Proof of Immortality II

[abaddon]

Jabba, everyone who has followed this thread knows that you are all the while trying to refer to an immortal soul.

It matters not a whit that you randomly introduce "selfs" or "identies" or any of the many terms you have proposed.

Can't we simply agree that you are proposing an immortal soul? Can't we simply agree that you are semantically trying to insert that concept under so many disguises that I have lost track?

Perhaps you realise that at some level, you cannot, and your only resort is semantics.

 

[Jabba]

766

747, 751
- Good.
- If time is actually infinite (and, as far as I know, no one has proven otherwise), wouldn’t the ‘number’ of potential brains also be infinite.

776

No, but that's not relevant. The number of potential brains would only be one element in your probability calculation. The probability of a specific brain existing depends on all the events that led to its existence. Those would all have to be included in the calculation.

Dave,
- Looks like you might have meant to say "Yes"?
- I'm saying that if time is actually infinite, the number of potential brains would also be infinite.
- Don't you actually agree with that part, but, disagree that it's relevant?

 

[Hokulele]

Dave,
- Looks like you might have meant to say "Yes"?
- I'm saying that if time is actually infinite, the number of potential brains would also be infinite.
- Don't you actually agree with that part, but, disagree that it's relevant?

He meant "No", which is why he said "No".

A infinite amount of time doesn't make any difference when you only have a finite amount of other resources.

 

[godless dave]

766

776
Dave,
- Looks like you might have meant to say "Yes"?

- I'm saying that if time is actually infinite, the number of potential brains would also be infinite.
- Don't you actually agree with that part, but, disagree that it's relevant?

I disagree with that part, and also think it's not relevant even if it were true.

Even if the universe lasts forever (as suggested by current understanding that it has flat geometry), it will not be able to sustain human life forever. After 10¹⁰⁰ years, stars will no longer exist, and there will not be enough energy for life to exist.

That's a mighty long time, but it's not forever.

 

[Jabba]

I disagree with that part, and also think it's not relevant even if it were true.

Even if the universe lasts forever (as suggested by current understanding that it has flat geometry), it will not be able to sustain human life forever. After 10¹⁰⁰ years, stars will no longer exist, and there will not be enough energy for life to exist.

That's a mighty long time, but it's not forever.

Dave,
- Accepting, for a moment, that you're right about the above, what makes you think that a new universe wouldn't pop up -- and, also produce experiencers?

 

[godless dave]

Dave,
- Accepting, for a moment, that you're right about the above, what makes you think that a new universe wouldn't pop up -- and, also produce experiencers?

Because current astrophysics doesn't predict such a thing. If they're wrong, the universe could collapse again into a singularity (aka a Big Crunch), from which another universe might emerge. Models of this are known as cyclical universe models. They required space-time geometry to be closed, rather than open or flat as current measurements suggest.

Read here: http://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/what-is-heat-death/

 

[jond]

Jabba: why do you continue to assert than "experiences" are things?

 

[Akhenaten]

766

776
Dave,
- Looks like you might have meant to say "Yes"?

Said the Bishop to the milkmaid.

- I'm saying that if time is actually infinite, the number of potential brains would also be infinite.

And everyone else is saying that if time was infinite then so would everything else be infinite.

Ignorant bliss, for example.

- Don't you actually agree with that part, but, disagree that it's relevant?

Jabba, it's pretty obvious that neither godless dave nor anyone else agrees with you. Even if he did, so bloody what?

Everything you've posted for the last year is irrelevant. Where is your proof of immortality?

 

[godless dave]

Let me explain why the infinite selves thing is irrelevant.

Let's say I'm wrong and the universe will be able to sustain life forever. That means there are potentially an unlimited number of avocado trees, and potentially an unlimited number of avocados. Does that mean the likelihood of any particular avocado existing is 1/∞?

 

[Akhenaten]

Dave,
- Accepting, for a moment, that you're right about the above, what makes you think that a new universe wouldn't pop up -- and, also produce experiencers?

What makes you think that these new experiencers would in any way relate to your postulate of immortality?

 

[Akhenaten]

Jabba: why do you continue to assert than "experiences" are things?

I'll dare to suggest that for Jabba, experiences ≈ immortal souls.

Of course I realise that this only begs the question, '"why do you continue to assert that "immortal souls" are things?"', but we'll never get an answer to that question either.

Maybe the LCP will ask it for us.

 

[Toontown]

Because current astrophysics doesn't predict such a thing. If they're wrong, the universe could collapse again into a singularity (aka a Big Crunch), from which another universe might emerge. Models of this are known as cyclical universe models. They required space-time geometry to be closed, rather than open or flat as current measurements suggest.

Read here: http://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/what-is-heat-death/

Right, because things like big bangs can only happen once, because...well, that's just the way it is. Once something happens, that's it. Can't happen again.

So it's all headed inexorably toward nothingness forever, from an anomalous beginning. Until time inexorably grinds to a complete halt, then it's just timeless Nothingness.

Why didn't it just stay Nothingness in the first place? Well, apparently there was some kind of freakish anomaly which acausally occurred in the midst of Nothingness, which allowed a big bang to happen, leading to a temporary lull in the Nothingness. But that will never happen again, once it's been tamped down.

That would have to be the default assumption, right? That whatever has already happened can never happen again? In addition to being probability 1 that it did happen that one time, so there never is anything to be surprised about.

Well of course those would have to be the default assumptions. What other default assumptions could there possibly be?

 

[Akhenaten]

Right, because things like big bangs can only happen once, because...well, that's just the way it is. Once something happens, that's it. Can't happen again.

Not in the same Universe, no, it can't

One big bang, one Universe. It's in the rules.

So it's all headed inexorably toward nothingness forever, from an anomalous beginning. Until time inexorably grinds to a complete halt, then it's just timeless Nothingness.

Pretty much. Doesn't do much to support fantasies of immortality, does it?

Why didn't it just stay Nothingness in the first place? Well, apparently there was some kind of freakish anomaly which acausally occurred in the midst of Nothingness, which allowed a big bang to happen, leading to a temporary lull in the Nothingness. But that will never happen again, once it's been tamped down.

Nobody knows. What's in dispute, however, is that our illustrious OP claims not only to have knowledge of the infinite beyond but to have statistical proof of an immortal existence therein, big bangs apparently notwithstanding.

That would have to be the default assumption, right? That whatever has already happened can never happen again?

Correct, as far as this Universe is concerned.

In addition to being probability 1 that it did happen that one time, so there never is anything to be surprised about.

Thing is, if it ever happens again there'll be none of us left to be surprised about it.

Well of course those would have to be the default assumptions. What other default assumptions could there possibly be?

Your assertion that "those would have to be the default assumptions" is baseless.

Please reset your assumptions and resubmit your something resembling an argument.


Hint: Try and stick to the topic next time.

 

[godless dave]

Heat death isn't an assumption, it's a projection based on what we currently know about the universe.

Some of what we know could be wrong, and a cyclical model could be correct. But since the Big Bang is a singularity, and any future ones would be as well, cyclical universes would be causally disconnected from each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

 

[Jabba]

Jabba: why do you continue to assert than "experiences" are things?

Jond,
- I'm talking about "experiencers," and that's really how I perceive us experiencers. I perceive us as being more than just "processes." And in a sense at least, even processes are things.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Jond,
- I'm talking about "experiencers," and that's really how I perceive us experiencers. I perceive us as being more than just "processes." And in a sense at least, even processes are things.

No matter what neuroscience, or the "scientific model", indicates, eh?

 

[carlitos]

Have you ever been experienced? I have.

 

[jond]

Jond,
- I'm talking about "experiencers," and that's really how I perceive us experiencers. I perceive us as being more than just "processes." And in a sense at least, even processes are things.

1: thank you for the response.
2: I meant to type "experiencers" but I am on my iPad, and autocorrect does things like that, sorry.
3: I know that's how you perceive things, but that is NOT how they are viewed by science. And this really is a fundamental problem for your "theory". According to the scientific model, the process is ongoing, until your brain dies. There is no separate thing called an experiencer, it changes with every input/output state change in the brain. If you think otherwise, you need to provide evidence to support your view. This whole fantasy duplication side trip really is moot. Many posters have presented very compelling explanations about all of this, and you would do well to read some of it.

ETA: do you remember your email exchange with Susan Blackmore? And her suggested reading material?

 

[Akhenaten]

Jond,
- I'm talking about "experiencers," and that's really how I perceive us experiencers.

The typo notwithstanding, 'experiencers' is just another of the many synonyms you use for 'consciousnesses' and they are no more things than leg lifts.

I perceive us as being more than just "processes."

It's not a perception; it's a belief and it has no evidential support.

And in a sense at least, even processes are things.

Not the sense that you're trying to use. You're trying to claim that part of the process is a thing that exists independently of the machinery of which it is an emergent property.

Machine stops; process stops. If the machine in question is a living thing then once it stops, it's game over. Forever.

 

[Loss Leader]

Jond,
- I perceive us as being more than just "processes." And in a sense at least, even processes are things.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the human consciousness is anything more than the culmination of multiple running processes in the human brain?

It's your perception that they are. On what is your perception based?