point is a different aspect of the Big Bang cosmological singularity--the first cause--and the Omega Point has all the haecceities claimed for God in the traditional religions.

From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology.
""

[HenrikOlsen]

With infinite computational resources, the dead can be resurrected--never to die again--via perfect computer emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang.

As can Donald Duck and the entire UU faculty.
So what?

How is emulating me together with everything else in potential existence resurrection?

[primummobile]

As can Donald Duck and the entire UU faculty.
So what?

How is emulating me together with everything else in potential existence resurrection?

That was the OP's question in the original post of this thread, and it got sidetracked by questions of how the computer would work.

[James Redford]

Hi, Potoole. For more on the subject of Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology, see my following article:

James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Aug. 6, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708,

Below is the abstract to my above article:

""
ABSTRACT: Analysis is given of the Omega Point cosmology, an extensively peer-reviewed proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) published in leading physics journals by professor of physics and mathematics Frank J. Tipler, which demonstrates that in order for the known laws of physics to be mutually consistent, the universe must diverge to infinite computational power as it collapses into a final cosmological singularity, termed the Omega Point. The theorem is an intrinsic component of the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) describing and unifying all the forces in physics, of which itself is also required by the known physical laws. With infinite computational resources, the dead can be resurrected--never to die again--via perfect computer emulation of the multiverse from its start at the Big Bang. Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. The Omega Point is a different aspect of the Big Bang cosmological singularity--the first cause--and the Omega Point has all the haecceities claimed for God in the traditional religions.

From this analysis, conclusions are drawn regarding the social, ethical, economic and political implications of the Omega Point cosmology.
""

As can Donald Duck and the entire UU faculty.
So what?

How is emulating me together with everything else in potential existence resurrection?

Hi, HenrikOlsen.

Only the actual multiverse gets emulated during the multiversal resurrection of the dead, so only those things that did actually exist will be brought back. The multiverse is not the powerset of this universe (in terms of bit complexity), but rather a proper subset of that powerset. Only those universes which are consistent with beginning at an initial singularity and ending at a final Omega Point singularity actually exist. So not all bit-permutations exist (almost all of which would just be nonsense static).

For more on this, see Sec. 3.3: "The Universal Resurrection of the Dead" of my aforecited article.

[slang]

James Redford, please do not use the Cosmoquest forum for promoting your article, as a quick google shows you're doing in a lot of places. Welcome to the forum, it might be a good idea to review our rules as linked below.

[James Redford]

Robert Redford, please do not use the Cosmoquest forum for promoting your article, as a quick google shows you're doing in a lot of places. Welcome to the forum, it might be a good idea to review our rules as linked below.

Hi, Slang. Yes, I looked at the forum's rules and posting links to my article is perfectly acceptable within the rules. That is called the Scholarly Method.

By the way, Slang, my name is not Robert Redford, but rather James Redford. Robert Redford is my cousin.

[slang]

Hi, Slang. Yes, I looked at the forum's rules

Apparently you did not look closely enough. Arguing moderation in-thread is not allowed, please don't do that again. If you have an issue with a post, use the report icon, PM a moderator, or open a thread in the feedback forum (or use an existing one).

By the way, Slang, my name is not Robert Redford, but rather James Redford. Robert Redford is my cousin.

I apologize to both you and your cousin for getting your name wrong, I have no idea where that came from. (Another mod noticed it too and fixed my post.)

[James Redford]

Apparently you did not look closely enough. Arguing moderation in-thread is not allowed, please don't do that again. If you have an issue with a post, use the report icon, PM a moderator, or open a thread in the feedback forum (or use an existing one).

Then according to you in your above statement, you are violating the forum's rules.

I apologize to both you and your cousin for getting your name wrong, I have no idea where that came from. (Another mod noticed it too and fixed my post.)

You should apologize to me for how you have treated me here, but not for that mistake on your part.

[PetersCreek]

James Redford,

As slang mentioned, arguing/questioning/discussing moderation in-thread is a violation of our rules. It's also a distracting, off-topic hijack of the thread. If you wish to take exception to a moderator's action, please use the report feature, private message, or start a thread in the feedback forum...but no more argument in-thread.