Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

[Jack by the hedge]

Why do you consider Eratosthenes' calculations which are based on the premise that the earth is a sphere, as proof of the earth's sphericity?
And why don't you consider my calculations of soul numbers, based on the premise that souls exist, as proof of the existence of souls?

You are conflating the observation that the inclination of the sun varies with lattitude with the calculation of Earth's radius from those observations. Eratosthenes calculations are not proof that the earth is a sphere. Rather it's the observation which is evidence that the earth is curved and not flat.

What is your evidence for souls?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I believe they weigh about the same as a meme.

Then it's a witch.

 

[dafydd]

My favourite soul number is Hard To Handle by Otis Redding.

 

[wollery]

Who needs reincarnation?

Just be like this thread - refuse to die.

 

[dafydd]

I suppose that I'll have to wait until my next reincarnation for an answer to the Kepler/Copernicus question.

 

[wogoga]

Why do you consider Eratosthenes' calculations which are based on the premise that the earth is a sphere, as proof of the earth's sphericity?

You are conflating the observation that the inclination of the sun varies with lattitude with the calculation of Earth's radius from those observations. Eratosthenes calculations are not proof that the earth is a sphere. Rather it's the observation which is evidence that the earth is curved and not flat.

"The observation that the inclination of the sun varies with latitude" obviously is "evidence that the earth is curved and not flat" from our perspective.

Yet you probably deny the fact that birth figures after demographic transition primarily depend on death figures (under not too anomalous conditions) or that an increase in male mortality leads to an increase in the male/female sex ratio. So, 2000 years ago, you simply could have put into question the fact that the sun (in Egypt) stands generally higher in the south than in the north.

You also could have argued that it is well known that light can deviate from a straight line, e.g. when entering or leaving water, or in the case of a mirage. The hypothesis that the sun is not always where we see it, might have been much easier to digest than the logical consequence that things fall upwards on an opposite side of the ground.

You even could have argued that the sun is not at an infinite distance, and therefore different angles are observed from a flat earth. So instead of deriving an Earth's circumference of around 40'000 km, you could have used the same data to calculate the distance of the sun from a flat earth:

On the summer solstice at noon, the sun was directly overhead around 800 km south of Alexandria. In Alexandria at the same time, the sun deviated from this zenith by an angle of around 7 degree. Because we have a right-angled triangle, we can easily calculate the sun's height to around 6500 km.​

I suppose that I'll have to wait until my next reincarnation for an answer to the Kepler/Copernicus question.

Let us assume, person of the past already knowing that the Earth is a sphere would have claimed that two locations exist, where a half a year is "day" and the other half is "night".

What could this person have done, if a skeptic, not being able to imagine that the Earth is a sphere and therefore dismissing the demonstration of the Earth's sphericity, would have requested a proof?

Nothing! The insight of the existence of the two poles depends on the insight that the Earth is a sphere.

Only within a theoretical framework such as pandualist evolution it becomes possible to demonstrate (or rather: to make plausible) special cases of reincarnation chains.

Cheers,
Wolfgang

Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits. ^WP

 

[dafydd]

"The observation that the inclination of the sun varies with latitude" obviously is "evidence that the earth is curved and not flat" from our perspective.

Yet you probably deny the fact that birth figures after demographic transition primarily depend on death figures (under not too anomalous conditions) or that an increase in male mortality leads to an increase in the male/female sex ratio. So, 2000 years ago, you simply could have put into question the fact that the sun (in Egypt) stands generally higher in the south than in the north.

You also could have argued that it is well known that light can deviate from a straight line, e.g. when entering or leaving water, or in the case of a mirage. The hypothesis that the sun is not always where we see it, might have been much easier to digest than the logical consequence that things fall upwards on an opposite side of the ground.

You even could have argued that the sun is not at an infinite distance, and therefore different angles are observed from a flat earth. So instead of deriving an Earth's circumference of around 40'000 km, you could have used the same data to calculate the distance of the sun from a flat earth:

On the summer solstice at noon, the sun was directly overhead around 800 km south of Alexandria. In Alexandria at the same time, the sun deviated from this zenith by an angle of around 7 degree. Because we have a right-angled triangle, we can easily calculate the sun's height to around 6500 km.​

Let us assume, person of the past already knowing that the Earth is a sphere would have claimed that two locations exist, where a half a year is "day" and the other half is "night".

What could this person have done, if a skeptic, not being able to imagine that the Earth is a sphere and therefore dismissing the demonstration of the Earth's sphericity, would have requested a proof?

Nothing! The insight of the existence of the two poles depends on the insight that the Earth is a sphere.

Only within a theoretical framework such as pandualist evolution it becomes possible to demonstrate (or rather: to make plausible) special cases of reincarnation chains.

Cheers,
Wolfgang

Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits. ^WP

I missed the bit about the proof of reincarnation yet again.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...Yet you probably deny the fact that birth figures after demographic transition primarily depend on death figures (under not too anomalous conditions)

I do not make a habit of denying facts. I reserve the right to question whether they are indeed facts after all, and also to question the logic of conclusions you may reach from them.

You even could have argued that the sun is not at an infinite distance, and therefore different angles are observed from a flat earth. So instead of deriving an Earth's circumference of around 40'000 km, you could have used the same data to calculate the distance of the sun from a flat earth:

On the summer solstice at noon, the sun was directly overhead around 800 km south of Alexandria. In Alexandria at the same time, the sun deviated from this zenith by an angle of around 7 degree. Because we have a right-angled triangle, we can easily calculate the sun's height to around 6500 km.​

That is one obvious possible conclusion from the original measurement. The solution to the dilemma would have been obvious to geometry-loving ancient Greeks: take more measurements. The further from the equator you measure the angle, the greater the anomaly in the calculated altitude of the sun above the supposed flat earth.

Your argument appears to be "you can't prove the earth is round and not flat, but you just accept it. Just accept reincarnation too". Well, yes I could, and no, I don't.

 

[dafydd]

I can't prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.

 

[Cuddles]

Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.

And as we all know, they laughed at Galileo and he turned out to be right. Except in this example where he was completely wrong. Therefore any insane idea that gets laughed at must also be right. Or wrong. In conclusion, they also laughed at Bozo the clown, therefore he must have been the reincarnation of Galileo.

I rest my case.

 

[dafydd]

They laughed at me when I said I wanted to be a comedian.They're not laughing now.

 

[Trent Wray]

Did you say Midichlorian ?

Yeah but I referenced the urban dictionary version

The basic unit of sex is the hardon.

The real oh-god particle.

Why do you consider Eratosthenes' calculations which are based on the premise that the earth is a sphere, as proof of the earth's sphericity?
And why don't you consider my calculations of soul numbers, based on the premise that souls exist, as proof of the existence of souls?

We're currently doing a census here in the US. Should those who have souls and those with reincarnated souls be included to help your theories out? And obviously anyone who claims they are Republican will be automatically counted as a "no soul" ...

 

[wollery]

I'm not sure about reincarnation, but this thread keeps getting resurrected.

 

[Belz...]

Eratosthenes started with the premise that the earth is a sphere, and estimated the earth's circumference.

The Earth is obviously a spheroid. That's not an assumption, it's an observation.

 

[wogoga]

Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. Galileo also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits. ^WP

And as we all know, they laughed at Galileo and he turned out to be right. Except in this example where he was completely wrong. Therefore any insane idea that gets laughed at must also be right. Or wrong. In conclusion, they also laughed at Bozo the clown, therefore he must have been the reincarnation of Galileo.

You miss the decisive point:

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), represented the scientific elite of his time. Nevertheless, he was completely unable (or only unwilling?) to judge Kepler's work (insofar as Kepler's work essentially surpassed the heliocentrism which for the first time had been proposed by Aristarchus of Samos, 310 BC – ca. 230 BC (see also).

An informative quote:

"Kepler's insistence on the reality of heliocentrism was unusual in the context of late sixteenth-century astronomy. … Copernicus's planetary theories were admired and studied by mathematical astronomers while his cosmological proposal of heliocentrism, as we have seen, was largely disregarded. Kepler's enthusiasm for Copernican astronomy defied this conventional division of astronomy."​

So, simply from an evolutionary point of view, I cannot expect more approval from the current scientific elite than Kepler received from his fellow scientists.

And if at all true, then it was not Galilei, but Copernicus and Kepler who were considered a "Bozo the clown" by the scientific elite of his time.

In any case, Galilei, "the Father of Modern Science" is the genuine representative of the "skeptic" movement:

• Fighting the real scientific progress (Kepler's replacement of the epicycle theory of the old Greeks by physical laws, panpsychism and the impact of souls in biological evolution in our days)
• Defending what already has become or is becoming mainstream among the mainstream elite (Copernicus' theory, continuous creation resp. evolution of life in our days)
• Quarreling with the most conservative (e.g. reactionary theologians), in order to present oneself as progressive

By the way, Galilei would not have published his most famous work Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, 1632, at least in the way he has, if Kepler (1571 – 1630) had been still alive.

Cheers, Wolfgang

What you believe depends much more on what you believed in the past than on what actually is true

 

[paximperium]

Has anyone seen any evidence of this "reincarnation" thing yet?

 

[PixyMisa]

You mean, apart from this thread?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...So, simply from an evolutionary point of view, I cannot expect more approval from the current scientific elite than Kepler received from his fellow scientists.

And if at all true, then it was not Galilei, but Copernicus and Kepler who were considered a "Bozo the clown" by the scientific elite of his time.

So what if Galileo rejected Kepler's heliocentric model? Who appointed Galileo spokesman for the "scientific elite"? You would expect people to require evidence to convince them that an alternative model of the solar system was better than the existing one, wouldn't you? And that's what happened, according to Wikipedia's entry on Kepler: Some scientists just ignored him, some raised objections to particular aspects of his argument, but others set out to test it against observations. No sign there of a unified "elite" closing ranks against a misunderstood genius. People put his ideas to the test, and they proved to be good predictors of real observations.

Kepler wasn't a genius because Galileo ignored him. He was a genius because his idea was proven right.

So, can we look forward to any proof of souls or reincarnation turning up any time soon?

 

[dafydd]

Has anyone seen any evidence of this "reincarnation" thing yet?

No.I think that the use of the word 'fact' in the OP was extremely misleading.

 

[Iconoclast08]

At what point do these souls ensoul? Conception?

If an embryo splits to form identical twins, is that a case of one soul bifurcating into 2 souls?

If 2 embryos fuse to form a chimera, is that a case of two souls becoming one soul?