• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proof of Immortality, VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
caveman1917 said:
Quantum Mechanics.
Click to expand...

A penny is too big for QM to matter.

Besides, current-day laws of physics aren't evidence for whether the universe is or isn't deterministic, because they can always be an approximation to an underlying theory which can be either probabilistic or deterministic.
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with this stuff?
 
jt512 said:
A penny is too big for QM to matter.
Click to expand...

That doesn't stop it from being probabilistic. A probability of 99.9999% is still a probability. Besides, if the system is chaotic (which it probably is) then thermal or even quantum probabilistic factors may matter.

Where do you come up with this stuff?
Click to expand...

What do you mean?
 
caveman1917 said:
That doesn't stop it from being probabilistic. A probability of 99.9999% is still a probability.
Click to expand...

It's a deterministic system. It's probability of landing the side up that Newton's Laws dictate is 100%.

Besides, if the system is chaotic (which it probably is) then thermal or even quantum probabilistic factors may matter.
Click to expand...

Even if the system is chaotic, it is still deterministic, and QM doesn't enter the picture.
 
caveman1917 said:
Quantum Mechanics. Besides, current-day laws of physics aren't evidence for whether the universe is or isn't deterministic, because they can always be an approximation to an underlying theory which can be either probabilistic or deterministic.
Click to expand...

At the scales being discussed, the quantum effects cancel out.
 
OMG! Someone created an internet platform that creates Jabba's Effective Debate in real time - map and everything.

Jabba, you should play this thread out over there and find out just what the "audience" thinks of your arguments, branch by insane branch.
 
jt512 said:
It's a deterministic system. It's probability of landing the side up that Newton's Laws dictate is 100%.
Click to expand...

I suppose you don't have any evidence for that assertion? Mainstream physics would disagree with you, for one, since the correspondence principle states that Newton's Laws are a statistical approximation of a quantum system when the parameters become large. It's simply false that there is some cut-off point beyond which physical systems are deterministic and 100% determined by Newton's Laws, Newton's Laws are an approximation which becomes more accurate as the system becomes larger but it's always just a statistical approximation, it's never 100%.

Which should also answer one part of your "Where do you come up with this stuff?" as an example of how a deterministic theory can be an approximation to an underlying probabilistic theory. It's also possible the other way around, where a probabilistic theory can be an approximation to an underlying deterministic theory. Which should be enough for you to be able to conclude that you can't determine whether the universe is or isn't deterministic by considering whether a particular theory of physics is or isn't deterministic, all you can say is that that particular theory is/isn't deterministic.

Even if the system is chaotic, it is still deterministic, and QM doesn't enter the picture.
Click to expand...

And some evidence for this one?
 
What does any of this have to do with Jabba being immortal?

Why do you insist on nannying this thread with your anti-skeptic pedantics?
 
Jabba said:
- Just trying to get my words right.
-Now, what word/term/phrase can I use to indicate the kind of you/self/process that would not be reproduced by a perfect copy of your brain?
Click to expand...

godless dave said:
It would be reproduced. Everything would be reproduced. Every aspect of the original would have a corresponding aspect in the copy.
Click to expand...
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
 
Jabba said:
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
Click to expand...

Nothing would not be you in materialism. The duplicate would self identity as Jabba, just as you self identify as Jabba.
 
Jabba said:
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
Click to expand...


You've got one: "soul". However, if you prefer, you can call it a "flapdoodle".

It is something that doesn't exist under materialism, so cannot be factored into any calculation of likelihood under materialism. Whether or not it is considered immortal is irrelevant to this.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
Click to expand...

Jabba... what are you doing?

You're begging and grovelling for the people who are disagreeing with you to hand you an argument for you to win the debate with.

What's it like in your head? How does reality work in your universe?

I've never seen anyone make up a debate in their head and lose it.
 
Jabba said:
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
Click to expand...

Oh, and: here you are again insisting that thing and process are the same. They are not. What you want is for there to be a thing (called a soul) which does not exist in materialism. Under materialism, the self is a process in a functioning brain. Brain stops functioning, self stops as well. Reincarnationist believe there is a thing (called a soul) that exists as a separate entity from the brain. This does not exist in materialism.

I know you will ignore this post, but you really shouldn’t.
 
Mojo said:
You've got one: "soul". However, if you prefer, you can call it a "flapdoodle".

It is something that doesn't exist under materialism, so cannot be factored into any calculation of likelihood under materialism. Whether or not it is considered immortal is irrelevant to this.
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- Do you think that you experience the process I'm alluding to, but believe (are sure) that it's mortal?
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Do you think that you experience the process I'm alluding to, but believe (are sure) that it's mortal?
Click to expand...

The process you are alluding to is a process in the brain. We all experience it. And we are all aware that when the brain stops functioning the process will will stop. You, on the other hand, insist that there exists a separate thing that is not a process in your brain. None of us, not even Godless Dave, believe that thing exists.
 
Jabba said:
- What can I call the kind of thing/process that would not be me in my copy? I could call it "soul" with the stipulation that by definition, it may not be immortal.
- Whatever, it's what will come back to life according to reincarnationists, but not according to you. I need a word for that concept.
Click to expand...

The whole thing would not be you. The head would not be your head. The nose would not be your nose. The skin would not be your skin. The brain would not be your brain.
 
Jabba said:
Mojo,
- Do you think that you experience the process I'm alluding to, but believe (are sure) that it's mortal?
Click to expand...


No, because the flapdoodle you are alluding to is not a process, but a thing. Under materialism, flapdoodles do not exist. Brain processes do exist, and will cease when the brain ceases to function.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom