What Are The Chances of Life After Death?
Below is a brief probability analysis of the chances of life after death. I may have missed some possibilities out here... be interested to hear any such.
Conventional Religion
There seems to be a complete lack of a logical justification for an afterlife in the conventional religions I’m familiar with. So I will allow a (generous) 1% chance that one of the conventional religions is right about there being an afterlife.
The Simulation Hypothesis
If we were living in a simulation then the transmigration of souls becomes a problem of moving data from one simulation to another. That might be theoretically possible, but hugely difficult. So I will assign a 1% chance it could result in life after death
Quantum immortality
When we die, the multiple world interpretation of QM magically transports us to an alternative world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality). Seems far fetched to me. 1% chance.
Eternalism -> Human Solution
If eternalism is true (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1) then it might be possible that a human solution to eternal life is possible (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5437/the-eternal-life-company). 12.5% chance.
Eternalism -> Circular time
If eternalism is true, it is possible that the topology of the time dimension is circular, meaning we would all live identical lives over and over again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return). 12.5% chance.
So totalling up, that gives 28% chance of life after death. I am a sort of glass half full sort of guy so that might be on the generous side.
Conventional Religion
There seems to be a complete lack of a logical justification for an afterlife in the conventional religions I’m familiar with. So I will allow a (generous) 1% chance that one of the conventional religions is right about there being an afterlife.
The Simulation Hypothesis
If we were living in a simulation then the transmigration of souls becomes a problem of moving data from one simulation to another. That might be theoretically possible, but hugely difficult. So I will assign a 1% chance it could result in life after death
Quantum immortality
When we die, the multiple world interpretation of QM magically transports us to an alternative world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality). Seems far fetched to me. 1% chance.
Eternalism -> Human Solution
If eternalism is true (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1) then it might be possible that a human solution to eternal life is possible (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5437/the-eternal-life-company). 12.5% chance.
Eternalism -> Circular time
If eternalism is true, it is possible that the topology of the time dimension is circular, meaning we would all live identical lives over and over again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return). 12.5% chance.
So totalling up, that gives 28% chance of life after death. I am a sort of glass half full sort of guy so that might be on the generous side.
Comments (287)
How can you even measure probability as you do here? What methodology are you using to end up with those numbers? And how can you attach a higher number to theories that you are arguing for? Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions?
As far as I see it, there is no probability until there is actual support for a hypothetical truth. All of these have no real foundation and is both highly speculative and fantasy. So probability cannot be applied to such a low degree of support.
So far, we have no data what-so-ever that support any kind of life after death. So it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse, adding probability to theories that do not have any foundation in the first place. To return to my favorite analogy in epistemology, Russel's teapot; we must first establish a true probability of there being a teapot, before adding the probability that it is a white, blue or red teapot. The attributes of the teapot cannot have a probability when there are no data to support that it's even out there in space.
It's like me asking you to guess the probability of my car's color. Red 10%, Blue 16,48%, Green 7,4%. Without any knowledge of whether or not I even own a car. Establish that there is data to support an actual hypothesis of me owning a car, then attach a probability of color. However, if it's only hypothetical that I own a car, then you can just continue with hypothetical probabilities of all attributes of that hypothetical car, without there ever be any data whatsoever of anything other than the existence of the car itself. So a low probability truth has low probability attributes. It becomes a form of infinite regress and thus the existence of the car needs to be established beyond the hypothetical before we continue with hypothetical attributes of that car.
The first three are guesses. The fourth is calculated here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/269149
The fifth is:
(chance of eternalism) * (chance future real) * (chance time dimension circular)
50%*50%*50%=12.5%
Quoting Christoffer
The foundations for eternalism are Relativity and the 'now' independent nature of the physical laws in general (also my argument here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1)
I agree the foundation for some of the others is shaky or non-existent, hence assigning a 1% probability (rounded up) for each of them.
Quoting Christoffer
We will never have any data supporting life after death. People are still interested though; our primary directive is survival and this directive extends beyond the grave. But despite not having data, there are still possibilities and where there are possibilities there are probabilities.
Quoting Christoffer
I can still assign a probability that you own a green car without knowing whether you own a car or not; I just assign a lower probability to account for the fact you may not even own a car.
That calculation does not have any valid foundation other than your own invention. There's a 50% chance I own a car. That is a calculation I just made, is that probability correct? No, since it refers to nothing more than a probability of my own invention.
Quoting Devans99
You cannot assign any probability like this and not for the others either.
You haven't given any deductive reasoning behind any of the calculations which indisputably solidifies the probabilities you proposed.
Quoting Devans99
People's desperation in a will to continue life after death does not support there ever being any life after death. Desperation as a source for conclusions is an extremely irrational belief without any substance of knowledge at all. Emotional desperation is not enough to create a foundational understanding of the universe.
Quoting Devans99
This is fundamentally lacking any logic. Without any data or rational deduction, you have nothing but belief, which is not a foundation for any probability.
Quoting Devans99
No, you can't, since you don't have any data to attach that probability to. You can't just invent a number like that, it's not how logic or probability math works. This is I think why you often ignore the counter-arguments you get on this forum. You are so convinced that your math logic is true that you ignore the holes in your logic and therefore others must be wrong. But your math logic is made up, there's nothing to support concluding with your numbers.
1%, 12.5%, how do you even reach those specific numbers? You're just inventing them out of thin air. Why not 12,6%? Why not 1,76%, Why not 19,4%? If some new theories pop up, are they within the calculus? Do they affect these numbers? If there are other possibilities, doesn't that mean that the calculated probabilities only ends up being based on how many guesses about the universe there is? If I say the universe is an apple pie, that's a possibility I just invented, so there must be a 1% chance that we are all interdimensional crust crumbs.
You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind.
Sometimes you attempt it out-front...with integrity; sometimes using back-door methods that lack integrity.
Either way...it is almost certain you will not succeed. I, personally, think it cannot be done. I know for certain that some very intelligent people have attempted to do it...and come up very short.
But, I will acknowledge that you, here in a relatively small Internet forum...MIGHT do it.
So far...you are about at strike seventeen.
In the absence of any data about the frequency of car ownership, it is correct to assign a 50% probability that you own a car; it is a boolean proposition with a boolean sample space.
Quoting Christoffer
The deductive reasoning for eternalism was given here (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). It is a provisional argument, so I have assigned a 50% probability it is correct.
The rest of the calculation is inductive, for example, the chances of circular time:
(chance of eternalism) * (chance future real) * (chance time dimension circular)
50%*50%*50%=12.5%
- chance of eternalism. My senses say no, but logic says yes. So I left it at a default 50%.
- chance future real. Only some flavours of eternalism are future real. Physics favours future real. Future real does not agree with our intuitive feel for time. So again I went with 50%
- chance time dimension circular. It is either a line or a circle. So 50%. Actually its more likely to be a circle (then every moment has a moment preceding it) so this is an underestimate
Do you not see how breaking the problem down in this manner is a superior approach to taking a blind guess?
Quoting Christoffer
But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution. We make that assumption because it is statistically the most likely distribution.
Quoting Christoffer
The 1% estimates have sufficiently small impact of the overall analysis that guessing them does not matter too much. I have given you the calculations for the two that matter. Those calculations are a step removed from a blind guess, which is what most people do.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP.
I subscribe to no conventional religion. Deism is probably the best description (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).
Yes...and almost all houses have a door in front and a door in back.
It does not matter if you use the door in front or the door in back...if you are using one of the doors to enter...IT IS THE HOUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO ENTER.
In any case, your "probability" estimates for almost everything you speak to are NOT probability estimates at all. You do not have the numbers and facts necessary for such estimates...although that does not stop you from pretending you do.
The chances that there is life after death...are not calculable.
If you want to blindly guess there is life after death...do it.
If you want to blindly guess there is no life after death...do it.
But to pretend this is a discussion legitimately probing whether there is or not...and that you can calculate the probability in any way...
...is disingenuous.
That's not a deductive argument, so no. Read the answers in that thread given to you. You ignore them and start new threads in which you conclude your previous arguments to be final and concluded without ever addressing the problems people raise. You end up just having personal beliefs proposed as truths with flawed math.
Quoting Devans99
No we don't, you do. And you make conclusions based on the value you like. It's pure belief dressed in flawed logic.
Quoting Devans99
This is utter nonsensical support of why you end up with those numbers. There's no math here, just made up numbers.
Here's a number: 7,37.
Do what you like with it, it's a number I find very probable to support a very large number of things.
- That's the logic proposed in your argument.
Quoting Devans99
Life after death is just as much of a belief fantasy as the existence of God. Just as a conclusion that the universe is an apple pie with us being crust crumbs. There's a 7,37% chance of us being crumbs, because of the logic I just invented, supported by a boolean distribution calculation.
I read all responses. No-one came up with any valid counter arguments. I assigned a 50% probability that eternalism is true so no I am not concluding I'm correct.
Do you think I'm stupid enough to keep posting about it if it has been rebutted?
Would you like to offer a valid counter argument?
Quoting Christoffer
Take a coin toss. You can assume it comes up heads, tails, or heads half the time. Which is the most correct assumption? Half the time is. So when doing a probability analysis, if you have no data for a particular sub-proposition, all you can do is assign a 50% probability.
Quoting Christoffer
That is a very high level statement with no justification. See the OP for an example of how to argue an inductive proposition.
The counter-argument is that you have no support for your math premises. How are those not valid counter-arguments? Produce actual support for your premises first.
Quoting Devans99
No, I think you have a cognitive bias towards your own ideas to the degree that you won't listen to actual counter arguments made. You've received countless of counters to your arguments without actually addressing them fully. Do you think all of us are stupid enough to continue counter-arguing if we didn't see the holes in your reasoning? If you want us to agree with your conclusions you need to actually address the criticism you get, not just tell us your conclusion once more.
You can't hammer in the nail perfectly if you already bent it, it's still gonna be bent, regardless of how hard you smash it. You need a new nail.
Quoting Devans99
Yes, because you have the coin (data) and you have two sides (data) and you have physical conditions like air density, spin, force, energy (data) to conclude with a probability of a certain event.
That has nothing to do with a concept that is hypothetical without any data to support it. You try to use this example of probability as an example comparable to a conclusion made from not even having a coin.
So you have a belief of something and then you draw probabilities for that belief. That is NOT the same as having an actual coin with actual measurable data to draw probabilities from.
How this isn't obvious to you I don't know.
Quoting Devans99
Life after death has no support in science, so it's a belief. If you want to put "life after death" on a higher plane of hypothetical truth than the existence of God, you need to first prove it to have scientific validity as a concept, which it hasn't. What you believe is more or less true between the existence of God and life after death is totally irrelevant. It's therefore not a high-level statement, it's a logical conclusion of the nature of the argument.
You still have no valid premises and no support for your probability numbers. And you are referring to yourself as a foundation for the validity of those premises, i.e cognitive bias.
Stop hammering that bent nail.
I do address all counter arguments fully. If you disagree, provide a link to such an unaddressed counter argument.
Quoting Christoffer
Ok, so say someone gave you 100 boolean propositions. You don't know what the propositions are but you have to guess how many are true. What would be your guess?
- 0 true
- 50 true
- 100 true
You would guess 50. So when you truly have no data about a proposition, it is correct to assume 50% likelihood of truth.
Quoting Christoffer
Eternalism is support for the life after death proposition. Eternalism is supported by science, see for example the Quantum Eraser experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment).
You haven't, you refer back to your original statements or other arguments you've made which are flawed, as per all the counter-arguments you've received in them.
Just because you say you've countered the counter-arguments, doesn't mean that you have.
It's like me saying that my conclusion is that I'm right, so you can't say I'm wrong. That's delusional.
Quoting Devans99
This doesn't adress the counter-arguments I gave.
And a boolean proposition is not the same as attaching your personal conviction or belief to such a calculation and concluding it to hold up. You have no data to support anything, no science, no nothing, but mix and match science and math in a way that fits your narrative. Then ignoring everything people counter-argue about it.
Quoting Devans99
The conclusions you make are not. You cannot take one conclusion and twist it into your own true conclusion.
Why do you keep spamming the same answers over and over? People all over the forum keep countering your logic and you keep ignoring all of them and start new threads referring back to your own previous threads with a conclusion that they are correct, ignoring every counter-argument you got in those threads.
I'm sorry, but you are not able to participate in a philosophical dialectic since you do not even try and falsify your own arguments. You just spam your convictions over and over and ignore the things said. Before this discussion can move forward, you need to address the actual counter-arguments given, not ignore them and repeat yourself. I cannot continue the discussion with someone who won't understand the counter-arguments.
If you are actually working on papers to be published, please do so and listen to the feedback on those publications. It will be relentless I'm afraid. And maybe then you'll understand the counter-arguments given in all your threads on this forum.
Yet you cannot provide any evidence of these alleged unaddressed counter-arguments.
Quoting Christoffer
Why?
Quoting Christoffer
No-one can provide me a link to these mysterious counter arguments.
Quoting Christoffer
What I am trying to do with these posts is to falsify my own arguments. I have not succeeded so far.
Because you won't actually listen to people. It's called cognitive bias. I'm not the only one who countered your arguments, I might be the only one stupid enough to keep answering. But you're trapped in circular reasoning and everyone tries to give you a way out, but you're stuck in that circle. Then people stop trying and leave you there, still convinced to be correct in your conclusion.
He [i]screams[/I] cognitive bias. Perhaps more than any other member of this forum that I have encountered.
Quoting S
There is an element of devil's advocate. I do not have 100% conviction in the correctness of any of my ideas. Yet I need to argue in support of those ideas to find out if they are true or not.
Are you sure you want an honest answer to that question?
The topic can't even begin to proceed in any productive manner until you acknowledge the counterarguments. That's your step 1. And note well that step 1 doesn't require that me or anyone else do anything at all. You can, and you should, help yourself. I've said this before, but it is actually immoral not to do so, but instead to pass the buck to others.
This is getting very frustrating. The people who don't agree with me on this site use this strategy of claiming that my arguments have been countered but will not provide evidence. The only natural conclusion is that there is no such evidence.
It would be better to actually try engaging with my arguments.
You can't just imagine a poor argument and some fairy tales into existence and then tell everyone they're losing a battle against what you've mistaken as valid because they can't prove leprechauns don't exist.
And probability is way beyond your imagination, go spend a lifetime learning how it actually works.
Sometimes it's hard to tell whether people are just trolling.
You must be trolling. There's no way you're this oblivious to reality. Stop wasting people's time.
How would you explain a start of time with presentism? - It is impossible.
Why does 'now' not feature in the laws of physics?
Try to keep an open mind please...
Then why are you here?
Based on what? You don't listen to others at all. If you ever even looked at the dialectics I've gone through on this board you would see that when someone counter-argues my ideas I try and modify accordingly. You ignore everything.
If you see no counter arguments anywhere, go publish those papers you said you wrote. You said that you use these forum discussions to falsify your ideas and since, by your account, you don't seem to find any counter-arguments valid, your papers must be solid.
So, go publish and we'll continue when you get feedback on those papers. I think that would be a good lesson for you.
If you want to keep discussing here, you might need to actually listen to people instead of spamming the same things over and over.
Link to an example of where I have ignored a valid counter argument
Which is the same chance anyone here has of getting through to Devans.
We have some phenomena that we can observe, where it doesn't seem to ridiculous to call multiple instances "the same phenomenon" (it's never going to be literally the same because of nominalism), and on those multiple instances, there are good reasons to assume that we know most of the variables and most are being controlled. We also need reasons to believe that our sample size wasn't ridiculously small compared to the total number of occurrences of the phenomena in question. So then we observe how often x occurred versus didn't occur, and we use induction to guess that a similar pattern might continue.
Note that I think the above still has some serious problems re its ontological grounding. It's still often difficult to take it as much more than a guess. But that is the ONLY way that I consider any sort of probability calculation "legitimate."
Everything else is balderdash.
Hahaha hahaha--is about as insightful a comment as I believe this OP deserves.
I have math to back it up.
Yea that's what I thought, you have no counter argument.
I think so, and I'm right. Or, at least, I have an 89.52% chance of being right, because you have no valid counterarguments.
Here.
I think you will find that you do probability calculations all the time. Should I get on that plane? The last one did not crash. That sort of thing. You can use probability for anything - look at the vast range of things you can bet on.
A more specific link.
Back on topic, there is the possibility that life is but a dream and dying is equivalent to waking up. It has the advantage of not needing any messy transmigration of the soul or anything. Worth a couple more percentage points?
So, I go through the effort of doing that, and my reward is...? What?
Going around in circles with you again with regard to your failed logic, or your now famous catchphrase: [i]no valid counterargument![/I]
Yes I'm sorry, I'm not using S-Logic.
There's nothing wrong with my logic.
You haven't provided any valid counterargument.
Valid counterarguments to what? You have not provided any arguments.
I think of things in probabilistic terms only in a frequentist context, as I described above.
:rofl:
Quoting Devans99
Yes, that's an accurate representation of the argument I gave to you in one of your recent discussions. You know, the argument you're denying the existence of.
Quoting Devans99
You haven't created any discussions or submitted any comments. You don't even exist. You're not a member of this forum. You never joined. You were never even born.
Beat that!
You are not going to be able to reason much about the world with such an axiom... it invalidates all possible conclusions.
Why do you think so many people reject your “logic” and ideas about probability? You are basically standing alone, doubling down and repeating the same thing over and over while people try and get through to you.
Im just curious what YOU think their reasons for rejecting your view on probability are. Important, since your views in probability are the basis for virtually everything you post in this forum (that ive read).
Yes, I said that with absolute sincerity. You accurately represented the argument I never provided. The argument I must have dreamt I had made, in public, on this very forum.
There is no logical basis for strong atheism for example and my ideas on probability make that quite clear. So it tends to be a certain sort of person who disagrees with me (strong atheists for example).
You are going against the scientific method. You are condemned to ever live in darkness. You might as well sign up for a religion with that axiom.
Ok, well Im not a strong atheist and I have no problems with where your views lead.
So what is your explanation for me? Why do you think I disagree with you, since its not the reasons you stated?
So, anyway, what else do you enjoy doing in your spare time besides trolling this philosophy forum? You're a fan of St. Thomas Retardass, I gather.
Shall we play a game of troll trolling troll?
Exactly what are you disagreeing with - can you be specific please.
He's not disagreeing with anything you've said, because you haven't said anything. And he's not disagreeing with you, because you don't exist.
Provide a link.
I am an astronomer. And Aquinas was one of the most brilliant men to ever live.
The definition of a troll is someone who makes offensive posts. My posts are not offensive, unless it is your atheist sensibilities that are offended?
An astronomer! I don't believe that for a second. Obvious troll is obvious.
Nor do I believe that you don't know that the definition of a troll covers a lot more than that. I suspect that you're creating these really bad arguments, and responding in the ways that you typically do, on purpose, for your own satisfaction.
That's actually a better alternative, because if you're not doing this on purpose, then I feel sorry for you.
I disagree with your “math” and views on probability (specifically the way you conjure probability out of thin air, and do not understand the logic you refer to in your arguments).
So, im curious as to why you think I disagree.
I've already explained the problem. Oh! No, wait. I haven't. I must have dreamt that. I have no arguments or valid counterarguments. This is not a sentence. I don't exist, and neither do you. Am I man dreaming that I'm a butterfly, or is a Devans a troll or just dumb? It's one of life's great mysteries.
I think you don't understand my argument. We have statistics for how 'thin air' behaves - the normal distribution. If you cannot assign a probability to a specific boolean proposition because you have no data - what do you do? - you use a 50%/50% estimate in line with the normal distribution.
What parts of my math do you disagree with?
I had hoped that you would be open to the possibility of being wrong in your argument now that more have given responses to your argument and logic, but it seems that you are just ignoring anything that doesn't agree with you.
So, you fail in logic and philosophical reasoning. Your argument is not valid, your logic is not valid, deal with it or your theory will never hold ground outside of your own mind. The whole point here is to convince people beyond any doubt that your argument is solid and correct. By just ignoring everyone you're essentially trying to argue that everyone else is stupid and doesn't understand your logic or argument. This is simply not the case.
We've all addressed your reasoning and logic and pointed out why it fails, but you persist. Being stubborn is good in some cases, but I think that you need to publish your ideas if you are actually doing a real paper on it so that you'll get proper counter arguments from philosophical academia. You can argue stubbornly against all of us, but if you're just as stubborn within academia, you will never accomplish anything with your ideas.
If we're not enough to show you why you are wrong or incomplete in your reasoning, then expose yourself to the highest level of philosophical discourse. Maybe then you'll understand what we are talking about in here.
If you came here just to rant your ideas without discourse, you're just spamming and trolling the same thing over and over. I'd say that's low-quality posting, but I'm no mod.
What I would appreciate is reasoned, specific, on topic counter arguments rather than waffle.
Too obvious. The jig is up.
Good game, though. You just lost the game, by the way.
Can you link to publications in your name as an astronomer? Show that you have credentials if you use that as support for your arguments.
Quoting Devans99
Which you already have been given, by all of us. We pointed out that your probability reasoning is flawed and doesn't work and your response is just to say "no valid counter-arguments". Respectfully understand this simple fact, please.
Maybe if I write in all caps you will understand:
YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT VALID - YOUR PROBABILITY LOGIC IS NOT VALID.
I am familiar with his published writings on the subject. His magnum opus is [I]Stars Have No Valid Counterarguments[/I] by Trollerton McTrollingsworth.
Just saying my argument is not valid does not make it so.
So I do not understand your argument, so that's why I disagree and everyone else is disagreeing because their strong atheism is being threatened? Is that right?
American rock band from Rockford, Illinois, formed in 1973. No, wait, that's Cheap Trick. Nevermind.
Quoting Devans99
But you can't, because you don't exist, and even if you did, you wouldn't have any valid counterarguments.
I tagged the people in this thread, but there are more people who disagree with you on the same things as we do from other threads since you’ve uses this stuff as a basis for a bunch of threads. In fact, no one agrees with you that Ive seen.
Gentlemen, please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”?
Not I. Not generally, anyway. Only in the strictest of circumstances, like a contradiction.
Unfortunately not even good credentials can support bad arguments.
NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS IN YOUR POSTS!
How can you have arguments if you don't exist? Provide a link to your existence.
You don't [i]anything[/I], because you don't exist. You haven't provided any valid [i]your own existence[/I]. Provide a link, or you don't exist.
Prejudice isn't an argument, and it has a negative impact on arguments. Atheism has a definition, and most atheists couldn't care less about arguing nonsense. Atheism doesn't come in a package with whatever else you imagine it comes with. Confirmation bias is also not an argument, neither is it a good foundation on which to conduct philosophy, or science, or mathematics, or any other thing you might pretend you're incorporating into it.
You haven't yet presented a sound argument for or against anything.
This thread is a prime example. You presented something you're pretending is math, or "probability" or whatever you want to call it, to found an argument about something--that you're already convinced exists and are grasping at straws to try to explain--for which there has never been a hint of evidence.
To Trollerton McTrollingsworth, amateur astronomer, and author of [I]Stars Have No Valid Counterarguments[/I], amongst other gems, such as [I]Planets Have No Valid Counterarguments[/I], and [I]Black Holes Have No Valid Counterarguments[/I].
That's you, isn't it?
Well, S replied. Not a strong atheist. So that eliminates his disagreement on the basis of his strong atheism. So, is he now in the category with me as mot understanding your argument?
Since no one else replied I will have to suppose...lets suppose (as I strongly suspect) that no one you are arguing with is a strong atheist. Are we all failing to understand your argument then?
You started a troll thread based on percentages you made up in your head and you're pretending it's fortifying claims that have no foundation in reality. There are people who spend 40 years on one math problem, you must be a prodigy. You need to get off this forum and go to a prestigious university, I'm sure they'd all be ecstatic to place you in a teaching position and siphon your vast knowledge.
Your argument is make believe. I don't have to contest it any more than I have to contest a child who says their toy car can jump a million hundred feet in sixty hundred fifty seconds.
I already told you. Im not interested in that right now. Im trying to find out why you think everyone disagrees with you, and rejects what you are saying as nonsense.
Are you willing to commit, barring someones declaration of strong atheism, that your position is that ALL the people saying the exact same thing about your “probability” basis and its lack of validity lack the comprehension to grasp your argument?
I put some thought into the calculations 4 and 5 as explained above. I am not trolling. I thought that life after death is a subject that is of natural interest to all of us and was there anything we could do with it on the numbers side. I thought it was an interesting idea. Why all the hostility?
Just saying our counter-arguments are invalid does not make it so.
You are right in that you are an amateur. Many in here are, but being an amateur might also mean that you don't even have the dialectical methodology to be able to participate in proper philosophical discussions.
Your way of dismissing counterarguments show that you don't have any grasp on actual philosophy. It's self-proclaimed philosophers like you who makes me feel I already have a PhD.
Well as no-one can articulate exactly what is the problem with my probability calculations, I can hardly be expected to answer that question.
Are we hostile just because we point out your logic is invalid? As I said, you don't seem to understand what philosophy really is.
SPECIFIC ON TOPIC COUNTER ARGUMENTS PLEASE
Your numbers don't relate to anything other than your own invented logic. That's the problem. People have pointed this out over and over but you won't listen. You have no source for the probability you propose. Seriously, how are you unable to see this simple fact?
Explain how you ended up with those probability numbers, it's the biggest hole in your logical reasoning.
Which number(s) do you object to?
EVERYONE DID OVER AND OVER - DEAL WITH IT
1%
12,5%
Explain, now, or just stop trolling.
Ok, so you will not commit to that. Will you commit to admitting that you do not know why they disagree with you?
1% - is basically a rounded up estimate for 'I have virtually no belief in the possibility of' (religion, simulation or quantum immortality). I rounded up out of respect for these viewpoints I guess. Could of used 0% - it would not make much difference to the end result.
12.5% - I already explained the derivation here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/279748
What aspect in particular do you disagree with?
Oh, don't be so modest. You're a prestigious author! But yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'm glad we got that settled.
This conversation is a source of laughter not hostility.
Also it's "I could have" not "I could of".
I have to assume I have not articulated my arguments clearly enough I guess.
That we have no valid counterarguments is no laughing matter. We really need to pull our socks up. We're in the presence of someone who's going places. He'll have the last laugh when he's all over television, and everyone is lining up for him to sign their copy of his new book, in his mind, in his padded cell, inside the asylum.
What's funny is that he is so wildly off course. He utterly fails to distinguish between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. God is that which is prior to that which is existentially dependent upon that which consists in/of the medication I need to keep me bouncing off the walls.
You don't know what's funny about "surviving death"?
Rounded up from what? Why is this number 1% and not 1,1%? Explain how you ended up with exactly 1% We want to see the actual mathematical calculation that made you end up at that exact number.
Quoting Devans99
No, you didn't. You need to explain how you calculated 50% in the first place and how you can apply the chances of circular time to be 50%, which has no data in support of that number.
You essentially need to explain how you can apply 50% to a concept that does not have any data in support of it. A boolean distribution cannot be used as a foundation for a probability of something to be true. That is so fundamentally un-scientific in its logic that it's absurd.
Here's a test for your appliance of 50% to circular time. Tell your calculation to a physicist actually working on time-related physics and see how they react to your concept. If they don't laugh at it I will be surprised.
There, now answer in a way that convinces us all how any of this is logical.
If anything, I am an agnostic.
I prefer not to use the descriptor...but instead state my position as:
[b][i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i][/b]
Which counter-argument that is not valid are you referring to? :lol:
Not a foundation for a rational argument, irrelevant.
Quoting Frank Apisa
THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT
THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTERARGUMENT
There is no calculation behind it; it is an estimate. In the absence of statistical support; estimates are the best one can do.
Quoting Christoffer
Eternalist time can have two possible topologies: linear or circular. I have no data on which is more prevalent, so it is statistically correct to assume 50%:
- Assuming 0% chance of circler would be an unwarranted bias towards linear.
- Assuming 100% chance of circler would be an unwarranted bias towards circular
- So we assume 50% - equidistant between the two extremes.
That is the statistically correct answer.
Quoting Christoffer
It is not as far fetched as you think, see for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve
THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY ARGUMENT TO ANY QUOTED ARGUMENT - COUNTERED
You don't "guess". You [I]believe[/I].
Or is it the other way around? I'm sure Frank will tell us. Again.
He might believe he has the last laugh, like William Lane Craig when he thinks he's got an ontological argument for the existence of god and says "I'd like to see someone provide evidence against god" before spewing out nonsense from the 1400's, an "argument" which begins with the assumption that god exists. You need two PhD's to talk pedantic jibberish on a stage. You don't need any PhD's for Philosophy Forums.
Everyone who argues this argues the same tired points from the middle ages every time because confirmation bias makes sense of ancient writing. It's strange that no one has come up with a new god argument in 600 years.
What are you referring to? Provide a link.
How can you reach that estimate? And if it's only an estimate, how can you make a probability conclusion if your probability is based on just an estimate? You need solid numbers for calculating the probability, but you use only an estimate, so your probability is based on variable estimates about something without any data in support of it. Are you unable to see how hollow this calculation is?
Quoting Devans99
You cannot assume 50% because no data support either to have that number as a probability. You fail at basic math here. I can add any kind of fantasy concept and change the numbers: tesseract linearity, there... now you have 33,3333333333333% and your calculation fails. You have no data in support of your probability, your logic fails.
Quoting Devans99
You wouldn't even pass basic math.
Quoting Devans99
A hypothesis is a hypothesis, you cannot use that as a scientific theory for a probability calculation. In order to have a probability of something, you need to have facts in support of it. A hypothesis is not enough. You are using educated guesses that haven't been confirmed in order to make a probability calculation for a solid conclusion.
It's so flawed it's infantile. Where did you get your basic education?
I refer back to my own reference post of an argument that is 50% probable to be true based on a hypothesis that is part of my agnostic ideals. There, a bulletproof philosophical conclusion worthy of Aquinas!
I use Schick razors, they're obviously better than Occam's. I believe I've said this to you before, butt I'll iterate--I don't ignore things, I ponder and then disregard them, they go into the recycle bin, ignoring things can be equated with idiocy, sure, and laziness, whether they're obvious or not.
Well the impact of the 1% estimates on the total estimate is small so I felt an estimate was OK. We all know the probability of those three is very low so I choose 1% - did not think it would be controversial.
Quoting Christoffer
You cannot just make up anything for the topology of a dimension - it is either open (linear) or closed (circular) - there are no other options.
Again, I re-iterate the general principle, if there is no data for a sub-proposition, then assuming 50% is statistically the correct thing to do.
Ok, so you will commit to your own in-articulation? Thats why people are disagreeing with you?
I couldn't help but notice that Christoffer gave you precisely what you asked for, he pointed out exactly where you are lacking foundation for your argument. Why did you ignore it?
Math does not accept you to "choose" anything. You need to calculate it. If you "choose" a number, you don't even know basic math. Period.
Quoting Devans99
I can't, I thought I could do what you do... invent a number out of thin air through pure convenience.
Outside of that, maybe you should actually invest time in investigating physics and discover that linear and circular isn't binary choices for explaining time. But your the amateur astronomer, who are any of us to argue with Devan Aquinas?
Quoting Devans99
If there is no scientific data, you cannot conclude anything outside of belief. I wonder what mods define as low-quality posts, I would say that this is it.
We're not done yet, convince me with your superior math skills and superior knowledge of physics before claiming a win of the dialectics. Or are you applying circular time to your circular reasoning?
You are being pedantic.
Quoting Christoffer
My argument first allows for the need to eternalism to be true as a prerequisite as well. So assuming time is a dimension, you claim it is of some shape that is NOT EITHER open (linear) or closed (circular). Prove it.
Well, some overlap here as we are all replying swiftly. You can sort it out with him, I recommend you try and stay open minded as he is telling you exactly where you have erred
Ok, so you didnt respond to my question. You are willing to commit to your own in-articulation as the reason everyone is disagreeing with you?
He is not. His statement is vitally important and on point. Ignore his insulting tone and recognise the substance in what he is saying. You really don’t “choose” in math, you calculate.
Your misunderstanding of this is what everyone is talking about when they say your foundation is not valid. If you have not calculated something in math, you are just making it up out of thin air.
Its possible you arent articulating well, but it might also be the case that you are the one thats wrong here...couldnt it?
No, I'm doing proper philosophical discourse here, get in the game.
And... THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT
Quoting Devans99
So you need it to be true, therefore, your argument is invalid as your premise is assumed to be true before proven true.
Quoting Devans99
Prove that linear and circular is the ONLY concepts to be true before you can claim the possibility of more to exist. If you can't do that, how can you conclude there to be only those two without any doubt and how can you assign 50% probability to either without any data whatsoever?
Prove your premises first. Seriously, your reasoning is infantile.
Your premises need to be true, not assumptions or guesses.
Your conclusion needs to be a probability based on true premises or a conclusion that is absolutely true based on absolutely true premises. If you do not, you fail at basic philosophical reasoning. So far, all premises are based on your assumptions, beliefs and what you want reality to be.
Seriously, how far should we go before you understand that your argument is invalid?
And whilst I'm using math, I'm doing induction. Its inherently about estimation. My whole post is about estimation. There are some questions for which there are no precise mathematical answers to; this is where estimation comes in.
Induction doesn't mean your conclusion or premises can be fantasies. Induction means a probable conclusion based on true premises. You have no true premises, period.
Its a high level estimate only, you are being pedantic.
Quoting Christoffer
No I allowed a 50% probability of eternalism being true.
Quoting Christoffer
A dimension can be visualised as a line. A line only has two possible topologies, open or closed.
No, you don’t guess and draw conclusions based on those guesses. You look for more data. If there is none, then you draw no conclusions. You are committing the “argument from ignorance fallacy”
Part of the purpose of the post is to collect more data on the proposition by discussing it.
No, I'm not pedantic, you need a solid ground for your argument. How can you demand us to accept a theory that is flawed? That is not philosophy, that is an evangelical sermon of your opinions.
Quoting Devans99
Your allowance does not support 50% to be a number that is true. Your allowance is not grounds to support your premise. Your allowance is your belief, nothing more and nothing that can make your premises true out of what you allow. That number is your invention, nothing more.
Quoting Devans99
That is 1 dimension. 2 has X and Y, 3 has X, Y and Z. 4 becomes a tesseract (hypercube), hypothetical string theory allows up to 11 dimensions. The possibilities punch holes in your logic by being possibilities alone, ignored by you and your argument.
You presented it as an argument. You used an invalid premiss. This has been pointed out.
Anyway, my parting comment: you have narrowed it down to either your own in- articulation or that you are wrong. I suggest you test each of those, see which one seems more likely.
Oh. But isn't that what you do with a first cause? You go: one, two, miss a few, it can't go on for infinity for no apparent reason, so there must be a first cause!
"Estimation" isn't synonymous with "imagination".
It is not a theory, it is an estimate. There is a difference. Estimates are part of everyday life; we do it all the time. Why do you have a problem with estimation? Some questions are not answerable logically, mathematically or statistically so we have to estimate.
Quoting Christoffer
My allowance of 50% was based on a head versus heart argument I gave above. I am personally divided over whether eternalism is true and the 50% reflects that uncertainty.
Quoting Christoffer
But each dimension individually is a line - it has no further structure - so no further variations are possible.
At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic.
But I don't. I don't assume that the universe was created, let alone created by magic.
Whereas my mockery version of your argument, which resembles the logic of a little child, is actually pretty much your actual argument.
Because you use it as a fundamental foundation for your entire theory of inductive probability. A foundation that would require a true premise, meaning, it requires it to be more than an estimate out of your belief. But your use of it for the conclusions at the end of your argument needs for it to be a fact, which it isn't.
Quoting Devans99
Your personal idea about eternalism is not a valid foundation for a 50% probability, that is just your personal belief of what is true. You cannot use your own opinions and beliefs as a foundation for mathematical calculations, that is utter nonsense.
Quoting Devans99
What the hell are you talking about?
What is the definition of low-quality posts? mods? I give up soon. This is like debating a dropout.
Is that reason to accept your failed logic? Jeez
Do you know, I've never actually read Thomas Aquinas, and I don't know a great deal about him or his arguments, but if you are anything to go by, then he must have been one of the worst philosophers of all time.
Of course. May I predict that you will start a new thread, proposing the same logic, referring to your old posts as support for your new thread, ignoring everyone's counter-arguments once more.
If there's anything that's circular it's the repeating cycle of your threads.
For theists perhaps, but he is not. If you think he is, you know nothing of philosophy history.
He is placed [i]way[/I] down the list, except by believers, for obvious reasons. He doesn't even come close to all the other big names.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica
Really.
Okay...a moment of agreement with us.
I agree that your comment is not a valid argument.
In the context of the argument being discussed, it is not valid and does not have any relation to it at all. So, what is your point? The argument isn't valid to support what is being proposed.
Ah, okay. So everything is water.
I'm drowning.
In most of your posts to me...and about me...you are being a jerk-off.
But here, I agree totally.
I, also, am not assuming the universe is a creation...let alone by magic.
I do not know if the universe is a creation or not...and if it is a creation (one possibility), I certainly do not know the mechanisms of the creation.
Devans is pretending he knows...or can calculate...that it was (or most likely was) a creation...
...and he pretty much can limit how the creation came to happen.
Thomas Aquinas never showed it...
...and neither have you.
I calculate a 94.6% chance that you are wrong in all your calculations.
Obviously have to be selective about it. Some obvious arguments like 4 elements turned out wrong. In the case of the 5 ways, he is mainly using cause and effect for an axiom so the reasoning is as sound today as it was then (for the macroscopic world which is what matters).
The 5 ways...the 5 "proofs"...
...are a joke.
The question asked of me...which was the reason for my response, was:
Gentlemen (he asked me an others), please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”?
My response was valid...and responsive.
So, what is convenient for you and your personal beliefs is how you are selective about it?
They all end with..."...this everyone refers to as God."
I, for one, refer to it as "we do not know."
Aquinas was an intelligent man for his day and respect him...
...but his argument can easily be defeated by a Philosophy 101 student.
Apart from that bit which I agree is a stretch, what do you disagree with?
Do you reject the logical necessity of a first cause?
C'mon, Devans.
Your comment reminds me of the, "Apart from that bit, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"
It's the stick approach, as opposed to the carrot approach. You use the same approach, but I'm better at it, and more funny. It might be seen as a jerk-off thing to say, but it is true that you could improve your writing if you set aside your pride and took on board my criticism, as well as that of Christoffer.
That still doesn't support your original argument, the numbers and probability you calculate.
The first cause argument also doesn't prove anything other than a first cause. You need belief outside of the conclusion in order to attach what that first cause was. It's the most overused argument in theistic philosophy and it's grade-school level in explaining anything. You might want to study philosophy from Aquinas and forward to really get the depth of how simplistic his argument really is. If the conclusion is "something started causality", it is true, but that's it, therefore, it's in support of nothing, especially any theistic claims.
Quoting Devans99
You don't have to reject it to conclude that it proves nothing more than simply itself. Any other attributes or definitions of that first cause is invented by the believer using the argument.
Ah, okay. Confirmation bias, you mean? It's not a bad argument when it's about God.
We can deduce that the first cause is timeless. And some other attributes such as intelligence and benevolence are probable. Being extra-dimensional or non-material is likely too.
Quoting Christoffer
The simplest arguments are the best. It has stood the test of time (apart from the 4th argument).
I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing.
No you go by the axioms used - do you believe the axioms? If you believe the axioms and the logic is sound... In the case of the 5 ways, it is mainly about causality.
I believe it because its based on causality not because it deduces the existence of God.
Although that was a good witticism, even if borrowed. Very apt.
And that one, too! You should write more like this and less like a robot or an angry teen.
All Aquinas showed was a bias toward a very particular brand of religion.
Aristotle was incompetent.
I agree with the criticism brought up by both Christoffer and Frank about the logical leap, or trivial semantics, from a first cause to God. It's not the first time that I've heard that criticism. I first read Bertrand Russell's [i]History of Western Philosophy[/I] about ten years ago. And I've spent a heck of a lot of time on philosophy forums.
I have also criticised your argument regarding the ruling out of an infinite regress, as you well know.
Dude!
"Aristotle (/?ær??st?t?l/;[3] Greek: ??????????? Aristotél?s, pronounced [aristotél??s]; 384–322 BC)[A] was a philosopher during the Classical period in Ancient Greece, the founder of the Lyceum and the Peripatetic school of philosophy and Aristotelian tradition. Along with his teacher Plato, he is considered the "Father of Western Philosophy"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
That criticism is far enough. I think he should have restricted himself to a 'timeless first cause' in his argument. But he was maybe under social pressure to support the Church.
Quoting S
Aquinas's and my arguments. They are sound arguments. Nothing can exist without a start. I will not go though it again here as I've repeated so many times.
I get why you'd say that. But I'm mixed on Aristotle. There's a lot he got very wrong, and he is who I had in mind when I said that influential isn't necessarily a good thing. But he did some foundational work on logic, science, and ethics, so he gets my praise for that.
How? Without scientific data, we cannot deduce anything at all. And we don't have any data yet of anything earlier than a few fractions after Big Bang.
Quoting Devans99
In what way? How do you conclude this?
Quoting Devans99
How? Because you pulled that probability out of your ass? That's a 94,58% probability of being true. You need to stop using nonsensical statements as you do, that's the foundation for every counter-argument you get in here. But you don't seem to understand this fact.
Quoting Devans99
No, the best arguments are the ones that have the most solid reasoning in their arguments. Otherwise, here's the most simple argument: YOU ARE WRONG, BECAUSE OF REASONS
Simple, short and to the point. Doesn't mean it's a valid deduction though, like the simplicity you refer to.
Aquinas argument stood the test of time because of philosophy history. It was a big turning point in the history of philosophy and is important in order to see how we got where we got. The only ones who ignore everything after are the theists who always return to his causality argument in order to prove some incoherent argument.
Yes, but repeating doesn't solve the problem.
I've never proposed taking linguistic lessons from me. But your linguistic skills do not have to be a hunchback in order to be lacking in efficiency. :razz:
All explained here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1
There is no way for anything to exist without a timeless first cause - time just forms an infinite regress going back forever - which is impossible - you have to have a timeless first cause to kick everything off.
The universe is fine-tuned for life. This seems to requires intelligence. Intelligence beings are benevolent. I have a 2nd argument for benevolence too.
In order to escape the blast from the Big Bang, the first cause has to be non-material or extra dimensional.
I explained my pool table analogy for a regress... if you won't accept that, I'm not sure there is anything that will convince you.
We don't need a pool table analogy. Take any event and reason backwards using the principle of cause and effect and you can just keep going infinitely. If that's wrong, you haven't reasonably demonstrated it. You just do as I've described, which isn't reasonable.
This is why you get called a troll. It's different to why I have been called a troll. I mock and and can be super aggressive, whereas you feign ignorance to the point of absurdity.
Work that could have come from anyone given the opportunity of education, which was exclusive to children of affluent families. That a guy came up with one or two hits in a sea of misses, doesn't make him the "father of philosophy" in my opinion. That we were all stupid enough to fall for this nonsense for two thousand years doesn't make it intrinsically genius philosophy. There are lots of things we've been duped about.
Is that a copy and paste? I've already addressed this. Your first two sentences go without saying, and by your third sentence, you jump straight into a fallacious begging the question by assuming a first cause. That's why you're not being reasonable.
Where exactly do I assume a first cause?
{ ..., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 }
The ... indicate it has no start.
Once again, you use yourself as the foundation for your argument.
This is Inception-level of cognitive bias. I'm not sure which level we're at, your original argument has been countered numerous times, your current posts aren't in support of countering those counter-arguments and you are starting to support your non-supportive current counter-arguments with yourself in another thread. Seriously, this is ridiculous.
Quoting Devans99
You have no evidence of that, so no conclusion of any kind can be drawn from that. Period.
Quoting Devans99
You are not a physicist, you also do not care for the physics research we have. And you conclude things that the brightest minds that have ever existed in history wouldn't conclude since they don't have the data required. That's delusional.
Quoting Devans99
There's no evidence of this, period.
Quoting Devans99
I assume you have flawed arguments for everything you believe, however, ignorance does not equal valid arguments.
Quoting Devans99
What the hell are you babbling about? Nonsensical statements proving nothing of anything you put forward.
All of this is just religious rants which have been countered thousands of times on this forum. You have no knowledge in physics and you use an 800 year old philosopher as the foundation for things we have a modern scientific understanding of. It's laughable at best.
I've given you so many counter-arguments to your original argument and you're just running both in circles and so far off track that you're not even in the same playing field.
{ 'cue hits white', 'white hits black', 'black goes in hole' }
Would the black go in the hole if the cue did not hit the white?
No. So if the start element is missing, there is no regress. So there can be no infinite regresses.
Which ancient or modern philosopher did I praise or quite as a basis for an argument?
You have only asserted that a first cause, or start, is necessary. You have not reasonably demonstrated this.
A lack of a first cause is an infinite regress. You haven't reasonably reached a first cause. You just assert it. You assert that it's necessary without showing that it is. We're going around in circles again, and you aren't properly dealing with criticism again, and then you'll do the feigned amnesia act and say that I never even provided any criticism.
I appreciate good ideas--having a favorite philosopher is pointless.
Inception-level cognitive bias! That's a good way of putting it.
Have you met creativesoul, by the way?
There would be an infinite chain of causes. Your reasoning is completely erroneous because it begins by assuming a first cause, and then imagines that it is gone, yet you nonsensically refer to the absence of a second cause, and a third cause, and so on. There was never any first or second or third to begin with, just an infinite chain. Not nothing, not a first, second, and third from a first start, just an infinite chain.
Stop being an illogical theistic nutjob. If you don't think the regress is infinite, keep going back and see where the principle of cause and effect logically takes you. Do it step by step. You would just keep going back infinitely if you never died.
And stop lying or trolling or whatever it is you're doing, because I know I have made this criticism multiple times before.
You are disregarding both science and logic to get to your precious first cause. Logic, going by the principle of cause and effect, leads to an infinite regress. And science leads to, "I don't know". It is your fanatical faith which leads you to a first cause, so that you can be a weakling clinging to the notion of God. You are a weakling if you need that in the first place.
Imagine you're in a causality feedback loop universe. Causality is only necessary for the guy in the loop, not for the loop to exist. And your chances of living after death are 100%!
No my (and Aquinas's) reasoning points out that an infinite chain of causes has no start and because of this, none of it can exist. It does not matter whether we can trace back through each member of the infinite regress; we know it has no start and nothing in the regress is defined without a start (does the black go in if you don't hit the white first? No - a regress does not exist without a first member).
I've proved this for you with the pool example. I don't understand why you cannot get this point... it is so simple. If you need more examples of why things can't exist 'forever' in time, see:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being
Circular time would be a causality feedback loop I think. It's not so far fetched - the only place in spacetime you can get enough matter/energy for the Big Bang is the Big Crunch - so the crunch causes the bang - time circles around at that point and everything happens again (all of our lives play out again identically).
I think circular time is the Occam's Razor design for life after death - it is the simplest solution I can think of. It also gives a nice, simple, self-sustaining model of the universe.
Sorry, I should have said reality instead of universe. For now, recent observations rule out the probabilty of a Big Crunch because it doesn't appear that there's enough density to fight back the expansion. I know, bummer...
And what would happen after the crunch? A Big Bounce? Time reversing? They all imply boundaries, I'm only talking about a smooth causal reality loop.
I believe that without doing some serious math, we just can't answer the big questions. Mostly because we can't have a good perspective on reality, as we are not inside reality like a foreign body, we are part of it.
So, I'm afraid all we have left is hope.
You don't need to point out what's obvious and goes without saying, and the conclusion doesn't follow.
Quoting Devans99
You haven't shown that nothing in an infinite regress would be defined, because you rely on faulty logic to do so. Everything in an infinite regress is defined. It doesn't need a start for that, and it can't have one anyway, otherwise it wouldn't even be an infinite regress. You would have to shut up about a start that isn't there, and demonstrate that something in the chain is undefined. But you've proven incapable of doing so. You just reassert the completely unfounded assertion that there needs to be a first cause, or a start, when there doesn't.
You aren't genuinely interested in the faults in your argument, you just want to push the argument over and over again, even though you're not convincing anyone at all, and even though this bad logic from hundreds of years ago won't magically work the more you repeat it.
I don't think we need to be completely negative - it is space itself that is expanding and the rate of expansion has changed in the past (eg the end of inflation) - it could change again. So we are currently in an expanding phase; the contraction phase will start in X billion years. Also:
- If energy is conserved then the energy of the Big Bang must of come from somewhere - the only possible place is the Big Crunch.
- The state of the universe is identical at the Big Bang and Big Crunch so it is the natural place for time to loop around.
Quoting Vince
If you imagine the whole universe in 4d space time as a torus. It would be very narrow at one point where the Big Bang / Big Crunch happen. Very wide at the opposite point of maximum expansion. Imagine a spotlight moving around the torus - wherever it lights up part of the torus - that represents 'now' - this is naturally called the moving spotlight theory of time.
Quoting Vince
The maths is beyond me. Something maybe possible though. See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve
That's a really dumb thing to say. Intelligent people can be wrong, and Aquinas is one example of that.
I'm still not sure whether you're a troll or just stupid.
Did you read the link I gave you? For example, if a particle has no temporal start, how can it have innate attributes like mass, charge? There is no time at which those innate attributes could have been acquired.
So to be anything other than void and null requires a start.
Would you recognise it if they had? No. So is it worthwhile having a discussion with you about it? No.
I think it would be documented on the web somewhere if there was such an obvious hole in the prime mover argument... really you are clutching at straws. You are wrong on this one and just won't admit it is one possibility. The other is you are just too dumb to comprehend the dynamics of the situation.
Quoting Christoffer
As I've mentioned, my "linguistic skills" have gotten my opinions published in places where it was very difficult to be published. People like you post here...where the only barrier is the ability to hit the POST button.
I am not lacking in linguistic skills. Your problem is that YOU want to define "good linguistic skills"...so that you can classify mine as deficient.
I've already had successes in the "linguistics skills" area you probably will never have. So take your self-serving "definitions" and shove 'em. :wink:
The thing you are refusing to see, Devans...is that while you have the white ball hitting the black ball and going into the hole using a cue stick held by something that ALWAYS WAS.
You have no problem at all with something that ALWAYS WAS...so long as it can lead to a god.
The "infinite regression" argument is a ruse.
The question for me...and I suspect for some of the others, is whether you truly do not see the flaws or if you do see them but are being stone-headed about it.
ALWAYS WAS is only possible via TIMELESSNESS - once you accept that infinite regresses are impossible, thats the only way it can be logically. I am not claiming that the first cause is God, just claiming that there is a first cause.
I am afraid I do not see the flaws in my argument... please enlighten me.
I think the whole idea of life after death is incoherent. Death is the end of your life, so there can't be life after death. There's no beyond the end. Maybe you mean you can survive the death of your body? You'd first have to convince us all that there is a you above and beyond the body, aka a soul.
The angle I am coming from is eternalism - there is a possibility that the past and maybe also future are 'real' in someway. So think Einstein's 4D space time.
Then think of the world - if you walk far enough in one direction - you end up back where you started - so thats an example of a circular spacial dimension. What I am talking is a circular time dimension.
So you are born, you die, time comes around again (after billions of years) and then you are born again, you die, etc... So death is indeed the end of your life, its just your life is lived over and over again.
I don't believe in the soul personally.
You have been enlightened. But you refuse the light.
You MAY BE correct about a first cause, but you may be dead wrong.
The "light" is not that you are wrong...but that you MAY be wrong.
Bad idea to start with axioms that you invent...which is what you do...and which is why so many people charge you with variations on "pontificating."
Can you see that as meaning..."the existence of a soul" is not one of my blind guesses about the REALITY?
Which of my axioms is 'invented'?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Is there any philosophical question to which your answer is not 'I don't know'?
Quoting Frank Apisa
I don't make blind guesses; I deduce, induce, abduce and estimate. I think you will find that consciously or subconsciously you use the same methods. There is substantial evidence (MRI scans etc...) that the mind is wholly part of the brain. So a soul is very unlikely. Induction.
You already lost me here. I don't have a firm grasp on Einstein's theory of 4D space. I pretty sure it was 3D space and one dimension of time though.
Quoting Devans99
I don't really understand what a circular time dimension is. But then again, I never took a physics class.
Quoting Devans99
But that wouldn't be living after you die. It's just you reliving your life. (If that's even possible).
All of 'em.
Very few.
You ought to give it a try.
You make blind guesses...and pretend they are those things.
You will be a better "philosopher" when you break that habit.
(Shakes his head...and gets ready for work.)
The idea is you can imagine 4D by imagining 3D. So instead of trying to visualise 4D spacetime directly which is impossible, you visualise 3D, but with 2 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. So one of the spacial dimensions gets swapped for time. Then you can think of things in spacetime as 3D objects.
In the case of circular time, the universe itself is shaped like a torus in 3D space and time runs around the outside of the ring.
Quoting Purple Pond
It happens 'after life' so it technically counts as an afterlife.
But technically speaking it wouldn't be your death. You would just be unconscious until time circles, and then regain consciousness when time reaches your birth. Also if time is a full circle, how can we make sense of before and after?
I'm not quite sure what you mean; where the spotlight falls on the torus is 'now' with before and after falling to each side of the spotlight.
Perhaps you mean that any event can be thought of (on the circle of time) as both simultaneously before and after the present time? This is true, but I'm not sure its a problem. You can have an arbitrary t=0 at the Big Bang / Big Crunch and then consider the past as just that between the present day and t=0 (working backwards) if you see what I mean. Then the future you similarly work forward from now to t=0.
I think it is a poor choice of words. How about, what are the chances for a conscious existence after physical death?
I think perhaps you can differentiate before from after because the cause always precedes the effect.
In the OP I calculated 28% but that is probably on the generous side... I was hoping by the end of the discussion to arrive at a more accurate estimate.
Quoting Vince
Yes it fits nicely with cause and effect: the last effect (the Big Crunch) is the first cause (the Big Bang).
You still need continuity of the self in order to become unconscious and regain consciousness again. Where is the self when your body dies?
Quoting Vince
That poses a problem for circular time. Where does the cause begin in the whole circle?
Where does the moving spotlight begin? Maybe at t=0 the Big Bang. Then the circle of time fills out and then repeats itself (or maybe the whole thing is future real somehow). What causes the spotlight to first move? It would have to be the timeless first cause that initiates things. This is discussed further here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1
I certainly don't mean to describe a spiral.
So the idea is that all of time is real in a sense and has a circular shape but only the bit of time with the spotlight/cursor on it is actually 'now'. As the spotlight/cursor moves around the circle of time, the future becomes now becomes the past. So it is a metaphor for one possible way time could work.
It looks likes it's not there anymore.
Quoting Purple Pond
I used the term feedback loop earlier. What says that existence should have a beginning? All we see is causality so that's all we need I believe. The loop thing is just satisfying because it partly solves the infinity problem. It's finite but has no apparent boundaries.
- I could say the beginning is 0º. Then adding 360º to that I get to the end: 0º, which is also the beginning
Or equally:
- I could say the beginning is 90º. Then adding 360º to that I get to the end: 90º, which is also the beginning
Yes, infinite regresses in time are just unsatisfactory / impossible. Where is the first cause?
Circular time appears self-sustaining with the last effect (Big Crunch) being the first cause (Big Bang).
IMO though a separate first cause is still required to set time in motion initially. This first cause is itself timeless so beyond causality (does not need a cause).
I'm doing the same with a circle: take a point as the start, add the circle length to it, and you get to the end, which is identical to the start.
I believe time exist inside the feedback loop, but the loop doesn't exist in time. If the loop is timeless, then nothing ever started it.
It seems we can tell the difference between then and now so there must be something special about 'now' so we can make that call. Thats what the moving spotlight theory does... gives us a cursor to represent now.
But as soon as you introduce the concept of now, it seems you need something to start time.
In classic block universe eternalism, there is no now... the passage of time is merely an illusion. I'm not sure the classic view is right. I'm not sure moving spotlight is right. I'm not even sure if eternalism is right. Time is so tricky.
Why do you say a line segment has no start or end?
Because it's impossible to know where it actually starts. You can say that it starts at the left side, or you can say at the right side. Of course you can choose an arbitrary point and call it "start", but so what? You can arbitrarily call a dog a "cat".
"In geometry, a line segment is a part of a line that is bounded by two distinct end points, and contains every point on the line between its endpoints"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_segment
"Now" is only relevant to the observer, the one subjected to time. That's why time is tricky, you're made of it.
Sure, whatever you say. Good luck with your paper. You're going to need it.
@Devans99, please bookmarks this as a reference for the next time you think about lying about the fact that I've provided a refutation.
The logic of a regress is actually [i]really simple[/I] to understand.
{...-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3}
If we take Devans99's pool table example, we could say that the black ball event is represented by "3", the white ball event by "2", and the pool cue event by "1".
Now, anyone with half a brain should be able to see and understand that the pool cue event was preceded by a prior cause, and that cause was preceded by a prior cause, and so on.
The principle of cause and effect is that an effect is preceded by a prior cause. Any alleged exception must be justified.
Now, once again, anyone with half a brain should be able to understand that if we kept tracing the chain of causes backwards, then, going by the above principle, we would, in theory, continue to trace it backwards [I]ad infinitum[/I].
We [I]cannot[/I] reasonably conclude that we'd reach a first cause, because that hasn't been justified.
And we [I]cannot[/I] reasonably conclude that the chain is a) undefined or b) doesn't exist, because a) every single event in the chain is defined by the cause prior to it, and b) his claim that it doesn't exist is based on the fallacious assumption that a first cause is necessary for the chain to exist. He hasn't justified this assumption, he just assumes it.
His response is to assume a first cause, and then assume that it has been removed from the chain, and then note that there would be no second, third, fourth, and so on. And this proves absolutely nothing of any logical relevance. It just tells us what we already know, namely that there's no reason to believe that there's a first cause, or any other cause defined by a first cause. There's just a chain of causes, with each cause defined by the prior cause, [I]ad infinitum[/I].
Of course, he will not accept this refutation, because it is clear to everyone besides Devans99, that he is fanatically attached to the argument. And this isn't surprising, because the world is full of fanatical theists. It is full of people who have a psychological need for there to be a God.
Quoting Devans99
Quoting Devans99
Reality doesn't need to reflect your subjective judgments.
Oh wait, that was standard procedure under dark age theocracy, when all of these "proofs" of god were documented...hmm.
Your problem is you are just considering isolated elements in the chain and saying yes, they each have a predecessor. So individually it makes sense but when we examine the system as a whole - it has no start - so the system as a whole is impossible.
No, that is just your completely unfounded and unreasonable belief, Devans. It is a belief that you are psychologically attached to. The only bit that you're right about is that it has no start, but that goes without saying. Your conclusion doesn't follow, and a repetition of your argument - your refuted argument - won't change that.
I don't necessarily think you can't put a probability on the things he came up with. Its just i'm not sure enough steps (correct procedure) were taken in the algorithm to come up with a better statistical probability for those event to occur. In some cases probability is more easily calculated and in other cases it takes a tremendous more amount of care and attention to come up with a better probability of something occuring.
If you are talking about whether or not there is life after death...WHICH YOU SHOULD BE...
...there is NO WAY to assess probability in either direction.
None...zero...nil...zip.
You can guess.
You may guess right...and if you guess "Yes there is" or "No there is not"...it is certain you may be right.
The guess itself could as easily and logically be based on a coin toss...as on any of the bullshit that has been offered here so far.
The probability estimates being offered are a joke...and anyone giving them any consideration above being a joke...is a joke also.
Stop whining you troll. If 100 people came back from the dead somehow and said they saw xyz while they were in this other state, that would certainly add information to the whole issue. Anytime you add information to a particular topic that also adds the ability to apply statitistical analysis to that particular topic. Your a joke. Stop trolling.
I do not whine...and I do not troll.
IF 100 people could shit gold...those 100 people would not have to work very hard, would they?
Your comment was dumb...by every metric imaginable.
Nobody is adding anything of value for a statistical analysis of whether or not there is life after death.
Not one goddam thing!
"YOUR"...Jesus H. Christ. Bad enough you spelled statistical wrong in the earlier sentence...
...BUT "your!"
Ask teacher what is wrong with that.
Ask one of the other kids on the playground! They'll tell you.,
Quoting Frank Apisa
Lol, so far thats pretty much what this forum is typically. I'm no different. I do agree either the OP or someone else needs to sit down and flesh out the statistical analysis of life after death. To say its impossible to gain knowledge of life after death is clearly outside of your current expertise.
Respectfully as possible, Christian...anyone who thinks they can calculate the probability that there is life after death (or that there is nothing after death)...is kidding him/her self.
It is possible to gain knowledge about the issue, however. It is possible to realize and acknowledge that what happens after death is unknown.
We can guess.
Ya gotta be satisfied with that.
thats fine for now.
I keep dying yet I’m still alive so your calculations must be off :)
What if life is but a dream and dying is waking up? Maybe you go through an arbitrary large number of deaths, each time awakening at a higher level of consciousness until finally you awake and you are a god?
Anyway, is wishing for immortality an optimistic or pessimistic drive? I’d rather NOT not end thank you very much! ;)
I think its a very natural drive; self preservation is our number one instinct, so its not surprising the instinct extends to beyond the grave. There is a 'proof' of the after death that CS Lewis favoured - we would not be endowed with a drive for life after death unless it was actually achievable. Don't buy it myself.
Is atheism is a more defeatist attitude that agnosticism? I think it is certainly pessimistic to assign a 0% probability to life after death. My 28% is pretty optimistic. I'm generally glass half full.
Thiesm - 100% conviction in life after death - unreasonably optimistic IMO.
Atheism - 0% conviction in life after death - unreasonably pessimistic IMO.
Agnosticism - somewhere in between seems correct IMO.
You’ll find that a great deal of elderly people a quite contented to die eventually. As Freddie said “Who wants to live foreverrrrr!!”