Proof of Immortality II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- My claim is only that my current existence makes the current naturalistic worldview extremely improbable.
Click to expand...


You haven't demonstrated that in 2 years of floundering, and even if you did, it doesn't follow that you are immortal.
 
Jabba said:
I know that you guys don't think much of the Anthropic Principle -- but I do, and would point out that my argument is something of a variation on that principle. The AP claims that what sets our universe apart from any other potential universes is that ours supports observers. The "Me Principle" claims that what sets me apart from other potential selves is that if I never existed, there "might as well be" no observers -- and therefore nothing -- forever.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jabba, we know what you're saying. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. In fact, it's painfully simplistic.

The problem is that the anthropic principle is nonsense.

And so is your claim of being special.
 
godless dave said:
I don't think the weak anthropic principle is nonsense, but Jabba's interpretation of it is.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I should have clarified.

The strong anthropic principle - that this universe was made for us - is nonsense.

The weak one - that this is the only type of universe that we can possibly observe - is self-evident.
 
Wow!! Just when I thought that this thread could not come even further from the OP, it has.

One explanation is that this thread is to just to broadcast random philosophical musings to an apparently "emotionally captive" audience.

Or else...
 
Jabba said:
- I should take that back. I was skipping a step. The AP talks directly about the unlikelihood of life in the universe rather than the unlikelihood of observers...
Click to expand...


1.0. You probably should take back everything you've posted since November 2012 but alas!

1.2. Skipped a step??? Really???

1.3. You skipped all the steps with your very first post.

1.3.1. The "me" in your OP, and every post since, is a figment.

1.3.2. Every living thing that ever was either has or is going to die.

1.3.2.1. You have steadfastly refused to address this simple observation.

1.3.2.1. And I really do mean simple. It's not some fancy scientific modelly thing. It's not some high fallutin' metaphysical principle. Everything that lives ends up dead.

1.3.2.2 Everything. Even Tyrannosauruses.

2.0 Your continued attempts to draw a distinction between living things and observers are nothing more than Jabbacentrism.

2.1 Jabbacentrism being a weird philosophical niche occupied by (as far as we know) a single sentient being.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Okay, the beginning of my proof of reincarnation:

1. There is only one me that I know of now alive.

I'll be back.
Click to expand...
I was about to disagree strongly with this (and I had lined up a mixture of Hume, Kant, and Russell to support my argument), but then I was struck by how elegantly this simple statement cuts through all their rhetoric. I have an idea where you are headed, but I am insufficiently schooled in the hermeneutical math that lies behind it, so I will simply await what promises to be a brilliant explication.
 
Jabba said:
- Just to make sure that you aren't including intelligent design as part of my claim.
Click to expand...


Where in the name of Ma'at is this intelligent design ******** coming from?

What on Earth gives you cause for concern that people are suddenly going to add to your claims something that hasn't been mentioned once in the last two years/thousands of posts?



Jabba said:
My claim is only that my current existence makes the current naturalistic worldview extremely improbable.
Click to expand...


Jabba said:
- I think that I can essentially prove immortality using Bayesian statistics.
Click to expand...


YouAreAMoron.jpg
 
Jabba said:
- Just to make sure that you aren't including intelligent design as part of my claim. My claim is only that my current existence makes the current naturalistic worldview extremely improbable.
Click to expand...


The trouble is that design, rather than immortality, is precisely where your argument (that something that has happened is very unlikely and therefore can't have happened by accident) leads. It doesn't allow you to "essentially prove immortality" because, being based on a false dilemma, it fails to account for, for example, your existence being the result of design but being of finite duration. Your argument is also strikingly similar to those used by proponents of intelligent design, and the objections that have been raised to those arguments also apply to yours.
 
Anyway, Jabba, how would your formula look if "A" was defined as "the hypothesis that selves are immortal"?
 
Jabba said:
- I know that you guys don't think much of the Anthropic Principle -- but I do, and would point out that my argument is something of a variation on that principle. The AP claims that what sets our universe apart from any other potential universes is that ours supports observers.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean the Strong Anthropic Principle, rather than the Weak Anthropic Principle. The Weak is pretty much a tautology, and I suspect that every man jack* of us accepts it.

Jabba said:
- I should take that back. I was skipping a step. The AP talks directly about the unlikelihood of life in the universe rather than the unlikelihood of observers...
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Strong Anthropic Principle isn't part of the standard scientific model, so you can't use it to disprove the standard scientific model. (Unless you can prove it, which I guarantee you can't.) Once again, assuming (arguendo) the scientific model + something else (it was souls last time, if I recall correctly), and then showing that that leads to a contradiction does not disprove the scientific model. It only shows that both can't be true; it still leaves open the possibility that it's the something else that's false.

So, feel free to personally believe in the SAP all you want, but don't pretend that it's a useful part of any sort of proof you might offer us. To perform a reductio ad absurdam of the scientific model, you have to stick to the scientific model.

(I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this; I suspect a lot.)

I'm not sure you can show that the SAP + the standard scientific model leads to contradiction, but even if you could, it wouldn't further your so-called proof one bit. It would be a waste of your time and ours.

* or woman jill.

ETA: I might go so far as to say that the Strong Anthropic Principle is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
The "Me Principle" claims that what sets me apart from other potential selves is that if I never existed, there "might as well be" no observers -- and therefore nothing -- forever.
Click to expand...


Jabba -

Do you understand that if you base your proof on this, then the only perspective from which your statements have meaning is your own? If you are only concerned with your observations from your vantage point, there is no logical reason why anyone else should care about your vantage point. In fact, we might not even exist as far as you know.

If you persist with this, at least acknowledge that your proof is sufficient for you and you alone, while being meaningless to anyone else. Otherwise, please indicate why I should care that you think I might not even exist (when, from my perspective, it is you who might not exist).
 
Mojo said:
This will only be proof of reincarnation if you can do it after you have died.
Click to expand...

I said I would be back.

Perhaps I died last week and I am already back. Is this Hell? Because I always believed that endless reincarnation would not be a plus. Would I really like to lead life over and over again forever? Especially if I didn't remember which previous mistakes to avoid in my new reincarnated life. I don't think so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom