ASpidle@aol.com writes:
> Here's a question. Who is interested in immortality for all a la Frank
> Tipler?
Interested in discussing it, or achieving it (which, in Tipler's rather odd physics, is inevitable)?
I think the problem with universal immortalism (that is, sometime somewhere somebody will solve the problem of death and bring everybody back) is that it encourages a passive attitude - we can't do much about it now, we can only use this belief as a consolation when our loved ones die and it might even discourage from potentially lifesaving activities.
> You can finess the Omega Point uncertainty by simply saying that the
> massive computers of the future and the mining of data in the light
> cone and elsewhere are all the technology needed for this project.
> This plus the will to do it.
The problem with the OP is 1) we don't know if it is possible yet, there are some serious problems with the theory (the major one is of course that the universe appears to be open according to the latest studies), 2) the actual implementation of the OP isn't certain unless you buy Tiplers boundary conditions (which look terribly arbitrary to me), 3) the actual values and behavior expected from the OP appear to be very indeterminate - Tipler makes a case for a nice OP, but it is hardly watertight. Taking the OP as given is stupid, since it rests on so many assumptions.
As I see it, if we in the future learn enough to see that 1) is true, then I will view the implementation of the OP as a great project well worth putting whatever resources I possess behind (and likely many others will do so to). If 1) is false, too bad, we better find another way of giving the universe a happy ending.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y