In article , Nowhere1
@notspam.org says...
While Tipler is a superb mathematical physicist widely
known for discovering the Tipler Cylinder in General
Relativity and also famous for his celebrated book on the
Anthropic principle with fellow physicist Barrow,


What do others think of this book? I thought is was one of the best
books, I had read.

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 22:27:50 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

In article , Nowhere1
says...
While Tipler is a superb mathematical physicist widely
known for discovering the Tipler Cylinder in General
Relativity and also famous for his celebrated book on the
Anthropic principle with fellow physicist Barrow,


What do others think of this book? I thought is was one of the best
books, I had read.


[Hammond]
Tipler's books on religion are generally ridiculed and
totally unappreciated within the scientific community but
they remain popular among scientific amateurs and layman.
Frank Tipler is the flip side of Richard Dawkins. Both
of them are religiously naive but are commanding scientific
giants who are emotionally compelled to commit daredevil
showmanship because of it.
Naturally both of them have become academic spectacles
of immense public interest. This is because it is widely
understood that Demons always appear to assist Angels in
the case of every historic miracle, Judas being the most
famous example.
Apparently the delivery of the world's first scientific
proof of God (aka SPOG) is to be yet another such familiar
scenario.
Tipler is a powerful writer and a crack physicist. His
knowledge of religion is of course naive science fiction.
However, a brilliant physicist is bound to say something
useful sooner or later besides being at all times
fascinating to listen to.
There is much scientific fact and theory which is of
relevance to the actual (Hammond 2003) bona fide SPOG in
Tipler's 2 books and I have read them both cover to cover.
Frankly I wish he'd condescend to talk to me. I'm sure
he would be interested in what an ACTUAL scientific proof of
God looks like!



=========ORIGINAL TARGET POST===========
[Hammond]
The highly esteemed physics professor Frank J. Tipler is
a semi-psychotic religious crackpot. As incontrovertible
proof of that I submit the following statement made by him:

"For instance walking on water could be accomplished by
directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet
downward."
(F.J.Tipler 2007, Physics of Christianity, p.200)

While Tipler is a superb mathematical physicist widely
known for discovering the Tipler Cylinder in General
Relativity and also famous for his celebrated book on the
Anthropic principle with fellow physicist Barrow,
unfortunately he is so childishly ignorant of common
psychology he could no more tell you the metaphorical
significance of walking on water than he could tell you why
people argue over whether a tomato is a fruit or a
vegetable!
As a glaring result of this humongous lacunae in his
general education, he has had the temerity to go off half
cocked and attempt to "scientifically justify Christianity"
without having the slightest idea of what God actually is.
As PENANCE for this high handed folly I think that he
should help the unknown physicist HAMMOND publish his
legitimate and historic discovery of the world's first bona
fide scientific proof of God in a more prestigious journal.
However, Tipler's ego is even larger than his juvenile
religious theory, so that attempts by me to contact him
have repeatedly failed. while he makes millions publishing
religious pseudoscience, a suffering humanity is denied the
true scientific explanation of God.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Jun 2, 5:27*am, SolomonW wrote:
In article , Nowhere1
@notspam.org says...

* *While Tipler is a superb mathematical physicist widely
known for discovering the Tipler Cylinder in General
Relativity and also famous for his celebrated book on the
Anthropic principle with fellow physicist Barrow,

What do others think of this book? I thought is was one of the best
books, I had read.

A just-so story, also called the Ad hoc fallacy, is a term used in
academic anthropology, biological sciences, and social sciences. It
describes an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for
a cultural practice or a biological trait or behavior of humans or
other animals. The use of the term is an implicit criticism that
reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature
of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and
mythology (where they are known as etiological myths — see etiology).

The phrase was popularized by the publication in 1902 of Just So
Stories by Rudyard Kipling, which are fictional and deliberately
fanciful tales for children which pretend to explain animal
characteristics such as the spots of a leopard (e.g., "How the Leopard
Got His Spots").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories
http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/

the miracle of walking on water is sloughed off as the disciples being
disoriented, and seeing a man on the shore who they think is in the
middle of the lake with them. How does he reach the conclusion of
disorientation? Spartacus takes the verbiage "to the shore to which
they were heading" to mean the shore at Capernaum as opposed to being
the shore to which they were heading as a matter of course! Such is a
contrived reading by Spartacus: Furthermore, the storm on the sea is
enough reason for the lack of a precision landing, without any
"disorientation" required. And it also does not pass his eye that when
the disciples hit the shore, the "man" (whether Spartacus thinks it
was Jesus is not clear!) they saw would be on the same side of the
boat as the shore they hit!

http://www.tektonics.org/af/didjesusdo.html

http://community.livejournal.com/convert_me/810876.html

In article , Nowhere1
@notspam.org says...
Barrow and Tipler's book is 22 years old. Most if not
all of the material in this verbose 658 page book is now
well known to Physics if not frankly ancient history.

It is certainly a well known book that is because "The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle" is a first class book.

Note I have not read the Physics of Christianity, and from the reviews I
am not rushing to read it but that does not mean that his early book is
a bad book.

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:45:09 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

In article , Nowhere1
says...

[Hammond]
Barrow and Tipler's book is 22 years old. Most if not
all of the material in this verbose 658 page book is now
well known to Physics if not frankly ancient history.


[SolomonW]
It is certainly a well known book that is because "The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle" is a first class book.

Note I have not read the Physics of Christianity, and from the reviews I
am not rushing to read it but that does not mean that his early book is
a bad book.


[Hammond]
Never said it was bad Solo, I said it contains 500 pp of
unnecessary philawsoffhical fluff, which. it does!
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

In article , Nowhere1
@notspam.org says...
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:45:09 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

In article , Nowhere1
says...

[Hammond]
Barrow and Tipler's book is 22 years old. Most if not
all of the material in this verbose 658 page book is now
well known to Physics if not frankly ancient history.


[SolomonW]
It is certainly a well known book that is because "The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle" is a first class book.

Note I have not read the Physics of Christianity, and from the reviews I
am not rushing to read it but that does not mean that his early book is
a bad book.


[Hammond]
Never said it was bad Solo, I said it contains 500 pp of
unnecessary philawsoffhical fluff, which. it does!

Not every good is 100% good. I would recommend this book to anyone
without hesitation and there is absolutely nothing wrong with writing
speculative and philosophical works about science.


=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 00:08:39 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

In article , Nowhere1
says...
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 20:45:09 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

In article , Nowhere1
says...

[Hammond]
Barrow and Tipler's book is 22 years old. Most if not
all of the material in this verbose 658 page book is now
well known to Physics if not frankly ancient history.


[SolomonW]
It is certainly a well known book that is because "The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle" is a first class book.

Note I have not read the Physics of Christianity, and from the reviews I
am not rushing to read it but that does not mean that his early book is
a bad book.


[Hammond]
Never said it was bad Solo, I said it contains 500 pp of
unnecessary philawsoffhical fluff, which. it does!

Not every good is 100% good. I would recommend this book to anyone
without hesitation and there is absolutely nothing wrong with writing
speculative and philosophical works about science.


[Hammond]
I never said it was wrong.... I just said that garrulous
storytelling is a bore to graduate physicists such as me.
The real irony Sol, as I pointed out before, is that
Tipler later became hell bent on scientifically proving the
existence of God, which he has now infamously mangled in two
widely ridiculed books on Sci-Rel when in fact he NARROWLY
MISSED entry into the scientific proof of God when he wrote
TACP 22 years ago.
That's the poignant irony of Frank Tipler. Nevertheless,
he remains an potent force in Sci-Rel and is a person of
considerable interest.
=====================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
=====================================

On Jun 3, 4:54*am, SolomonW wrote:
In article 35f752b7-7e04-4198-89d9-35bf8c514045
@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...





On Jun 2, 5:27*am, SolomonW wrote:
In article , Nowhere1
@notspam.org says...

* *While Tipler is a superb mathematical physicist widely
known for discovering the Tipler Cylinder in General
Relativity and also famous for his celebrated book on the
Anthropic principle with fellow physicist Barrow,

What do others think of this book? I thought is was one of the best
books, I had read.

A just-so story, also called the Ad hoc fallacy, is a term used in
academic anthropology, biological sciences, and social sciences. It
describes an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for
a cultural practice or a biological trait or behavior of humans or
other animals. The use of the term is an implicit criticism that
reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature
of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and
mythology (where they are known as etiological myths =3F see etiology)..

The phrase was popularized by the publication in 1902 of Just So
Stories by Rudyard Kipling, which are fictional and deliberately
fanciful tales for children which pretend to explain animal
characteristics such as the spots of a leopard (e.g., "How the Leopard
Got His Spots").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories
http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/

the miracle of walking on water is sloughed off as the disciples being
disoriented, and seeing a man on the shore who they think is in the
middle of the lake with them. How does he reach the conclusion of
disorientation? Spartacus takes the verbiage "to the shore to which
they were heading" to mean the shore at Capernaum as opposed to being
the shore to which they were heading as a matter of course! Such is a
contrived reading by Spartacus: Furthermore, the storm on the sea is
enough reason for the lack of a precision landing, without any
"disorientation" required. And it also does not pass his eye that when
the disciples hit the shore, the "man" (whether Spartacus thinks it
was Jesus is not clear!) they saw would be on the same side of the
boat as the shore they hit!

http://www.tektonics.org/af/didjesusdo.html

http://community.livejournal.com/convert_me/810876.html

You are confusing the book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" *with
his later book. It was the book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" I
was referring too.

J. MOLDOVAN Saith:

I reject teleology (almost) out of hand as a scientific principle and
I go so far as to suggest that it is little more than an intellectual
trap with no way out. But if teleology is your game, this has to be
the best-argued case for it ever. Of course, in the highly charged and
politicised world of modern science it is but a small step from
"purpose" to "Creator" and I can already see from previous reviews
that some are just itching to make this jump. This is another reason,
(I fully admit that it is an ideological reason), why I would treat
the premise and conclusions of this book with great caution.

Reader From Aurora Saith:

This anthropic principle has been variously understood, but, in a
general sense, it pertains to the relationship between the
characteristics of the universe and our existence within the universe
- i.e. the universe seems remarkably tuned for human life. A strong
formulation of this principle would argue along the lines of "the
universe was intended/designed for our type of life". While a weaker
formulation would take the tact that these qualities are required in
order to produce observers such as ourselves. I applaud the author's
ambition in tackling this issue. They make a laudable effort to be
comprehensive and attempt to cover the pertinent historic,
philosophical and scientific ground.

Unfortunately, the book is too broad, as a result, at times it
devolves into a litany of disparate quotes and facts that leaves the
reader thinking; so what? Someone looking to get the gist of the types
of questions addressed in this text is better looking at on-line
sources such as Wikipedia (it has limits, but is a better entry
point). I wonder who is the intended audience for this text? Anyone
capable of following the discussion will likely find it superficial.
While someone new to this area might find it impenetrable.
Additionally, it is a 700-page pocketbook - the quotes are vanishingly
small!

Bibliophile Saith:

There are two basic objections to this notion: First, if chaotic
inflation is correct then there should be an infinite number of
universes out there, past, present and future, taking all possible
physical constants. In this case, there should be no wonder that a
certain percentage of these universes should happen to take
fundamental constants (such as the ratio of the strength of the
gravitational force versus that of the electromagnetic force) that are
favorable to life. The law of large numbers means that it would be
strange if NO universes should have life. A percentage of life-
supporting or even life-suffusing universes would be infinite if the
number of "baby" or "bubble" universes out there is indeed infinite.
If a large enough number of people buy the Powerball lottery, then
some people are bound to win sooner or later, no matter how small the
odds. Feeling that life is special because the physical constants in
our universe require "fine tuning" would be like saying that if you
are the Powerball winner, that's because the lottery was designed for
you and you only. And that's absurd. The jackpot is given to whoever
has the winning ticket, and not just you. And more importantly, the
lottery was never designed with giving away prizes as its primary goal
- it was designed to bring in revenue. Winners are just an inevitable
side-effect of the whole scheme. If you win, you're merely lucky. But
there is nothing special about you. Of course, a lottery must have
winners or else the lottery would not work. The difference between
lotteries and nature is that there is no reason to suppose that life
is necessary in order for universes to exist.

We can all feel life is special for other reasons, but one should not
argue that this is because nature is the way it is in order that life
exists without also asking why it doesn't exist in SO MANY other
places. And even if our universe is the only possible one (such a view
is no longer acceptable), it is still a matter of debate among
physicists as to whether fine tuning actually occurred.

The other objection is that this so-called "principle" is really just
an interpretation, and is in no way a scientific principle comparable
to the laws of mechanics or natural selection. Sir Martin Rees says
"anthropic reasoning" would be more appropriate. It does not command
general consent among scientists, and is thus more like a
philosophical school of thought than a genuine scientific principle.
To elevate anthropic ideas to the status of "principles" is
exaggerated and misleading.

In my view, scientists like Barrow who win the Templeton Prize are
disqualified thereby, somewhat like athletes who test positive for
banned drugs. I'm not suggesting that scientists cannot have religious
beliefs (and I was surprised to know that Andre Linde, a founder of
chaotic inflation, also does). I only insist that scientific research
should not be misused for religious purposes. Barrow can perhaps point
to distinguished scientists like Freeman Dyson and John Wheeler for
sympathy with his views. But I think this only shows that even
distinguished scientists can be in serious error. Nobel Laureate in
Physics Steven Weinberg, who thinks more clearly about these matters
than most, finds that the Weak Anthropic Principle is nothing more
than "mystical mumbo jumbo" (because it's just common sense to say
that if the physical constants had been any different we would not
have existed), and that the Strong Anthropic Principle is unbelievable
because our universe is probably not the only one.

galloamericanus Saith:

Barrow and Tipler incline to the Big Crunch. If Perlmutter et al are
correct, so that it is the case that the expansion of the universe is
accelerating and that there is not enough mass in the universe to
reverse the process, then the Big Crunch is in trouble. Also, the
other great visionary among modern physicists, Freeman Dyson, has been
known to disagree with Tipler.

This book was written 20 years ago and has its share of typos. Would
the authors please give us a thoroughly revised second edition?

http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosm.../dp/0192821474

In article f21e5caf-870d-4515-a34c-
,
says...
On Jun 3, 4:54*am, SolomonW wrote:
In article 35f752b7-7e04-4198-89d9-35bf8c514045
@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...





On Jun 2, 5:27*am, SolomonW wrote:
In article , Nowhere1
@notspam.org says...

* *While Tipler is a superb mathematical physicist widely
known for discovering the Tipler Cylinder in General
Relativity and also famous for his celebrated book on the
Anthropic principle with fellow physicist Barrow,

What do others think of this book? I thought is was one of the best
books, I had read.

A just-so story, also called the Ad hoc fallacy, is a term used in
academic anthropology, biological sciences, and social sciences. It
describes an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for
a cultural practice or a biological trait or behavior of humans or
other animals. The use of the term is an implicit criticism that
reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature
of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and
mythology (where they are known as etiological myths =3F see etiology).

The phrase was popularized by the publication in 1902 of Just So
Stories by Rudyard Kipling, which are fictional and deliberately
fanciful tales for children which pretend to explain animal
characteristics such as the spots of a leopard (e.g., "How the Leopard
Got His Spots").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories
http://www.boop.org/jan/justso/

the miracle of walking on water is sloughed off as the disciples being
disoriented, and seeing a man on the shore who they think is in the
middle of the lake with them. How does he reach the conclusion of
disorientation? Spartacus takes the verbiage "to the shore to which
they were heading" to mean the shore at Capernaum as opposed to being
the shore to which they were heading as a matter of course! Such is a
contrived reading by Spartacus: Furthermore, the storm on the sea is
enough reason for the lack of a precision landing, without any
"disorientation" required. And it also does not pass his eye that when
the disciples hit the shore, the "man" (whether Spartacus thinks it
was Jesus is not clear!) they saw would be on the same side of the
boat as the shore they hit!

http://www.tektonics.org/af/didjesusdo.html

http://community.livejournal.com/convert_me/810876.html

You are confusing the book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" *with
his later book. It was the book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" I
was referring too.

J. MOLDOVAN Saith:

I reject teleology (almost) out of hand as a scientific principle and
I go so far as to suggest that it is little more than an intellectual
trap with no way out. But if teleology is your game, this has to be
the best-argued case for it ever. Of course, in the highly charged and
politicised world of modern science it is but a small step from
"purpose" to "Creator" and I can already see from previous reviews
that some are just itching to make this jump. This is another reason,
(I fully admit that it is an ideological reason), why I would treat
the premise and conclusions of this book with great caution.



I am not sure that the book implies a purpose although the strong form
of their Anthropic principle could come close.



Reader From Aurora Saith:

This anthropic principle has been variously understood, but, in a
general sense, it pertains to the relationship between the
characteristics of the universe and our existence within the universe
- i.e. the universe seems remarkably tuned for human life. A strong
formulation of this principle would argue along the lines of "the
universe was intended/designed for our type of life". While a weaker
formulation would take the tact that these qualities are required in
order to produce observers such as ourselves. I applaud the author's
ambition in tackling this issue. They make a laudable effort to be
comprehensive and attempt to cover the pertinent historic,
philosophical and scientific ground.


This I would agree with.


Unfortunately, the book is too broad, as a result, at times it
devolves into a litany of disparate quotes and facts that leaves the
reader thinking; so what? Someone looking to get the gist of the types
of questions addressed in this text is better looking at on-line
sources such as Wikipedia (it has limits, but is a better entry
point).

The relevant section of the Wikipedia is based partly on this book, its
a case of the chicken and the egg.

I wonder who is the intended audience for this text? Anyone
capable of following the discussion will likely find it superficial.
While someone new to this area might find it impenetrable.
Additionally, it is a 700-page pocketbook - the quotes are vanishingly
small!

????


Bibliophile Saith:

There are two basic objections to this notion: First, if chaotic
inflation is correct then there should be an infinite number of
universes out there, past, present and future, taking all possible
physical constants. In this case, there should be no wonder that a
certain percentage of these universes should happen to take
fundamental constants (such as the ratio of the strength of the
gravitational force versus that of the electromagnetic force) that are
favorable to life. The law of large numbers means that it would be
strange if NO universes should have life. A percentage of life-
supporting or even life-suffusing universes would be infinite if the
number of "baby" or "bubble" universes out there is indeed infinite.
If a large enough number of people buy the Powerball lottery, then
some people are bound to win sooner or later, no matter how small the
odds. Feeling that life is special because the physical constants in
our universe require "fine tuning" would be like saying that if you
are the Powerball winner, that's because the lottery was designed for
you and you only. And that's absurd. The jackpot is given to whoever
has the winning ticket, and not just you. And more importantly, the
lottery was never designed with giving away prizes as its primary goal
- it was designed to bring in revenue. Winners are just an inevitable
side-effect of the whole scheme. If you win, you're merely lucky. But
there is nothing special about you. Of course, a lottery must have
winners or else the lottery would not work. The difference between
lotteries and nature is that there is no reason to suppose that life
is necessary in order for universes to exist.

We can all feel life is special for other reasons, but one should not
argue that this is because nature is the way it is in order that life
exists without also asking why it doesn't exist in SO MANY other
places. And even if our universe is the only possible one (such a view
is no longer acceptable), it is still a matter of debate among
physicists as to whether fine tuning actually occurred.


A similar case might be argued that to the winner of a lottery, the odds
of him winning are so small that there must be some reason beside luck
that he won.

The other objection is that this so-called "principle" is really just
an interpretation, and is in no way a scientific principle comparable
to the laws of mechanics or natural selection. Sir Martin Rees says
"anthropic reasoning" would be more appropriate. It does not command
general consent among scientists, and is thus more like a
philosophical school of thought than a genuine scientific principle.
To elevate anthropic ideas to the status of "principles" is
exaggerated and misleading.


I would not agree with that. I think the case for the weak form of the
principle is extremely strong. I do not know about the strong.

In my view, scientists like Barrow who win the Templeton Prize are
disqualified thereby, somewhat like athletes who test positive for
banned drugs. I'm not suggesting that scientists cannot have religious
beliefs (and I was surprised to know that Andre Linde, a founder of
chaotic inflation, also does). I only insist that scientific research
should not be misused for religious purposes. Barrow can perhaps point
to distinguished scientists like Freeman Dyson and John Wheeler for
sympathy with his views. But I think this only shows that even
distinguished scientists can be in serious error. Nobel Laureate in
Physics Steven Weinberg, who thinks more clearly about these matters
than most, finds that the Weak Anthropic Principle is nothing more
than "mystical mumbo jumbo" (because it's just common sense to say
that if the physical constants had been any different we would not
have existed),

Much that is common sense is wrong.

and that the Strong Anthropic Principle is unbelievable
because our universe is probably not the only one.


I I find unsatisfying the argument for multi-universe. It would imply a
universe far bigger then anything we can imagine.

galloamericanus Saith:

Barrow and Tipler incline to the Big Crunch. If Perlmutter et al are
correct, so that it is the case that the expansion of the universe is
accelerating and that there is not enough mass in the universe to
reverse the process, then the Big Crunch is in trouble. Also, the
other great visionary among modern physicists, Freeman Dyson, has been
known to disagree with Tipler.

This book was written 20 years ago and has its share of typos. Would
the authors please give us a thoroughly revised second edition?

http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosm.../dp/0192821474


Considering the reviews on Tripper current book, I suspect that this
second edition will not be better.