Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

No such thing as death! (Repost from science)

KthulhuHimself
Posts: 1,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2017 5:58:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
(This is a repost from the science forum, since I felt as though it fit both subjects equally.)

Basically, the argument is simple.

Imagine two universes, one in which you live, and will die and ferment in the ground until you are nothing.

In the other, your physical body will die and ferment, yet some other system allows your conscience to continue and exist; however, this is not observable in any way from within the set of particles that is the "physical" world (basically, the slice of the universe in which the body exists). This requires that the "spiritual" world (the slice in which there is a mind) does two things: one, it must replicate the physical brain perfectly and be synchronised with it, and two, that it cannot affect the "physical" world in any way.

Now, there are infinitely many possible variations of the second universe in question (and well, of the first too, yet we'll ignore that for now). Anything within either universe is, by very definition, in both of them simultaneously.

Now, when your (let's define "you" as the network of interactions occurring in your brain) body dies, this superposition is broken, since the death of the first body is, to your perspective, an observation that defines which universe is real. When this occurs, we get one universe where you continue to exist, and one where you don't. Yet you still exist in one of them, don't you? This means that whatever "you" is left will continue to experience the (infinite set of) universe(s) in which you still exist!

Basically! You cannot die no matter how hard you try!

You are stuck in existence for ever and ever! No matter how many vessels of yourself you destroy!

Enjoy eternity! You better!
philochristos
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2017 2:15:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/19/2017 5:58:24 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
(This is a repost from the science forum, since I felt as though it fit both subjects equally.)

Basically, the argument is simple.

Imagine two universes, one in which you live, and will die and ferment in the ground until you are nothing.

In the other, your physical body will die and ferment, yet some other system allows your conscience to continue and exist; however, this is not observable in any way from within the set of particles that is the "physical" world (basically, the slice of the universe in which the body exists). This requires that the "spiritual" world (the slice in which there is a mind) does two things: one, it must replicate the physical brain perfectly and be synchronised with it, and two, that it cannot affect the "physical" world in any way.

Now, there are infinitely many possible variations of the second universe in question (and well, of the first too, yet we'll ignore that for now). Anything within either universe is, by very definition, in both of them simultaneously.

Now, when your (let's define "you" as the network of interactions occurring in your brain) body dies, this superposition is broken, since the death of the first body is, to your perspective, an observation that defines which universe is real. When this occurs, we get one universe where you continue to exist, and one where you don't. Yet you still exist in one of them, don't you? This means that whatever "you" is left will continue to experience the (infinite set of) universe(s) in which you still exist!

Basically! You cannot die no matter how hard you try!

You are stuck in existence for ever and ever! No matter how many vessels of yourself you destroy!

Enjoy eternity! You better!

If you will initiate a formal debate on this topic, I'll debate you on it. It could be interesting!
"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 1,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2017 10:44:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/20/2017 2:15:24 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/19/2017 5:58:24 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
(This is a repost from the science forum, since I felt as though it fit both subjects equally.)

Basically, the argument is simple.

Imagine two universes, one in which you live, and will die and ferment in the ground until you are nothing.

In the other, your physical body will die and ferment, yet some other system allows your conscience to continue and exist; however, this is not observable in any way from within the set of particles that is the "physical" world (basically, the slice of the universe in which the body exists). This requires that the "spiritual" world (the slice in which there is a mind) does two things: one, it must replicate the physical brain perfectly and be synchronised with it, and two, that it cannot affect the "physical" world in any way.

Now, there are infinitely many possible variations of the second universe in question (and well, of the first too, yet we'll ignore that for now). Anything within either universe is, by very definition, in both of them simultaneously.

Now, when your (let's define "you" as the network of interactions occurring in your brain) body dies, this superposition is broken, since the death of the first body is, to your perspective, an observation that defines which universe is real. When this occurs, we get one universe where you continue to exist, and one where you don't. Yet you still exist in one of them, don't you? This means that whatever "you" is left will continue to experience the (infinite set of) universe(s) in which you still exist!

Basically! You cannot die no matter how hard you try!

You are stuck in existence for ever and ever! No matter how many vessels of yourself you destroy!

Enjoy eternity! You better!

If you will initiate a formal debate on this topic, I'll debate you on it. It could be interesting!

I'd rather keep it to the forums, since I don't have nowadays the time for a full-length formal debate. I wait to see what you have to say!
Perussi
Posts: 3,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2017 4:01:39 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/19/2017 5:58:24 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
(This is a repost from the science forum, since I felt as though it fit both subjects equally.)

Basically, the argument is simple.

Imagine two universes, one in which you live, and will die and ferment in the ground until you are nothing.

In the other, your physical body will die and ferment, yet some other system allows your conscience to continue and exist; however, this is not observable in any way from within the set of particles that is the "physical" world (basically, the slice of the universe in which the body exists). This requires that the "spiritual" world (the slice in which there is a mind) does two things: one, it must replicate the physical brain perfectly and be synchronised with it, and two, that it cannot affect the "physical" world in any way.

Now, there are infinitely many possible variations of the second universe in question (and well, of the first too, yet we'll ignore that for now). Anything within either universe is, by very definition, in both of them simultaneously.

Now, when your (let's define "you" as the network of interactions occurring in your brain) body dies, this superposition is broken, since the death of the first body is, to your perspective, an observation that defines which universe is real. When this occurs, we get one universe where you continue to exist, and one where you don't. Yet you still exist in one of them, don't you? This means that whatever "you" is left will continue to experience the (infinite set of) universe(s) in which you still exist!

Basically! You cannot die no matter how hard you try!

You are stuck in existence for ever and ever! No matter how many vessels of yourself you destroy!

Enjoy eternity! You better!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com...
"You are forgiven my child... Your lamentations have un-hardened my heart and hence I have lifted thine DDO plague of 503..."
-Airmax1227-

"So sayeth Professor Perussi. All hail his infinite wisdom."
-Goldtop-

"If you're gonna be the death of me, that's how I wanna go."
-Brendon Urie-

"How do you know you are happy if you have never cried?"
-backwardseden-

DO NOT TAKE THIS LINK: http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2017 9:44:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/20/2017 10:44:58 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

I'd rather keep it to the forums, since I don't have nowadays the time for a full-length formal debate. I wait to see what you have to say!

Okay, but cut me some slack if I've got a misunderstanding about your point of view. I'm not intentionally misrepresenting you. I'm just doing the best I can.

The major problem I have with your argument, assuming I understand it correctly, is that it's impossible for one person to be physically located in two different places at the same time. If there are an infinite number of universes, then it may be that there's a person in one of them who shares an identical history with another person in another universe, looks just like them, is composed of the same number of atoms, etc. They could be alike in absolutely every single way except their location in two different universes. But they would not actually be the same person. They would be distinct persons.

This is true by the law of identity and the indiscernibility of identicals. If A and B were the same person, then whatever is true about one is also true about the other and vice versa. But if A is located in Universe W, and B is located in Universe U, then A and B cannot be the same person no matter how much alike they are in every other way.

So it is possible for a person to die since their dying is not affected by anything else that happens in any other universe. If I die in this universe, and some exact duplicate of me dies in some other universe, I'm still dead. Moreover, the duplicate of me in the other universe will then begin to have experiences that I myself cannot have since I've died. At that point, our histories diverge, giving further proof that we cannot be the same person.
"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 1,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 4:36:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/20/2017 4:01:39 PM, Perussi wrote:
At 12/19/2017 5:58:24 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
(This is a repost from the science forum, since I felt as though it fit both subjects equally.)

Basically, the argument is simple.

Imagine two universes, one in which you live, and will die and ferment in the ground until you are nothing.

In the other, your physical body will die and ferment, yet some other system allows your conscience to continue and exist; however, this is not observable in any way from within the set of particles that is the "physical" world (basically, the slice of the universe in which the body exists). This requires that the "spiritual" world (the slice in which there is a mind) does two things: one, it must replicate the physical brain perfectly and be synchronised with it, and two, that it cannot affect the "physical" world in any way.

Now, there are infinitely many possible variations of the second universe in question (and well, of the first too, yet we'll ignore that for now). Anything within either universe is, by very definition, in both of them simultaneously.

Now, when your (let's define "you" as the network of interactions occurring in your brain) body dies, this superposition is broken, since the death of the first body is, to your perspective, an observation that defines which universe is real. When this occurs, we get one universe where you continue to exist, and one where you don't. Yet you still exist in one of them, don't you? This means that whatever "you" is left will continue to experience the (infinite set of) universe(s) in which you still exist!

Basically! You cannot die no matter how hard you try!

You are stuck in existence for ever and ever! No matter how many vessels of yourself you destroy!

Enjoy eternity! You better!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com...

Unfortunately, Meme Man will never get the obliteration he deserves.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 1,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 4:44:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/20/2017 9:44:35 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/20/2017 10:44:58 AM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

I'd rather keep it to the forums, since I don't have nowadays the time for a full-length formal debate. I wait to see what you have to say!

Okay, but cut me some slack if I've got a misunderstanding about your point of view. I'm not intentionally misrepresenting you. I'm just doing the best I can.

The major problem I have with your argument, assuming I understand it correctly, is that it's impossible for one person to be physically located in two different places at the same time. If there are an infinite number of universes, then it may be that there's a person in one of them who shares an identical history with another person in another universe, looks just like them, is composed of the same number of atoms, etc. They could be alike in absolutely every single way except their location in two different universes. But they would not actually be the same person. They would be distinct persons.

This is true by the law of identity and the indiscernibility of identicals. If A and B were the same person, then whatever is true about one is also true about the other and vice versa. But if A is located in Universe W, and B is located in Universe U, then A and B cannot be the same person no matter how much alike they are in every other way.

Now, here's just the thing. Which universe you are in does not affect the metaphysical definition of what you are, as the metaphysical and physical definition of every particle in your body remains the same, meaning that from your position, there is no difference whatsoever. Let me ask you the following:

Consider the number seven, as defined within the axioms of the natural numbers.

Now consider the number seven, as defined within the axioms of the rational numbers. It is defined exactly the same as the previous case, only that it is "in another universe".

Are these two different numbers? I think it seems obvious that they are not.
So it is possible for a person to die since their dying is not affected by anything else that happens in any other universe. If I die in this universe, and some exact duplicate of me dies in some other universe, I'm still dead. Moreover, the duplicate of me in the other universe will then begin to have experiences that I myself cannot have since I've died. At that point, our histories diverge, giving further proof that we cannot be the same person.

See above.
keithprosser
Posts: 5,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 5:24:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/20/2017 9:44:35 PM, philochristos wrote:

So it is possible for a person to die since their dying is not affected by anything else that happens in any other universe. If I die in this universe, and some exact duplicate of me dies in some other universe, I'm still dead. Moreover, the duplicate of me in the other universe will then begin to have experiences that I myself cannot have since I've died. At that point, our histories diverge, giving further proof that we cannot be the same person.

I think K has the germ of an interesting idea, but I think there's an easier and more physically plausible version of it. The Everettian multi-verse hypothesis is that at each 'quantum branch' entire universes come into existence, a universe for each possible outcome. If our death is a based on quantum events (and all physical events are ultimately quantum) then at the point of death in one universe there is another universe produced where we recover! In theory that means there is an infinite path into the future using the 'recover' branch at each point.

So by choosing tea you create another universe where you chose the coffee, but there is no way the two universes can communicate. I don't know if I fully accept the Everett's model, but AFAIK it is intellectually respectable.
ebuc
Posts: 1,850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 7:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/21/2017 5:24:22 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I think K has the germ of an interesting idea,:

Useless idea irrational, illogical lack of common sense idea origin to Wheeler-De-Witt.

Fuller believed death is ultra-long wave frequency radiation. I dont.

KTH the following is the most rational, logical common sense, correct, comprehensive, w-holistic cosmic scenario, in a hierarchal/outline/list/layout format that you need to grasp before going off on altenative, parralllel, multiverse universes.

Slash marks indicate two words are synonyms. Quotations in title used as identifiers to distinguish and clarify different definitions of words/terms with same spellling and same goes for capital letters used within a sentence for words/terms with same spelling.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Cosmic Hierarchy: " U "niverse/" G "od

1} spirit-1{ spirit-of-intention }, metaphyscial-1, mind/intellect/concept ex concepts of Universe, Mind, Space, God, Dogs, Cats, Concepts, Triangles, Abstract Space-of-Time etc.

----------------------line-of-demarcation-------------------------------------------

2} metaphysical-2, macro-micro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,

3} finite, occupied space Universe/Uni-V-erse/God

---This above is cosmic primary three-ness ergo a trinity set and what follows is the initial subset of #3 above-------------

....3a} spirit-2 fermions, bosons and any aggregate collection thereof ex biologicals, minerals, viruses, planets, clusters of galaxies etc.
...ergo observed occupied space physical/energy/reality as observed time, frequency ^v^ and all being associated with a sine-wave pattern ^v^v of occupied space....

....3b} spirit-3, metaphysical-3, ultra-micro gravity, that I believe is associated with positive ( ) geodesic shape ( ) of space, as defining the outer surface of a torus.
....the non-observed occupied space.......

....3c} spirit-4, metaphysical-4, ultra-micro dark energy, that , I believe is associated with negative )(, geodesic shape )( of space in definning the inner surface of a torus.
....the non-observed occupied space....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"U"niverse > Universe > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse them-verse

I borrow the 'you, we, them' concepts from Bucky Fullers book Synergetics 1 and 2.

" U "niverse is most w-holistic set and pleas take note of the quotations and italics to distinguish this use of word universe from the other two or three spellings, as "U" specifically inclusive of #1, metaphysical-1 that is in italics also and this is what the "U" is used to express.

Universe is finite set, ie even if we are to include any alledged multi-verse scenarios, they fall into the one finite Universe catagory ie all local universe's are connected minimally by gravity if not also dark energy.

The word/term universe is used to distinguish our personal sphere-of-influence and as the local universe we observe, in any multi-verse scenarios.

Uni-V-erse is used as synonym for Universe, because of my specific numerical and geometric explorations--- Space ( ) Time ^v - Space )( --- that, I have assigned to every particle of Universe, that, collectively aggregate as the one, finite Universe.

I can elaborate more if sincere interest and rational, logical common sense is the goal of any who want to engage further into the specifics of my layout, as stated.
Cosimia
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 7:10:57 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I had the same idea! But I decided to boil it down much simpler. If there is an infinite amount of universes, which quantum physics discovery of virtual particles seems to suggest, there will be an infinite amount of them where you are alive. And since you can't experience being dead you will only experience consciousness with due conscience.
keithprosser
Posts: 5,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 8:28:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/21/2017 7:10:57 PM, Cosimia wrote:
I had the same idea! But I decided to boil it down much simpler. If there is an infinite amount of universes, which quantum physics discovery of virtual particles seems to suggest, there will be an infinite amount of them where you are alive. And since you can't experience being dead you will only experience consciousness with due conscience.

I think you over-boiled it down because that isn't clear at all!

The problem with pre-existing multiple universes is the philosphical one of whether an entity in an another universe is you.

I'd say it isn't you - it would be a completely different person/entity who happens to resemble you.

There may be an exact duplicate our there, but there are even more near-duplicates (say with different colour eyes or hair). I don't think the 'you' in this universe would consider those close (and not so close) copies to be also actually 'you' (although they correspond in their universe to to you in this universe they are not the 'same thing').

So with pre-existing multiple universes, the survival of entities that look a lot like you but are not you in oter universes may not be much consolation! In the Everttian model the 'recovered' you is every bit as much the original you as the dead you.

I don't really believe it, but I don't know what is wrong with the logic!
philochristos
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 9:45:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/21/2017 4:44:07 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:

Now, here's just the thing. Which universe you are in does not affect the metaphysical definition of what you are, as the metaphysical and physical definition of every particle in your body remains the same, meaning that from your position, there is no difference whatsoever.

I don't see how that's relevant to my argument. My argument depends on the notion that if there's anything at all different between A and B, then A and B cannot be the same person. You could put A and B in the same universe, make them alike in every way, but if they are located in two different places, or if something could happen to one without it happening to the other, then it's impossible that A and B are the same person.

Let me ask you the following:

Consider the number seven, as defined within the axioms of the natural numbers.

Now consider the number seven, as defined within the axioms of the rational numbers. It is defined exactly the same as the previous case, only that it is "in another universe".

Are these two different numbers? I think it seems obvious that they are not.

I don't think this analogy applies because persons are particulars, and numbers are universals. The number seven can be instances in more than one place just as the property, redness, can be instanced in more than one place at the same time. That's because numbers and properties are universals. But Jim, Bob, my cat, and my skillet are particulars. They cannot be located in two different places at the same time.
"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 9:49:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/21/2017 5:24:22 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 12/20/2017 9:44:35 PM, philochristos wrote:

So it is possible for a person to die since their dying is not affected by anything else that happens in any other universe. If I die in this universe, and some exact duplicate of me dies in some other universe, I'm still dead. Moreover, the duplicate of me in the other universe will then begin to have experiences that I myself cannot have since I've died. At that point, our histories diverge, giving further proof that we cannot be the same person.

I think K has the germ of an interesting idea, but I think there's an easier and more physically plausible version of it. The Everettian multi-verse hypothesis is that at each 'quantum branch' entire universes come into existence, a universe for each possible outcome. If our death is a based on quantum events (and all physical events are ultimately quantum) then at the point of death in one universe there is another universe produced where we recover! In theory that means there is an infinite path into the future using the 'recover' branch at each point.

So by choosing tea you create another universe where you chose the coffee, but there is no way the two universes can communicate. I don't know if I fully accept the Everett's model, but AFAIK it is intellectually respectable.

It seems to me that if this senario is true, then my argument is still sound. If this universe split into two distinct universes--one in which Philochristos chose Dr. Pepper and one in which Philochistos chose water--we would no longer be talking about one Philochristos. There would be two distinct persons named Philochristos. They could not both be the same person.

It would be no different than when twinning occurs to an embryo. Once the embryo splits into two entities, the two entities are no longer the same entity. They are distinct entities from then on out, even if the twins both survive to adulthood.
"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
keithprosser
Posts: 5,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 10:27:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/21/2017 9:49:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
It would be no different than when twinning occurs to an embryo. Once the embryo splits into two entities, the two entities are no longer the same entity. They are distinct entities from then on out, even if the twins both survive to adulthood.

It's a bit nit-picky and its almost a semantic issue rather than a 'factual' issue but I don't mind spending a few posts on it!

Let's do some extra-multiverse visualising! In the Everett version I can watch you choose your drink and immediately see you turn into two people, one with a Dr Pepper and one with a water. Which one is the original you? I'd say you could make a good case for both are you, or for neither is you, but not a good case "one is philoc and the other isn't philoc".

In the pre-existing multiple universe I can't do that - to see one philoc with a dr pepper and a philoc with water I would have to be already tracking both entities involved, that is you in this universe and the doppelganger in a different universe. I would see, say, philoc get dr pepper and doppel-philoc get a water.

But suppose its not getting a drink its dying or recovering. If I see philoc die then it definitely you who die and doppel-you who recovers and of course vice versa.

So in the everett version what recovers is a continuation of 'you'(*) - in the pre-existing mutipleuniverse version the recoverer may or may not be you.

(*as is the one that dies - cf Schroedingers cat!)
philochristos
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 10:42:44 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/21/2017 10:27:31 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 12/21/2017 9:49:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
It would be no different than when twinning occurs to an embryo. Once the embryo splits into two entities, the two entities are no longer the same entity. They are distinct entities from then on out, even if the twins both survive to adulthood.

It's a bit nit-picky and its almost a semantic issue rather than a 'factual' issue but I don't mind spending a few posts on it!

I don't think it's a semantic issue at all. Once another philochristos comes into existence, from that point on, we have different experiences. I cannot feel the other's feelings, and he cannot feel mine. We have distinct first person awareness. It's absolutely impossible that we could be the same person.

Now, you do raise a good question. If we spit, which one is the original me? It could be that one is me and the other isn't. It could be the other is me and the one isn't. Or it could be that neither is me, and I ceased to exist. We may never know the answer to that question. But we we CAN know is that under no circumstances can they both be the same person. It's logically impossible.
"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
keithprosser
Posts: 5,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2017 11:00:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/21/2017 10:42:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 12/21/2017 10:27:31 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 12/21/2017 9:49:52 PM, philochristos wrote:
It would be no different than when twinning occurs to an embryo. Once the embryo splits into two entities, the two entities are no longer the same entity. They are distinct entities from then on out, even if the twins both survive to adulthood.

It's a bit nit-picky and its almost a semantic issue rather than a 'factual' issue but I don't mind spending a few posts on it!

I don't think it's a semantic issue at all. Once another philochristos comes into existence, from that point on, we have different experiences. I cannot feel the other's feelings, and he cannot feel mine. We have distinct first person awareness. It's absolutely impossible that we could be the same person.

Now, you do raise a good question. If we spit, which one is the original me? It could be that one is me and the other isn't. It could be the other is me and the one isn't. Or it could be that neither is me, and I ceased to exist. We may never know the answer to that question. But we we CAN know is that under no circumstances can they both be the same person. It's logically impossible.

But if Everett is right that is what happens so it can't be impossible! The problem is purely semantic -what does 'same person' mean in that context? As I said earlier, one can argue that both are you or niether is you, but it doesn't make much sense to say one is you and the other isn't. The word 'same' and the term 'same person' was never intended to cover such situations and there is no right way or wrong way to apply it in this context.

Whether you say 'they are the same person' or 'they are not the same person' is to quibble over how to describe the situation - there is no physical paradox in the situation - it's just a problem with inadequacy of colloqual English. Who knows, perhaps in Yoruba or Swahili there would be no problem at all!

(I think the problem would exist in all ordinary languages - they are itended for everyday purposes like herding cows, not to describe the weirdness of quantum multi-verses!)
ebuc
Posts: 1,850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2017 2:47:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 12/21/2017 8:28:01 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I don't really believe it, but I don't know what is wrong with the logic!:

There is no rational, logic much less common sense.

People use the word infinite for all kinds of irrational, illogical lack of common sense as if they carry it around in their back pockets and can just whip out infinity and show it to you.

Talk about fantasy. Does not get any more fantastic than infinite this infinite that etc.

I think they will need to include infinite lunacy in their backpocket also.
Cosimia
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2017 10:52:15 PM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
I understand where you are coming from in terms of philosophy, however I could say there is an infinite amount of universes where it is a branched out consciousness of mine. This is mainly to do with timelines, each seperate universe (parallel in this case) is where you took a certain action, as you come to this universe today, however your consciousness is always fluctuating between these parallel points in hyperspace. This is where it gets confusing, you either say that your consciousness is put in one particular universe (which would mean there would be no action in the universe) or that your consciousness moves between these universes or that your consciousness breaks up infinitely during these actions. The first one is ruled out by the simple fact that there is action taken in the universe. The second and third one would both prove a "never-die" scenario, for the second one you could not experience or be not a consciousness if it is infinitely there and the third one would prove the scenario as whenever your consciousness is gone in said universe you are broken up, and are the consciousness itself. So if bubble universes or membranes (in M theory) are real, which more evidence is found each day, you can't technically die. Funnily enough, the more evidenced parallel universe in science would prove this hypothesis even more. The one I'm on about are parallel universes formed by extreme distances between areas of space. If eternal inflation is correct (which it most likely is) then by now there will be an infinite amount of areas of space where your exact atom composition and neurological composition (consciousness) are the exact same as you here. And in these areas of space it is pretty much exactly the same as where we are. The first issue people may find with this is that we only experience one of these states. However this isn't true. Particle physics in direct teaming with quantum physics discovered particles, mostly electrons, were in a state of being in multiple places at once, which quantum physics says it has to be, but why? Particles were also found to have wave properties. If these are proven, which they are, then that means you are in a state of multiple areas of space (infinite amount) and whenever one of those dies there is an infinite amount of exact copies of your consciousness where you are directly linked through quantum physics. Which is just awesome.
philochristos
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2017 5:30:57 AM
Posted: 4 weeks ago
Cossimia, I'm not sure if I followed all of that, so please excuse me if my comments seem to miss the mark. At first, you appear to suggest that maybe with each branching universe, the different consciousnesses are actually different parts or branches of one and the same consciousness. If that's so, then it would seem to follow that we all have multiple personality disorder. The reason is because each time a universe branches into two or more, the histories of the "different" consciousnesses diverge. Sam1 does not experience what Sam2 experiences from that moment forward, and Sam2 does not experience what Sam1 experiences. So while you say that Sam1 and Sam2 are really just different aspects of Sam, it would seem to Sam1 and Sam2 that they are distinct persons. That is the very nature of multiple personality disorder.

But why think that Sam1 and Sam2 are different parts of Sam rather than being different persons altogether? You suggest the mere possibility without giving any reason to think it's true (unless you did and I just didn't understand).

I do not see how it follow that if particles such as electrons can be in multiple locations at once that therefore persons in separate universes can be identical persons. That doesn't seem to follow at all. You say that it proves I myself can be in multiple places at once, but your argument commits the fallacy of composition. The fact that my parts have some property doesn't mean that I as a whole have that same property.
"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest." ~Proverbs 29:9

"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle