Talk:Final anthropic principle

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ad-hominem criticism?

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

message: :"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)
thread_title:  Problem with temperatures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  what's the argument for the FAP? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources... 

message: Mankind is not intelligent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.54.35 (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha! -- 110.49.251.174 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Corollary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion?