Comments on: Peer-Reviewed Stealth ID Classic : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987)

By: The Quantum Enigma of Consciousness and the Identity of the Designer | Uncommon Descent

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:16:57 +0000

[...] the thread Peer Reviewed Stealth ID Classic I point out Tipler’s comment: I discovered this the hard way when I published my book The [...]

By: World Renowned Cosmologist Frank Tipler on Sci Phi Show! | Uncommon Descent

World Renowned Cosmologist Frank Tipler on Sci Phi Show! | Uncommon Descent — Thu, 31 May 2007 07:15:58 +0000

[...] Tipler is author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987), one of the 3 ID books which began the modern ID movement. [...]

By: Who are the (multiple) designers? James Shapiro offers some compelling answers | Uncommon Descent

Sat, 26 May 2007 23:44:40 +0000

[...] In the case of engineered products we often might think of designers (plural) versus a designer (singular). It may be that some Ultimate Intelligence created the universe and (by way of extension) engineers. But even for those of us who accept that there is an Ultimate Intelligence, it is not customary to say that God made automobiles and airplanes and genetically engineered food. [...]

By: If the universe is a computer, who is the computer maker? | Uncommon Descent

Wed, 23 May 2007 16:26:11 +0000

[...] Frank Tipler is a student of Wheeler. Tipler and co-author Barrow explicitly extend Wheeler’s hypothesis in Peer-Reviewed Stealth ID Classic : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987). Instead Tipler and Barrow suggest some sort of Ultimate Observer in the distant future. They call their idea the Final Antrhopic Principle (FAP). The Ultimate Observer they call the Omega Point (I refer to it as Omega for short). They argue the properties of Omega must be that it is eternal, all-powerful, all knowing, non-material and intelligent. These properties are straight forward deductions of physical law…. [...]

By: “there is a strangeness in the air”, a quasi ID-friendly essay in Dennett and Hofstadter’s 1981 book on intelligence | Uncommon Descent

Wed, 23 May 2007 15:31:16 +0000

[...] [For the reader’s benefit, the science of the universal wave function and God are described here: Peer-Reviewed Stealth ID Classic : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987).] [...]

By: Many worlds, one God? Shift happens | Uncommon Descent

Many worlds, one God? Shift happens | Uncommon Descent — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:55:58 +0000

[...] In the Peer-Reviewed Stealth ID Classic : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987), John Barrow and Frank Tipler argue the case for MWI. Several presumed the book was generally unfriendly to ID. For example see Barrow and Tipler on the Anthropic Principle vs. Divine Design by William Lane Craig. I highly respect Craig, but I will argue that Barrow and Tipler are more friendly to ID than they have been given credit for. [...]

By: [quote mine] Richard Dawkins : ” the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis” | Uncommon Descent

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:36:01 +0000

[...] I have said argued several times I think science can legitimately hypothesize God being a causal agent of nature. See Peer Reviewed Stealth ID Classic: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987) for a discussion of the God hypothesis based purely on physics with no appeal to philosophy or theology whatsoever. [...]

By: scordova

scordova — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:37:51 +0000

John Cramer’s website at University of Washington:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/

By: scordova

scordova — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:26:29 +0000

danb wrote: "Why arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t humans capable of collapsing all of the universe that we can observe?"

Technically speaking, we've collapsed the parts we have observed. We haven't observed the whole universe, that would entail measurement of every atom. Saying you see a star, doesn't imply that you've measured every quantum system in the star.

danb wrote: "What experiment is this? Please do not keep us in suspense."

Rregarding the experiment:
Professor John Cramer on Quantum Mechanics
Professor John Cramer's website:
"A 50 minute discussion of quantum paradoxes and interpretations, with emphasis on new data (The Afshar Experiment) that appears to falsify the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds Interpretations, but is consistent with the Transactional Interpretation. "

Cramer on QM

I should note, although Cramer drops the need for an observer proximally, it does not negate the regress problem which leads to a non-material mind somewhere in the pipeline. The question of a regress to some ultimate cause remains as well as a regress to a non-material cause, even if the copenhagen interpretation has become antiquated.

By: danb

danb — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:19:21 +0000

Sal asks: “If I may ask, do you think physics precludes the existence of the Ultimate Observer? ”

Of course, not. I’m just stating that physics does not require an Ultimate Observer. As far as I know, no one has proven or disproven God, or can. I’d be very suspect of any such proof anyway. There are many snake oil peddlers that just want to tell you what you want to hear. I wouldn’t suggest looking for confirmation of your faith in proofs. It kind of defeats the point of faith, doesn’t it?

-Danb