Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

If the universe is entirely deterministic, which it may very well be, then you could not have not existed.

Dave,
- Let's go back to my simpler claim.
- Is it possible that "A" is incorrect?
- "A" being the hypothesis that each potential self has but one, finite, time of existence -- at most.

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Let's go back to my simpler claim.

Is that the one where you're a reincarnated trilobite?

- Is it possible that "A" is incorrect?

No. Not even if you try to play silly little semantic games with it.

All living things die.

- "A" being the hypothesis that each potential self has but one, finite, time of existence -- at most.

Are you hoping that nobody will notice the way you keep changing the wording?

Fail.


ETA: In any case, it's no more a hypothesis than heliocentricity or gravity. Mortality is a fact and your own hypothesis (not that it deserves to be referred to as such) is nothing more than a denial of observable reality without the faintest hint of evidence to support it.

 

[Akhenaten]

- "A" being the hypothesis that each potential self has but one, finite, time of existence -- at most.

This blatant and transparent attempt at subterfuge warrants a second response.

In your original claim you were positing "A" as some kind of scientific model but now your presenting a version of it that does nothing but reflect your own fantasy.

Science does not concern itself with what you're calling "potential selves". That's a Jabbanetic term that conveys no meaning in the real world.

Further, "time of existence" is not the same as "life". Why have you made this change?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Dave,
- Let's go back to my simpler claim.
- Is it possible that "A" is incorrect?
- "A" being the hypothesis that each potential self has but one, finite, time of existence -- at most.

Bantha poodoo.

 

[HighRiser]

Dave,
- Let's go back to my simpler claim.
- Is it possible that "A" is incorrect?
- "A" being the hypothesis that each potential self has but one, finite, time of existence -- at most.

What is a potential self?
Can you define infinity?
Why does that sentence need two hyphens and an at most?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Bob: 2+2=5.
Ted: No it doesn't.
Bob: Errr.... 2+2 has a value of five.
Ted: Nope.
Bob: If you maintain two sets of two, their overall value will be five.
Ted: Still not true.
Bob: If I have two and another two, would you agree that would yield some value of five?
Ted: Ahhhhh no.
Bob: Would you agree that two and another distinct two would be five?
Ted: No I would not Bob.
*Repeat for years, two seperate discussion boards, and thousands of posts.*

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Let's go back to my simpler claim.
- Is it possible that "A" is incorrect?
- "A" being the hypothesis that each potential self has but one, finite, time of existence -- at most.

I don't see how that's possible. In almost two years, you have not convinced me otherwise.

 

[Mojo]

- Let's go back to my simpler claim.
- Is it possible that "A" is incorrect?
- "A" being the hypothesis that each potential self has but one, finite, time of existence -- at most.

What evidence do you have that "A" is incorrect?

 

[Loss Leader]

Dave,
- Let's go back to my simpler claim.
- Is it possible that "A" is incorrect?
- "A" being the hypothesis that each potential self has but one, finite, time of existence -- at most.

A is so poorly stated that it cannot be right or wrong.

Each living person will die forever when his/her body dies.

There is no evidence to even support any other view, let alone prove it.

 

[Jabba]

I don't see how that's possible. In almost two years, you have not convinced me otherwise.

- OK.

 

[Jabba]

What evidence do you have that "A" is incorrect?

Mojo,
- If you accept that it's possible, I'll provide some evidence.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Mojo,
- If you accept that it's possible, I'll provide some evidence.

You tried this same dodge in the Divine Dinner Draperies threads...

 

[Agatha]

Mojo,
- If you accept that it's possible, I'll provide some evidence.

The more usual proceeding is that you provide the evidence (it being your burden of proof) in order to convince us that it's "possible".

If we all accepted that immortality is *possible, there would be no need for you to provide the evidence, as we'd all have had sufficient evidence in the past to convince us to accept that possibility.

Perhaps you could provide this evidence anyway, since you imply that you have it, and we've been waiting for two years or more for any evidence of immortality.

*Now, it might be that you are using possible to mean the same amount of credence I would give to say, gravity ceasing to function at 20.00 BST tonight. But if that were the case, surely you wouldn't be able to offer supporting evidence. What a puzzle.

 

[godless dave]

I agree with Agatha.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,
- If you accept that it's possible, I'll provide some evidence.

Evidence before conclusions, please.

 

[John Jones]

Mojo,
- If you accept that it's possible, I'll provide some evidence.

No you won't.

 

[HighRiser]

I agree with Agatha.

So do I.

No you won't.

But this is more likely.

 

[Tinyal]

- I disagree.
- But for the moment, at least, I'd like to find out if anyone here thinks that the claim that I cannot not exist is a possibility, and discuss that possibility with that person.

Jabba, although I have some sympathy with an older man - facing the (hopefully far in the future!) certainity of personal extinction - will sometimes go to any length to avoid confronting death, what you believe has no bearing on reality.

There is no evidence anything you are claiming is true, or even a realistic possibility. Long ago I felt the way you do (I was a believer in reincarnation) - but it was all based on fear, combined with reinforcement from the people I was associating with.

Once I grasped (by learning from others) how the mind works - how there is no way my mind could exist without my particular body and it's associated life experiences - it became quite clear there was no way my 'self' could exist without my exact mind.

We have no souls that are somehow inserted into our body - it's a process (just like it's been explained to you re: running is a process that legs do).

Please, please consider paying attention to the things you love in life - perhaps consider doing something worthwhile (perhaps you already have?) that will contribute to the lives of others and your loved ones. Perhaps write a book - if it's good enough, people could be reading about you hundreds of years from now!! (this is my current plan).

But stop trying to prove something exists just by thinking about it - every single shred of evidence proves you wrong, and it's just your stubbornness and fear which is making you think like you are currently.

Stop wasting your life with these silly beliefs!

 

[Akhenaten]

What evidence do you have that "A" is incorrect?

Mojo,
- If you accept that it's possible, I'll provide some evidence.

No you won't. You'll just resubmit this drivel:

- As long as you consider that a mere possibility – it doesn’t have to be a ”reasonable” possibility – it is surely more probable than 1/10⁸⁰!.

 

[Jabba]

Evidence before conclusions, please.

Mojo,

- Mostly, I think that anyone with the semblance of an open mind, cannot believe that "~A" is impossible. They can think that it is highly, even extremely, improbable -- but, not impossible. If everyone here thinks that "~A" is impossible, it's probably time for me to move on.

- Note, however, that if the probability of ~A is greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, the Bayesian formula would conclude that ~A is, in fact, correct. Consequently, if you think that the probability of ~A (albeit "impossible") is actually greater than 1/10⁸⁰!, you should figure that ~A is correct.