Slowvehicle,
- As you certainly expected, I still disagree... Sorry. (And, sorry this took so long.)
- My claim is that
I can mathematically, and more specifically, define that rectangular set (and, that it is useful to do so).
- In effect,
A has three criteria in its definition: "finite," "and" and "singular." By defining
~A as including anything that is infinite and/or plural, I think that I have excluded any middle -- I think that I have more specifically defined "anything and everything that is not a member of
A".
- Keep in mind that in the proposed Bayesian formula, I exist, and "never" is therefore excluded from both
A and
~A.
- I think that some mathematician was able to prove that digitally speaking "pi" is infinite. I think that I, a little more easily perhaps, can prove that the complement in this case is not indefinite...
- I'm claiming that mathematically speaking,
there can be only three subsets outside of A: anything that is infinite, anything that is plural, and anything that is (somehow) both infinite and plural. Therefore, I think that by defining
~A as including anything that is infinite and/or plural, I have mathematically covered the set of "anything and everything that is not a member of
A".
Good Morning, Mr. Savage! I hope your morning is progressing as pleasantly as mine is (my favorite intern was able to come home last night, if only for a brief visit).
I am sorry that you have chosen to take this route, the same route you chose in
Shroud and in
Shroud II, that is, standing by your claim even though it is demonstrably incorrect.
Let me emphasize that it is not me with whom you are disagreeing, but with the fundamental nature of dichotomy.
Follow:
Once you presume to define your
~A in terms of characteristics, while at the same time defining your
A in terms of characteristics (that is, once you define neither of them as "anything and everything that is not the other one"), you have, by definition, created the second diagram. No matter how cleverly, or subtly, or creatively, or with what nuance you, personally, think you have listed the characteristics of "anything and everything that is not the other one", unless you have actually listed everything (which is, by nature, impossible) your limited "complementary couple" are not true complements, that is, they do not, in union, describe the universal set. You may have crafted a vernacular "opposite", or even "antithesis"; You have not constructed a complementary pair for the purposes of logic. You have merely created the red area in the second diagram.
It is the very fact that you are working so hard not to let your
~A be "indefinite" that makes your
A/~A unrespresentative of complementarity.
Not to mention the fact that you are still working the apophatic side of the street. You have been hoping all along to establish that what has, in fact, happened, is so very unlikely, so (in practical terms) "impossible",
even though it has, demonstrably, happened, that whatever alternative scenario you invent, presented without any evidence at all, is "more likely" than what is observed to happen; what can be demonstrated.
I encourage you, again, to seriously consider pulling at the other end of the knot. Why not simply present, in detail as gross or as fine as you can muster, your evidence (your practical. empirical, objective evidence) that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal".
Please notice that the claim, "Well, it just seems unlikely to me that we are mortal", is not evidence. Notice that "Statistically, I think it is less likely that consciousness is an emergent property of the specific neurosystem in which it is found than that some indefinable essence (that is not common experience, nor memory, nor identity, nor any demonstrable continuity) is more likely that that to which the evidence leads", is not evidence. Particularly notice that, "I fear the void", is not evidence.
Why do you think the "soul" exists?
Why do you think any of your versions (so very different from, say, the xianist claim of everlasting "life" after one "death"--which is not, BTW, defined into your
~A, above, and does not encompass your novel idea of "immortality" as unrelated sequential consciousnesses) explain reality better than the observed evidence?
I hope that you do not simply say that we will have to agree to disagree, so that you can "move on". You are, of course, free to believe whatever comforts you; I will champion your right to whatever faith fills your needs. it is when you try to "prove" that an article of your faith is more likely than observed reality; or when you try to claim that the fact that you believe should be enough indication that I, and others, should adopt your belief; or that your faith gives you the right to dictate the behaviours of others who do not, for whatever reason, share your belief, that you do err.
If you need to believe that you are "immortal" in order to face the darkness, feel free. If you want to pretend that I should be able to see that Bayes' system, or Venn's approach, or Houdini's beliefs, or Edward's claims, or Pascal's philosophy, or any other system can and does compel me, or anyone else, to accept an unevidenced contrafactual claim, you will need to apply more rigour than you have to date.
I encourage you again: start at the "other end" of the problem. Start with your evidence.
