Ladewig,
- You're right. I had never thought about those ramifications.
Good morning, Mr. Savage! I do hope your Tuesday is going well.
At the risk of having this deteriorate into a film critique, one of the reasons
Groundhog Day works as a movie, but does not work as a practical example of "looped immortality" (for want of a better term) is that Phil Connors learns from, and is changed by, the multiple iterations of the looped day. As such, the movie bears no resemblance to your scheme of multiple iterations of the "same" "soul" in unconnected experiences joined together by nothing more than the undefined and undefinable "sameness" you invoke to comfort yourself facing oblivion.
Admittedly, watching even Murray and McDowell go through infinite unchanging iterations of the same day would have made a terrible movie; OTH, as it stands, the sequential development of Connors' character makes it a terrible example of the kind of immortality you appear to be selling.
I wonder that you appear to have glossed over a friendly suggestion I made a bit earlier. As much trouble as you are having trying to stack the semantic deck in order to make sure that what you want to call immortality is the only logical conclusion (foundering, as you have seen, on the problems of assuming the consequent, special pleading, circular reasoning, careless definitions, and your continued struggles with
~A, to name but a few), why not consider working the problem from the other end?
I suggest that, instead of trying to define your claim into existence, you present all of the evidence you have for the existence of your claim. The problem with the apophatic approach is that you end up claiming that some postulate or another is "true"
precisely because there is no evidence. Consider supporting your assertions that the "soul" exists, and is "immortal", with evidence: practical, empirical, physical evidence. When you produce such evidence, it can be judged on its merits. Until you produce such evidence, you have, at best, produced or described a
gedankenexperiment, which will have to be supported by evidence in order to be accepted.
Why not start with the evidence first?
