Talk:Final anthropic principle

Ad-hominem criticism?

I plan to remove the following paragraph currently in the article, which states:

Critics also point out that according to Tipler, in the future at the end of time, everyone who has ever lived will be in a sense "resurrected" in a super computer that will contain, in digital form, all "souls.".

The reason I believe this paragraph to be irrelevant is because it appears to be purely ad hominem, and thus a logical fallacy if intended to rebut the topic under discussion. --Ryanaxp 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that proposition is related to utilizing either hyperspace or wormholes to transport intelligent life to another (possibly parallel) universe. I would suggest that the editors of this page read other books on quantum, string, M-theory, etc., physics to create better page. In fact, given that Tipler et al wrote beore the discovery of accelerating inflation, and thus did not take into consideration the effects that will have on the universe (closed, flat, open, doesn't matter). There are a number of flaws with FAP that are not covered in the article. Jim62sch 11:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Motivation?

Could we get som kind of motivation of the second part of the principle? Why will it never die out? --Apoc2400 16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. Why will entropy never die out? Jim62sch 12:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Justification?

In my opinion the FAP statement is too vague. It refers to "intelligent information-processing" but does not clearly state what is meant by that. The page then goes onto make sweeping conclusions from this FAP which jump from explanations of morality to comments on the stability of the proton? I have no problem with the theory as a theory, just its justification.

Problem with temperatures

"Occasionally, such proofs are based on the improbable assumption that the Universe remains at a constant temperature; despite evidence that the Universe is cooling (and thus heat engines operate with increasing efficiency)."

The above quote from the article would seem to conflict with another article, Dyson's eternal intelligence:

"Two recent observations have presented problems for Dyson's scenario. The first is that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than decelerating due to a positive cosmological constant, meaning some regions of the universe will become permanently separated from one another. The second is that there appears to be a lower bound for the temperature of a vacuum, meaning that the universe would not continue to cool indefinitely."

If there is a lower bound for the vacuum, then doesn't that imply the universe cannot cool indefinitely? And so heat engines would not operate with ever-increasing efficiency. --maru (talk) contribs 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

what's the argument for the FAP?

This article doesn't seem to say anything about why one would adopt the FAP. Is it supposed to be pure logic like the weak anthropic principle, or does it only follow from whatever calculations (partly physical, I'm assuming) suggest an omega point? --Allen 05:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have this exact same question, what reason is there at all to accept any part of this theory in any way? All I see on this page is the statement, sweeping conjectures on its potential consequences, and then criticism that it uses flawed logic. Presumably there is actually a REASON this theory exists. How can it use flawed logic if it doesn't contain any logic at all? What argument is made for this to be true?Eebster the Great (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources...

This article has none of them. Someone please add some or I'll nominate it for deletion. - MK ( ^talk/_contribs ) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But it does have one, doesn't it? Right in the first sentence. It's even viewable at books.google.com :-) --Wutzofant (✉✍) 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Entropy

This may not be relevant but doesn't entropy demand that eventually everything will end, including the ability to process information? 75.187.39.176 (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does. Such is the law, and the law is the law. But it doesn't mean that we can't have some fun before the party's over. A few hundred billions of years worth, maybe...Katana0182 (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, entropy diverging to infinity is precisely what is required--at least in part--in order to have literal immortality, as entropy is informational complexity. In other words, in order to have infinite hard drive space requires infinite entropy. And infinite memory space is required in order to have immortality, for the reason that any finite state will eventually undergo the Poincaré cycle per the Poincaré recurrence theorem. This is very easy to see by considering the simple example of two bits, which have only four possible states (i.e., 2^2): hence, once these four states have been exhausted, states will have to recur. What that means is that any finite state can only have a finite number of experiences (i.e., different states), because any finite state will eventually start to repeat.

For much more on this, see the Wikipedia article "Omega Point (Tipler)."--67.232.56.99 (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A Corollary

Mankind is not intelligent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.54.35 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! -- 110.49.251.174 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion?

I don't see why this article exists, it has only one primary source and nothing to suggest notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)