ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 11th January 2017, 10:52 AM   #3081
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,485
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
For me, it's because I know that the "something to that effect" is your attempt to insinuate consciousness as a countable thing under H.
Good catch. Happily we know that an emergent property isn't "something to that effect," no matter how desperately Jabba wants to think so.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:22 AM   #3082
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,208
Jabba, some are straying and answering your other questions, which you will ignore. But we're still waiting for an answer to "how many going 60 mph are there"?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:52 AM   #3083
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,486
Cato had his "Carthago delenda est."

I have my Quot "ire sexaginta milia passuum per hora" sint?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:06 PM   #3084
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,743
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- For the moment, I'll avoid the self concept, and stick with "organisms."

39 minutes later:

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- I think you said that the duplicates would be identical, but not the same. I think that I agree -- in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.

Jabba, using yet another term to mean the soul doesn't make it a different concept.

So, back to the question: how many going 60mph are there?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:13 PM   #3085
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,743
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Yes, that's what I said, and I accept what I said.

How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there?
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I think you said that the duplicates would be identical, but not the same. I think that I agree -- in that, the duplicates would be "manned" by different observers.
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
You still haven't grasped the meaning of 'emergent property', have you?

He doesn't seem to have grasped the meaning of 'How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there' either.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:22 PM   #3086
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,991
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- I don't understand how you can believe that your body is not "manned" by an observer (or, something to that effect).
What? Do you think that Men in Black is a documentary?

Because that is where you are going.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:25 PM   #3087
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,485
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
He doesn't seem to have grasped the meaning of 'How many potential "going 60 MPH" are there' either.
To someone who is limited to concrete thinking, the question would sound nonsensical and could be written off as an irrelevant attempt at diversion.

However the purported countability of a property is essential to Jabba's argument. He states clearly that his argument is based on driving P(E|H), the probability that he could exist as he is under the scientific hypothesis, to as low a value as possible. So he clearly needs the denominator in that probability computation to be as large as possible. This leads him to scramble around the philoso-sphere of H, the scientific hypothesis, looking for something he can "count" to be infinite. If the thing he's latched into isn't countable and doesn't have a suitably large cardinality, then that's not at all an irrelevant diversion -- it goes right to the heart of his proposed computation.

I just laugh at the contradiction espoused by hearing someone who can't think of a property as anything other than a countable thing, yet relies on the argument that his critics are too "analytical" in their thinking and need to be more "holistic" to understand his claim. It's not as if it's hard to understand what it means to be a property.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:30 PM   #3088
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,531
For another way to put it, "self" is a verb, not a noun.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:12 PM   #3089
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,016
And now, after all this, Jabba cannot believe that none of us believe in a soul. Staggering.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:15 PM   #3090
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,092
Originally Posted by jond View Post
And now, after all this, Jabba cannot believe that none of us believe in a soul. Staggering.
Despite many of us explicitly saying so.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 09:29 AM   #3091
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,733
Apparently there are not that many potential answers to 'how is a self like going 60 mph'?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 10:47 AM   #3092
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Apparently there are not that many potential answers to 'how is a self like going 60 mph'?
Yes, in his last post it became clear that, despite paying lip service to it, Jabba has no intention of ever considering the actual scientific hypothesis that the self is a process and not a separate entity.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 11:04 AM   #3093
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,947
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
When I said I didn't believe in the existence of souls, what did you think I meant?

What did you think I'd been arguing all these years, that a person has a soul that exists distinct from his physical body, but that soul is mortal?

Here's what I - and most monists - believe:

The physical brain is what's doing the observing and experiencing. A whole lot of neurons in the right structures are capable of feeling, thinking, planning, and being aware of that feeling, thinking, and planning.

Is there anything about that that's not clear?
Dave,
- Yes.
- To me, one's self need not be equated with soul. One's self is one's particular, personal, awareness. We are each conscious, and we each have different consciousnesses. If we were able to duplicate your body after death, your particular consciousness/awareness would not return. We would produce a different consciousness/awareness.
- In that respect, your new existence would be different -- and number of selves would not be limited by chemistry.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 11:08 AM   #3094
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,092
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes.
- To me, one's self need not be equated with soul. One's self is one's particular, personal, awareness. We are each conscious, and we each have different consciousnesses. If we were able to duplicate your body after death, your particular consciousness/awareness would not return. We would produce a different consciousness/awareness.
Because two is more than one.

If you can understand the concept of two identical organisms, then you should be able to understand the concept of two identical "selves".


Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- In that respect, your new existence would be different -- and number of selves would not be limited by chemistry.
Neither would the number of bodies. Or the number of anything else. The limit would be the amount of matter in the universe and the ability to rearrange that matter.

How many going 60mph are there?
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 11:17 AM   #3095
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes.
- To me, one's self need not be equated with soul. One's self is one's particular, personal, awareness. We are each conscious, and we each have different consciousnesses. If we were able to duplicate your body after death, your particular consciousness/awareness would not return. We would produce a different consciousness/awareness.
- In that respect, your new existence would be different -- and number of selves would not be limited by chemistry.
Awareness is a process. Consciousness is a process. They are ongoing processes in the brain, not separate entities. You continue to insist that your "self" exists as an entity. In the scientific model, your self and your brain are the same thing.

Asked before and ignored: can you provide an example of a process that continues when the parts that give rise to it stop functioning?
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 11:17 AM   #3096
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,485
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
To me, one's self need not be equated with soul.
But that's effectively what you're doing by trying to say that under H, the scientific hypothesis, the "consciousness" or "awareness" (today's synonyms) inhabits the organism as an observer.

There is no such concept in the scientific model.

You're playing silly word games to try to shoehorn your dualist concept of a soul into monism.

I grant that it's difficult or impossible for you to grasp that the sense of self under H is not a "thing," but frankly that's your problem. You don't get to solve it by begging the question that what you can't grasp must therefore morph into something you can grasp. The scientific model is very different at the conceptual level from the dualism you're trying to prove.

Quote:
In that respect, your new existence would be different --
But that respect has nothing to do with the scientific hypothesis. I grant that it's a reasonably logical outcome of what you're trying to foist onto the scientific hypothesis, but the problem with that is the foist.

Several people, including your interlocutor of choice, have asked you an extremely important question about the countability of a property. This is absolutely essential to your case, as you are asserting that a property is countable so that you can use its cardinality to falsify H. A property that arises under H is not a countable set, and you have previously conceded it is not a set at all. You are being asked questions designed to challenge your assertions and reconcile your contradictory claims. Please answer them.

Last edited by JayUtah; 12th January 2017 at 11:20 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 11:19 AM   #3097
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,208
How many going 60mph are there?

Your continued refusal to answer only confirms you recognize a crucial flaw in your 'proof' and are just hoping we all forget.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 11:40 AM   #3098
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes.
- To me, one's self need not be equated with soul. One's self is one's particular, personal, awareness. We are each conscious, and we each have different consciousnesses. If we were able to duplicate your body after death, your particular consciousness/awareness would not return. We would produce a different consciousness/awareness.
- In that respect, your new existence would be different -- and number of selves would not be limited by chemistry.
...primarily because (of course) there is no evidence that such a thing exists.

You have even , yourself, by your own rules, AGREED that there is no evidence, none, of a "soul", much less of its "immortality".
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 11:46 AM   #3099
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,485
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
How many going 60mph are there?

Your continued refusal to answer only confirms you recognize a crucial flaw in your 'proof' and are just hoping we all forget.
Which, in all fairness, is something he's admitted having done before. I sense we're in the same dregs as the Shroud of Turin thread, where he conceded years ago that he had lost the actual debate. He spent all the rest of his time trying to argue that his critics had won unfairly.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:06 PM   #3100
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,531
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Yes.
- To me, one's self need not be equated with soul. One's self is one's particular, personal, awareness. We are each conscious, and we each have different consciousnesses. If we were able to duplicate your body after death, your particular consciousness/awareness would not return. We would produce a different consciousness/awareness.
- In that respect, your new existence would be different -- and number of selves would not be limited by chemistry.

This is completely incorrect. We do not have a consciousness (thing), we experience consciousness (process). The "number of selves" is a meaningless statement.

Can you count the number of "going 60 mph"?

Are you unable to address this simple question?
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:07 PM   #3101
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Which, in all fairness, is something he's admitted having done before. I sense we're in the same dregs as the Shroud of Turin thread, where he conceded years ago that he had lost the actual debate. He spent all the rest of his time trying to argue that his critics had won unfairly.
Yeah, that's what happens when you don't let him win by arguing his straw man position. Meanies, all of us.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:14 PM   #3102
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,092
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
This is completely incorrect. We do not have a consciousness (thing), we experience consciousness (process). The "number of selves" is a meaningless statement.
I've been using it to mean "number of living brains". I don't disagree with your first part, but I do think there's a way of looking at selves as things.

It doesn't help Jabba's argument though.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:14 PM   #3103
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
We would produce a different consciousness/awareness.

Consciousness is not a countable thing. It is a process.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:15 PM   #3104
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,743
How many going 60mph are there?

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- To me, one's self need not be equated with soul.

But that is clearly what you are doing, whatever term you use for the concept. The "self", as you use the term, is indistinguishable from the concept of the soul. Even if you call it an observer, an operator, or whatever. How would you distinguish them?

Remember, under your own rules you have to address the question about how many going 60mph there are first.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:18 PM   #3105
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
I've been using it to mean "number of living brains". I don't disagree with your first part, but I do think there's a way of looking at selves as things.

It doesn't help Jabba's argument though.
The problem is that Jabba doesn't equate it as number of living brains. He insists there's something else. He refuses to even acknowledge all the times we've pointed out that the number of selves is exactly the same as the number of bodies/brains.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:20 PM   #3106
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,947
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Because two is more than one.

If you can understand the concept of two identical organisms, then you should be able to understand the concept of two identical "selves".




Neither would the number of bodies. Or the number of anything else. The limit would be the amount of matter in the universe and the ability to rearrange that matter.

How many going 60mph are there?
- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:23 PM   #3107
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,092
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.
As is the number of particular brains, bodies, banana, planets, stars, and literally everything else.

(Not really because of entropy and heat death but we don't need to worry about that for another 100 billion years or so).
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:40 PM   #3108
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,485
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.
Consciousness is a process. It is not a countable set of things. Godless dave may not be respecting the difference between the countability of objects that exhibit a property and the notion of the property itself being countable, but that's the important failure in your argument. You want to divide the practical number of exhibitors by the "potential" number of such exhibitors. There is no such ratio.

And you know it.

You've been asked to comment on the countability of a property that, as stated, cannot be conflated with the countability of objects having the property. You will not answer, which leads us to conclude you realize full well what that answer would mean to your argument.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:41 PM   #3109
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,486
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.
Under H, consciousness is a process, not a thing. There is no number of particular consciousnesses, potential or otherwise, under H.

How many "going 60mph" are there?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:44 PM   #3110
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,947
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
As is the number of particular brains, bodies, banana, planets, stars, and literally everything else.

(Not really because of entropy and heat death but we don't need to worry about that for another 100 billion years or so).
Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:49 PM   #3111
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- IOW, the number of potential particular consciousnesses is infinite if matter can keep being recycled.

No, no, no. Consciousness cannot be numbered. It is not the same as "number of people" just like "going 60 mph" is not the same as "number of cars."

How many "going 60 mph" are there?

How is your consciousness today different from your consciousness 30 years ago. Did they love the same people, eat the same foods, remember Y2k the same way? Consciousness is a process. Understand that.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:59 PM   #3112
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 21,081
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?
Find yourself in a corner, so you change the subject as radically as possible?

This does not speak well for your position on immortality nor your so-called effective debate approach. Are you abandoning both?
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 01:02 PM   #3113
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,485
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?
No, you're struggling to find the Big Denominator. Now that it's clear you can't number "potential selves," you're scrambling around to find some other cosmological or mystical nonsense that you can pretend has "a finity fings" so you can divide "dis many fings" by it and get zero.

Do you really think after four years we're not onto you?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 01:04 PM   #3114
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,092
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so?
Nothing in known physics allows for entropy to be reversed.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
Even if there is that doesn't help your argument one iota. There are an infinity of potential different bananas. Yet there is a banana on my desk. That's because the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.

Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And then, how many universes are there?
One that we know of, and if there are others, we don't know of any way events in one universe can affect another.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 01:58 PM   #3115
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
....There are an infinity of potential different bananas. Yet there is a banana on my desk. That's because the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.
....
This!!!!!


and

How many going 60 mph are there?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 02:25 PM   #3116
fibbermcgee
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 79
Jabba, my late Mother in law had Alzheimer's. She had six daughters and did not know any of them. Her view of herself was practically non existent. Was her "self" corrupted by a disease that robbed her brain of memory?
fibbermcgee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 02:35 PM   #3117
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,076
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
- And then, how many universes are there?

This doesn't help you. What is the chance that the one universe you inhabit will be the one you find yourself inhabiting?

But you're changing the subject.

How many "going 60 mph" are there?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 03:57 PM   #3118
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,486
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?
Better yet: How many "going 60mph" are there?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 04:32 PM   #3119
Jabba
Illuminator
 
Jabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,947
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- Is there some reason to think that it won't start all over again after 100 billion years or so? Remember, I'm claiming that there must be an infinity of potential different particular awarenesses/consciousnesses.
- And then, how many universes are there?
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Nothing in known physics allows for entropy to be reversed.



Even if there is that doesn't help your argument one iota. There are an infinity of potential different bananas. Yet there is a banana on my desk. That's because the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.



One that we know of, and if there are others, we don't know of any way events in one universe can affect another.
Dave,
- What will physics say about that in 100 billion years
__________________
"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor
Jabba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 04:38 PM   #3120
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,092
Originally Posted by Jabba View Post
Dave,
- What will physics say about that in 100 billion years
Probably nothing because there will be no living things left to think about physics.

How is that relevant to anything? Even if there are an infinite number of potential selves, the number of potential anything over all time is not relevant to the likelihood of one individual thing existing at one particular time.
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm
godless dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.