Belief in the Afterlife

[Akhenaten]

In the computational model we're not moving data from one computer to another, our reality including us, is part of a single computer that is processing our data set.

Which means, as has been pointed out to you several times already, that what you're talking about isn't an afterlife in any way, shape or form.

 

[ufology]

Innumerable posters, the latest being RobRoy, have demonstrated that trying to explain to you why you're wrong is a waste of time.

That's only because nobody has actually explained it. Mere proclamations, hand waving, and foot stomping don't count.

 

[Akhenaten]

The rules do make sense, you're just misunderstanding what you're quoting.

Then you can explain how I'm sure. Please do.

Why have you embarked on this campaign to derail one thread after another?

 

[Stray Cat]

That's only because nobody has actually explained it. Mere proclamations, hand waving, and foot stomping don't count.

Then stop proclaiming no one has explained it to you and stop foot stomping by putting those who have explained it to you on ignore because you didn't like what they said.

 

[AdMan]

Mere proclamations, hand waving, and foot stomping don't count.

Oh, the irony!

 

[Stray Cat]

In the computational model we're not moving data from one computer to another, our reality including us, is part of a single computer that is processing our data set.

So where does "death" come into this?

At the moment all you're suggesting is that "death" is moving a computer from one place to another... Does my lap top suffer another death every time I take it somewhere else?

 

[RobRoy]

That's only because nobody has actually explained it. Mere proclamations, hand waving, and foot stomping don't count.

Seriously? Now you're insulting me? I provided several, very careful explanations along with solid examples as to how your use of the terms was, and remains, incorrect. I didn't realize that I had been less than civil, and up until a few posts ago, I had even enjoyed the discussion.

Now, you suggest that I was merely throwing a tantrum. Your arrogance is this statement is only matched by your ignorance in previous posts.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In the computational model we're not moving data from one computer to another, our reality including us, is part of a single computer that is processing our data set.

So, then, where is the afterlife?

 

[ufology]

Seriously? Now you're insulting me? I provided several, very careful explanations along with solid examples as to how your use of the terms was, and remains, incorrect. I didn't realize that I had been less than civil, and up until a few posts ago, I had even enjoyed the discussion.

Now, you suggest that I was merely throwing a tantrum. Your arrogance is this statement is only matched by your ignorance in previous posts.

No. I was responding to Adman who's been giving me a hard time ever since I arrived here. You and I are still having a civil discussion. You haven't thrown any tantrums, however you have made mere proclamations and your comment on me simply not understanding is a mere hand wave. I hope tantrums aren't next.

 

[ufology]

So, then, where is the afterlife?

Perhaps the best question yet. In the computational model there really isn't an afterlife. It's only from the filtered perspectives of those in one reality or another who are unaware of the true nature of their existence that someone or themself has seemingly died and gone someplace else.

 

[Stray Cat]

Perhaps the best question yet. In the computational model there really isn't an afterlife. It's only from the filtered perspectives of those in one reality or another who are unaware of the true nature of their existence that someone or themself has seemingly died and gone someplace else.

Right, so there's no "death" and therefore there's no "afterlife".

Why is this sillyness relevant to a thread about life after death?

 

[Akhenaten]

So, then, where is the afterlife?

Perhaps the best question yet.

Says the bloke who, if he didn't have half the bloody forum on his ignore list, would have realised that the question had already been asked pages ago.

In the computational model there really isn't an afterlife.

Kind of makes it a bit off-topic then, doesn't it?

 

[Stray Cat]

however you have made mere proclamations and your comment on me simply not understanding is a mere hand wave.

Now we can add "mere proclamations" to the list of things you don't understand. The evidence supporting RobRoy's statement about you not understanding is quiet overtly displayed in your countless posts where you show very clearly that you don't understand. That evidence raises RobRoy's post well above the "mere proclamations" threshold.

I hope tantrums aren't next.

I guess one tantrumee a day is enough.

 

[RobRoy]

You haven't thrown any tantrums, however you have made mere proclamations and your comment on me simply not understanding is a mere hand wave. I hope tantrums aren't next.

Your lies, like your insults, don't impress me.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

In the computational model there really isn't an afterlife.

So it's all actually completely irrelevant.

 

[RobRoy]

So it's all actually completely irrelevant.

Only in the way ufology is trying to portray it, which is as science fiction. The technical aspects of the concept have very interesting implications. They are not, however, an actual afterlife.

 

[dafydd]

Why is this sillyness relevant to a thread about life after death?

I've wondering about that too.

 

[ufology]

So it's all actually completely irrelevant.

It's not completely irellevant. It's relevant to how we perceive the issue of an afterlife from within our present reality. Form our unknowing perspective, it would seem exactly the same as an afterlife.

 

[dafydd]

It's not completely irellevant. It's relevant to how we perceive the issue of an afterlife from within our present reality. Form our unknowing perspective, it would seem exactly the same as an afterlife.

Reality is utterly devoid of proof of an afterlife, unless you count the ramblings of so-called clairvoyants and mediums as proof. Can we get back to the subject of the thread now please?

 

[ufology]

Only in the way ufology is trying to portray it, which is as science fiction. The technical aspects of the concept have very interesting implications. They are not, however, an actual afterlife.

You might be correct, but only if you make the ideas of life after death and an afterlife exactly the same concept. In the computational model, technically we would never die until the construct is dissolved, which is analagous to the idea of an immortal "soul", which is the basis for most afterlife beliefs. This is analagous to saying, "I had a life before I came to the JREF". But strictly speaking, life after death is logically impossible. If as you point out in the VR model, our original data set was destroyed somehow, and then reconstituted from extrapolated data based on historical archives from other data sets, then no ... we would then be copies or reconstructions. Probably really good ones, but not the originals.