The Metaphysical Myth of Mortality

Let us imagine, just for a moment, that every possible outcome in our reality does indeed happen. In other words, there is an infinite number of “you”'s in parallel universes that did things differently than you did. Perhaps, just for argument, they chose not to read this. Instead, they went out and got drunk, or played Mario Kart, or called their ex-girlfriend, or masturbated to devious sexual acts that you would never consider to look up, but just happened to. Anything that’s possible, you do… including die.

Ok, now stay with me, I’m going to get really weird here, and I don’t mean to be creepy, it’s just the manner in which I must explain myself.

This means, there’s an infinite number of corpses out there… one for every living version of you. Now, consider that there’s an infinite number of “you”'s out there. They each make a different choice than you. They went left when you went right, they went right when you went wrong. Now consider, there’s also an equal cardinality for the number of universes in which you do not exist. You just…never…happened. Now, you have the full scope as it matters to you. You’re either alive, alive and different, dead, or you never existed.

Now consider this… one of your cardinally infinite Doppelgangers, your doubles… they made all the RIGHT choices. I mean, THE RIGHT ONES. Somewhere, you’re in heaven. Now consider THIS. You’re not dead. That means that one of your Doppelgangers is never going to die. Why? Because this is possible, and if all possible choices occur, at least one of the “you”'s will live forever.

Now, let me ask you this… how do you know you’re not one of the doubles that lives forever?

Now, let me ask you this… what’s stopping you from living forever?

Disease? The answer to that is not to contract anything in the first place. This is TOTALLY possible.

Murder? The answer to that is not to involve yourself with others.

Accident, act of nature? The answer to this is sheer luck.

Bodily degradation? The answer to this is rejuvenation.

Suicide? You’re already dead…somewhere… you’ll always be alive… somewhere.

See? With the current ideation of quantum physics, you are potentially immortal.

Now let me ask you this… what is different from the “you” now and the “immortal you” later? When you are dead, do you question why the two “you”'s split? No…you’re dead. So, as long as you are alive, you’re working towards immortality. In other words… there is no difference between the you now and the immortal you.

Now, let’s consider Schrodinger’s Cat. Schrodinger stated that due to the subatomic nature of matter, all things macro atomic would also have to obey the same rules. Ok, picture this situation. You created a system such that there is a device that detects the decay of a substance. This substance is just as likely to decay within one hour as it is as likely it is to not decay. If it decays, the detector goes off and releases a hammer which knocks off a vile of hydrocyanic acid inside a box that contains a small, little, kitten. This kills the kitten (named Mittens for S&G’s). However, if it does not decay, the cat lives. The interesting thing, though, is that there is a third option. This option is observable at subatomic levels. It’s superposition. It’s like… the smeared reality state where something both happens and doesn’t happen at the same instance. Quantum computers operate on this principle. It’s rather weird.

So let’s see what happens to our cat, Mittens. In one reality, Mittens survives the hour, and leaves the confines of that box unscathed. In another reality, Mittens dies a horrible choking death to this awful chemical. In yet another reality… Mittens is both alive and dead at the same time. “Whoa,” right?

Ok, so from the perspective of the scientist, Mittens dies, or survives, or does both. However… to Mittens, she’s always alive. She cannot die. See, if all possible realities happen, and we are just slipping into one or another, splitting with another one of “us” that chose another path, then we cannot ask “Why am I not dead”. The answer is obvious. Because you’re immortal until you die. Hey, ever consider that Mittens survives the chemical attack? It’s possible. What are you going to say to Mittens? “Why are you alive?” What answer would make you more happy? A simple rational possibility supported by empirical evidence? Or perhaps… “because she survived” is more appropriate. I’m sure Mittens wont ask you why she’s alive, or even if she is.

You see, to Mittens, the result doesn’t matter. We are a closed system unto ourselves. Our very being, our very consciousness is a closed system. As a result, we cannot observe our reality. We can only judge other’s reality and apply it to us. Furthurmore, we cannot judge how we affect our reality. This means that just because we see others die doesn’t mean we are going to die. We can be immortal. Don’t discard that Idea.

My point? Unless you’re dead, you’re immortal. Right? It’s always possible that you live forever, so it’s going to happen. One of you is going to live forever. Do you think this “you” will ask why he’s still alive? Do you think there’s anything different from the “you” who is alive and reading and the possible “you” that lives forever? Nope, none.

If all men are mortal, I am only a mere man to you.

Yep.

When a person dies they are really just transfering dimensions into the nearest split reality, or circuit rather, where they assume the body(or brain) of the other “them.” But this transfer is not experienced because it happens too fast, nor is a memory of the previous body retained in the restored consciousness.

It’s quite fascinating, really.

See, reality isn’t really a wave function. It is the collapse of a wave function. Consciousness is this collapse, it is what is mirrored as a nothingness in the dimension in which it is constituted…the particular universe that is experienced by that person. But on the same token, that reality is constructed by that consciousness on the other side of that mirror, so it isn’t empirical, isn’t a wave function. It is the absence of the total objective world, it is complete rationality in its pure a priori form. It is the designing of reality.

Each universe is a corespondence between the wave function and its collapse. Consciousness is like a circuit breaker, so to speak, it crunches the information of the wave data and organizes it into a reality, without which, would be simply objective and nonrational…it wouldn’t change, it wouldn’t be probable, and it wouldn’t be causal…it would just be.

Now here is the tricky part.

For each nanosecond of existence there are an infinite amount of universes being created. How. For every moment that there exists an alternative to an event, there must also exist, as Rafa said, a reality where that alternative actually happened, and, like its counterpart, is functioning perfectly. When an event occurs, its alternative occurs simultaneously and branches off into a new dimension. When a death happens in one of these realities the consciousness enters the nearest reality branch and assumes that reality. So on and so forth.

Here’s the bad news. Although there are an infinite amount of realities, there is still a grand point “B.” This means, and I’m sorry to tell you all this, but you are condemned to live forever…

And that can get boring sometimes.

Well, I wouldn’t have put it like that, Kierkegaard! But still, you got the general idea.

What a shpadoinkle brilliant post.

sigh maybe i’m just not meant to get this kind of philosophy like a young, dick-happy male. i dunno. it just seems like leibnize to me and that’s about it. throw in the fact that our reality necessarily has to be the best possible one out there and bam, not since newton would old leibniz have a bigger copy cat.

…anyway, one question:

granted that our counsciousness is a closed system, what composes this closed system? where did it come from? if it is just a set of tools that operate within an individual, then surely these are coordinated by a grand soul, or self, that makes it so. if this is the case, then how can the world operate in seeming harmony, how can human interaction be performed when all i can see is myself? this theory seems to be in need of a God or Great Spirit controlling everything.

okay, say you refute that. if the suggestion is that the perfromance of actions alone (i.e. judging, as you use) IS the counsciouness, then it is not a closed system because we are able to take in external world and incorporate it into our being. judgement would include observance and inferences made, and you argue this can only be done to the external, not internal world.

as for not knowing our reality. it seems that it can be said that the judgements made is a form of knowledge, and the world does (even in the numerous dimensions available) constitute one type of reality.

Contrary to what you think, trix, my dick is indeed very unhappy. That is because I spend more time laughing at women then having sex with them. My Johnson doesn’t agree with this.

Now, personally, I’ve been romanced better by my own hand then some of the women I see out there. My Johnson doesn’t think so and prefers the real thing.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to have schedualed sex on a regular basis, but are there any “real” women out there? I didn’t think such a thing existed, so I’ve given up.

I have become bi-sexual too. I use both hands.

Geez, the “lengths” someone will go to, eh? (no pun intended)

Sometimes I wonder if you’re ever going to agree with me on anything, Trix.

Sometimes I question your motives for disagreeing.

Sometimes I wonder if you’re just hesitant to agree, but do sometimes without showing it, thereby giving the impression we disagree on everything.

Sometimes I wonder if you are real.

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold your horses, lass. Why’s this, exactly? I am not disagreeing, I just fail to see how you made this assumption so fast and with such certainty. To me, it isn’t that obvious.

Define “soul”, for instance. Now define, “grand soul”.

Are you trying to state that consciousness is separate from the physical… that the mind body interaction is merely a command operation by a telekenetic mind. Yes, I agree with this. But the two are still inseparable, meaning, without the body, no mind, without the mind, who cares.

Now, keep in mind, I’m a strong believer that reality is like a sponge that covers all infinite directions…solid for the most part, but there are gaps that do not and cannot exist even though they are concievable. Sure most things can happen, and even if that for every 1000 things that can happen there’s one thing that cannot but is concievable, there is still an infinite cardinality of those two subsystems.

Now, consider this. I’m allowing the observer to melt into the equation by stating that there are things that can and things that cannot but are concievable. This means our observation is smooth, but reality is coarse. (There are mathematical reasons I state this, but I’ll spare you…unless you wanna hear it!) As a result, everything “appears” to flow together because we see things that are not even despite their non-existence, and we can ACTUALLY INTERACT with these things through our critical observation (observation that requires command… like when your mind tells your body to move your arm to feel a ball), but that doesn’t make them actual. It comprises apparent reality.

To be blunt… apparent reality = smooth, real reality = coarse.

These are not my ideas, by the way. It’s a shared ideal with those who support a Bohr approach to Quantum Mechanics.

By doing this, we eliminate god, or even better, redefine god as the veil that surrounds real reality and allows us to interact with our apparent reality.

Ahhh, but you failed the reading test. See, it’s a property of the “Many Worlds” theory that allows me to state that any interaction is only my own. While reality may exist outside of me, anything I observe is my reality as I cannot not observer without not existing. I exist, therefore, I have my own reality.

Picture a fork in the road. Go left, you die. Go right you live.

Many worlds says you take both routes. As a result, your conscious observation is closed off on the left route, but the right route is still there. The right route now branches. Left, you die, right, you live. The left does not matter to you as you cannot judge when dead, so you’re always going right. As a result A) any interactions to the world are only ultimately relevant to you as eventually you’re going to die to everyone else and somewhere you’re already dead B) The mind is separated from the body C) there is no relevance to everyone else actions towards you and D) you’re immortal.

I never stated that we cannot know our reality. If I did, I mispoke.

I do support the idea that our reality cannot know us.

A good post but one that raises the question of who are “you”. There are many ways I could interperate “you” but for simplicities sake I’m going to just use two, the strict and the loose meaning.

For example Evil Matt’s parents were killed by a torturing serial killer which made him flip his lid and turn him into a serial killer. This never happened to good Matt, his parents managed to over power the killer and neither died and Matt was never torutured.

The strict meaning is that it’;s someone who will react to given situations in a pretty much identical way to as you would now. So if presented with a cake, both yous would eat, given an oppertunity to play the lottery, you both would play, given the chance to murder someone, you both would decline, etc. etc. This is essentially defining you in a reductionist manner, as a sum of your previous memories, dispositions, etc. In the many worlds theory there is a certain point when other versions of “you” stop being “you”. In a strict sense of “you” Evil Matt is not identical to Good Matt.

In the loose meaning “you” can be anyone relating to your previous decisions as a singular stream of conciousness since creation. It can be pushed further than that, but lets keep it simple. So every possible Matt since Matt’s conception in the multiverse are all one in the same Matt. Good Matt does equal Evil Matt. This is almost an extension of a body relation belief in personal identity.

Imagine you are in love with a certain woman. Now in the many worlds theory if you take this man by a strict you there will never be any possible world in which he will murder this woman, its impossible, his love is too great. By the loose you, you’ll have killed her in every way imaginable.

And that’s not who I am, I am not every single possible personality ever created since my birth, I am only all possible personalities fairly closely matching my own. So all the related yous to myself would act like me 99% of the time, they may just prefer a different shade of blue. Or be living in a different town.

And as this is a finite number, I can possibly die.

i think it should be pointed out that rafa is basically trying to provide an arguement for immaterialism, it seems. as such, i see there being only 2, maybe 3, concepts of the self.

  1. a collection of tools that exist within us, and are given to us by birth – we cannot exist without them (ex. power, will, understanding, immagination maybe, i think this is the list). it is in their active performance only that one has a soul. the soul, then, is in its constant operation. similar to when someone says “it is raining” well, what’s “it”? the rain raining, persumably. the self is the constant existence and operation of the tools ingrained in us.

    N.B. this is what i meant when you asked: 
    
  1. the collection operates under a guidance of a self that governs their activity. this guidance is also provided at birth, and is more real than the tools that it uses to carry out its operation.

i think matt’s right, the self as a unity of conscious experiences in one self is the soul/self. locke, however, is even willing to admit that if the same conscious experiences could be held by another mind, then the identity of a person can be shared. yet, all expereinces are nuanced, and to diverege in just one instance is a different identity and self. i think this effectively eliminates the possibility that even if there are several similar expereinces shared by possible ppl, the diveregence prooves that the people are seperate selves.

.

something that you are missing from the many worlds theory is that while it is true, all reality is contained in every monad/being, the persepective from which the monad views the world is completely different from another. liebiniz doesn’t collapse the many worlds into one, if bohr does and has some math to back it up, then lets go with although i see it as running into the Third Man arguement. in any event, while perspectives are what distinguish one’s reality from anothers, these perspectives are themselves finite. i don’t see how you can argue otherwise. all things perceived are limited in scope to finite minds. while someother, infinite mind, can hold the perception that we are immortal, i don’t see how one can claim that our finite perceptions can hold this.

Ohh, this is awesome…

Ok, first, to Matt.
Quantum Consciousness – A URL I think you’d enjoy.

Well, my issue is that you’re not interpreting the WHOLE timeline when you attempt to declare the self.

For instance, there are a cardinally infinite number of Previous Me’s. There are a cardinally infinite number of Potential Me’s. The fact of the matter is that Previous Me’s are completely different selves, but only deserve to be called “Me” due to their relation to my timeline. The Potential Me’s are, indeed Me…but they have not diverged yet. These are the two of the three selves.

Speaking of Good Matt and Evil Matt is immaterial. There is no good or evil, just being. If all things that can happen do happen, then evil is only in respect to you. This being the case, you can only state an act is evil if you feel guilt for it. This means it is evil to you and potential you’s (unless the potential you’s change their mind). How many people killed the ones they love, either by accident, in an act of passion, or because they snapped. It’s quite possible that you’re going to snap and kill people, but at the same time, it’s going to happen somewhere. In other words, you can never say, “I’d never do that”… because that’s untrue. How many times have you done things or acted in a certain way that was contrary to your personal moral code. I do it more than I’d like. Then I feel guilt. Sometimes, I don’t feel guilty, though… I feel justified and wind up modifying my moral code. This is exactly how we establish personal moral codes. So, while it shows that through Many Worlds there are highly improbable realities, the highly improbable happens, and therefore, is possible, and therefore, will happen a cardinally infinite number of times.

Did you know that one infinite system can be greater than another infinite system? It’s all about which one goes towards infinity faster.

Loose or strict you? It feels like an Either/Or problem here. There’s a wide spectrum of how you can view the self, like you said, but only one works in all cases. That is the one just described. When you consider that all possible, no matter how improbable, will occur, then the loose view comes into play. If you consider that the probable you’s are of no consequence, then there’s a Potential Me such that ALL of our decisions will be opposite. This means the strict self is not possible.

But in the loose view, Good Matt would not equal Evil Matt. The very act of divergence causes them to separate into two beings (edit: Trix beat me to it, thanks for the Locke info, Trix). They are related, but not the same. The only self that is of consequence is the Instantaneous Self, the third self… all we have is “now”.

[EDIT: If you want a dogmatic interpretation think of it like this. The Previous Me’s that diverged is the Father, the Potential Me’s to be are the Son, and the Instantaneous Me is the holy ghost. I think it’s more of an appropriate analogy than a religous reference, though.]

Either way, this is still an infinite number so long as you’re alive to judge. It does not converge towards death as the possibility of life always exists. As a result, we have the Immortality Problem.

First, I did not mean that comment in an offensive way, but in hindsight and considering our past encounters, I can see how you could. If you took offense, I’m truly sorry.

Second, I dont believe in a toolset with limitation. I believe that we are more than the sum of our past experiences and the experiences unto us. Why? Because not only DO we overcome… we WILL overcome. Many Worlds states this. An Infinite Direction of Potential Me’s will be lazy today, an Infinite Direction of Potential Me’s will be responsible. Experience may be a toolset, but life is what you do with those tools. And the fact is, you do everything. If anything, the operation is merely a probability equation that winds up doing all things with varied likelyhood.

Something sparked my existence. I call them “parents”. Something sparked life on earth, I call it ameno acids. Something sparked the earth, I call it infinite parellel universe collision (as seen in M-Theory). And blah blah blah, right?

Once sparked, a wide range of options are presented to the spark. It’s beyond, “Left or right”. It’s left, right, up, down, back, forth, stay put, and all directions in between. This means that even if another me lifts his arm 2 feet, there’s another me that lifts his arm 2.0000000000000000000001 feet.

So yes, divergence shows separate selves. But the experience as tools is only true if seen in backward reflection. The self is moving forward, not backward, though. Therefore, the self is the membrane between Instantaneous Me and Potentials Me’s, NOT the sum of past experiences. One uses reflective thinking, one uses progressive. That’s a big difference. In other words… you are doomed to posess your past, but you are not doomed to repeat it.

IF it is true. I’d like to make the point that nothing at this point in time is proven and all arguments are contingent on the fact that this is a “theory”.

I never missed that every monad contains all of reality. Instead, I flat out don’t agree with it. I contain my reality, you contain yours. The sum of all monads is the sum of all reality for this instant. The sum of all sums of instantaneous realities passing through my timelines is everyone in my personal reality. The sum of all personal realities for all of time is absolute reality. No third man needed. Divine perspective is highly over used. People run to it like madmen in deserts run to an oasis when things get tough. The only problem is that it is a mirage. I refuse to drink sand.

As for Bohr, he’s willing to state that the wave function is complete. He came after Liebniz by about 100 years lol. Liebniz wasnt even aware of the quantum wave function that Bohr was. Go with Bohr… of course, Einstein disagrees with Bohr, but empirical evidence such as the teleportation of Buckie Balls have shown Bohr to be more correct. Einstein stated that his own theory was wrong… turns out he was wrong that he was wrong, making his theory right. Bohr used hidden variables to accomodate the inconsistencies in the wave function…

Interesting shit. Basically if the wave function is complete, and causality as explained by relativistic causality is true, then two events that are not the same must spawn their own reality at the same time.

Still, you also have to remember, there is no Grand Unified Theory yet for a reason…no one was right so far LOL. Special relativity and quantum mechanics are not connected… But… M-Theory may help us get closer.

oh no, please don’t be sorry. i didn’t check over my last post and misquoted you – i meant to include the part where you ask me what i meant by soul and was then elaborating on that point. i deleted the wrong part, though, and it does look like i’m trying to make some passive aggressive comment, but i’m not. it’s my fault for the confusion! anyway, i’m going to reply to the rest later, but it seems to me that you’re trying to devise a causation for the beginning of existence and extend it to the present – haven’t we gone beyond that since hume? i’ll explain more thoroughly later.

I just reread what I wrote and tagged in some edits to make it more correct and to elaborate on some things. You may wish to re-read it.

Yes, I did make it appear like that, didn’t I?

Well, that’s not my intention. I don’t believe that causation requires a begining and end. That’s really another story, though, and somewhat of a tangent on this conversation.

But…because… I like to hear myself type…

Picture a spring. Place this spring over a radial coordinate system. Now consider this circular motion of the spring to be our human interpretation of time. From -1 on the y-axis it’s the begining of time and pi radians of rotation later, it’s halway through time, and pi units after that… it’s the end of our time. However, a spring moves constantly upward as it goes around. This means that as we move up the spring through time, we’re also moving around our perception of time. This makes it such that every 360 degrees of OUR perceived existence is complimented by a parrellel coil that is going 360 degrees as well…but… along the same timeline. This means that as we go into a state of disorder to order to disorder to order, depending on where the universe switches from order to disorder resets the initial preconditions of the next parrellel timeline, causing another set of causations. Other realities are just further ahead or further behind us in the coil. This relates parrellel universes to our universe in a wholistic sense.

It’s not an accurate way of picturing things, but I rather liked that example. If only I could remember where I heard it… I used to work in a physics lab, so probably there.

wow, I kind of think you expressed it very accurately. I don’t know what to say now, have to think about it. but I like it. :wink:

no, i actually think the theory assumes that the self is a collection of experiences, but then invalidates it. holding that a person can similutaneously have an infinity amount of experiences, this leaves a self with an infinite life span. that’s one way this arguement seems to run, from my understanding. i suppose this invalidates the self because if every person has an infinite direction of experiences, then everyone has the same experiences, and by the ‘expereince as self’ theory, this would mean that everyone is only one self. so, if experiences make up the self then according to this theory there are no selves but just expereinces, really.

okay, now you seem to want to place a limit on infinite. if the self is moving forwards only, then you honestly cannot say that it is infinite? and you cannot say that there is only oneself, really, but you’ve already admitted to that. if the self is a collection of expereince which one lives without ever really living, because you’re unable to put a finite limit on them, then one has no self. we just are. and this is why i think the toolbox theory is more suited to the entire idea.

while it is possible that there are possible paths that each self could have traveled, this does not prove that they exist. that experience only gives you certain feelings, sensations, thoughts, etc is proof enough for me to suppose that we are only a collection of experiences. to postulate anything more seems superflouous.

No, actually, I know the theory doesn’t assume anything in either direction.

You’re confusing the Philosophy of Many Worlds with Many Worlds. One is the metaphysics, one is the physics.

And yes, on my site someone made a comment about me and my search for solipsism and I stated that this was actually a validation for solipsism. This is exactly why. However, you are kinda missing something which stops me from actually using this as a validation…

We experience time. If I were born 20 years ago, that’s a completely different “spark” of “self”. Even if I was born 20 years ago and had the same experiences in the most exact sense, the spark was different, and therefore, the self would be different. Even if The Self is the collection of all experiences, Myself is a separate entity from … well, just look at that info about Locke you said earlier. Even if there was a duplicate universe such that I am exactly me as I am, that still would be a different me. That alone separates the self from experiences.

Oh, and just because you have an infinite number of experiences does imply one has an infinite lifespan. The fact that life is always possible says that ONE of you will always live forever. The idea that the dead don’t consider themselve says that you are that one.

Something I think you fail to see is the idea of the “spark” of self. It’s actually impossible that you could be you and born of my parents. It’s equally as impossible for me to be you and born of your parents by the mere fact that I’m male. This is obvious. How many white kids are born to black parents and how many black kids are born to white parents (ligitimately, of course). And even then, if such a thing WERE to happen, then the mere fact that the child is different from the parent would upset the self (interaction between sparked history and sparked self).

A) The Infinite IS a limit. This is true by definition.

B) The Infinite (please say infinity, The Infinite doesn’t really exist), is a DIRECTION, not an OBJECT. I can’t stand it when people use it like it can be modified. It cannot. By this, when you say that stating the self is moving forward places a limit on “the infinite”, you’re bastardising the term. It loses it’s father definition, which is direction. Recall, as I have stated numerous times on this forum, there is so such a thing as positive and negative infinity.

C) Even if we are sequences of tools with nothing but discrete purpose, we still go toward the same infinite limit from the same natural spark. No matter how fast we get there, our limit is infinity.

D) Butterfly effect. R5 is causation, and let’s say, like time, it is in flux (as Many Worlds states). Then this means that at the time of my spark (remember, I beat out millions of other sperm…go figure), causation spawned an infinite number of perspectives for me, but they were all sparked within a range. This may seem confusing, but consider a wedge that starts at a point and goes towards infinity. The point of the wedge is my spark…but then there’s a numerous number of options presented to me, and I take all of them, so the point fans out. This leaves all my new options to all my new Me’s to be taken, however, they can’t do everything. For instance, egg + sperm ->zygote ->fetus is possible… egg+sperm → fetus->zygote is NOT possible. So there’s a HUGE blank spot in reality due to the courses of actions I CANNOT take. So the parts above and below the wedge cannot happen, but the parts within the area of the wedge IS possible, and that wedge will go on for allllll of infinity… hence the immortality problem.

Remember what Many Worlds says, “Any path that CAN be taken WILL be taken.” This does not mean, “Any path you can think could be taken, will be taken,” as I will not be able to grown ferns out of my ass with magic beans given to me by the donkey of destruction.

Correct. This is a theory.

Read above, you missed something that made this line of logic flawed in your conclusion, and I pointed it out.

i don’t see enough of a validation for the seperation of time. it seems to be a passive event that doesn’t really bear anything on my immediate perceptions. and you seem to be arguing on the basis of immediate perceptions; we are only the unity of consciousness immediately perceieved. this means in that moment we aren’t really expereincing time, and in fact, your arguement seems to be that we can transcend it by coexisting in some other capacity. in either case, as an empricist i would have to regretfully reject the possibility that in a given instance time is perceivable to me through the sense.

you’re assuming that the dead contempate. as a mind reductionist, i reject this possibility. enter toolset theory here, and there is a finite limit on the operations of the self that expereinces, and the self to die.

okay, this is your arguement as i read it:

  1. a single starting point for the self
  2. this point can travel in a certain direction
  3. this direction, continegent on time, can go on for infinity
  4. therefore, i am immortal.

my arguement has always been this, yes, #1-3 is true, but 4 does not necessarily follow and there is no reason to assume that it does b/c we should only use as a basis point of self that which we immediately perceive.

i think the disagreement comes to this: a) i’m an empiricist and you’re not and b) you like using analogies/picture to illustrate point which i have a distaste for (my main problem with early plato, so not just you).

Well, the problem here is that you already stated that you disapprove of my use of paradigms to illustrate an instance where your logic doesn’t hold. Because you think this is a lower form of expression that only people like Socrates, Kafka, or Kierkegaard are proned to, then I really have nothing to say to you without pointing to the math (which I looked up just to verify my correctness in this particular instance). As a result, you can either take my word for it or realize that the love of knowledge includes the love of mathematics.

But, since you are an empiracist, you should check up on the studies done in superposition theory. One idea that is proving to be rather promising is the idea that superposition is, in fact, the membrane of time between causation. Hence when you get the (on - off - both) dealio, it’s because you’re seeing the membrane of R4->R5. This means that at any instant we not only experience time, but in fact, are comprised of it. M-Theory uses something called Entanglement that is also really interesting. Ug, I wanna tell you to picture a knot of various higher level dimensions as a particle, but that would be a paradigm. You don’t like those. Oh well, I guess you’ll be doomed not understand anything since you only want the most specific yet fail to advance your own knowledge in such matters. (I only half mean that in a condescending way… it’s just rather disarming to talk about stuff that you cannot even fathom but can verify its existence anyway without some form of a metaphor).

Oh contraire. (sp? you’re a Canuck, you’d know).

I don’t assume the dead can contemplate. I define contemplation as being analysis of yourself in your world, in other words, without the self, contemplation is impossible. I reject the possibility the dead contemplate just as much as you. That was my entire point. They cannot consider themselves, so how are they going to contemplate their world? Death is death, no motion, no contemplation, no awareness, no self.

Finite reality is not finitely reducable. That’s my point. Now is the only finite point in our perceptive reality, but how long does now last? hehehe

The fact is if you look at where you are for too long, you forget your destination. While, yes, indeed, all we have is now, later will come, yes? The nature of how later comes is not absolutely determinable. In fact, sometimes things can have equal possibility of happening and not happening for any INSTANT. In such a case, what happens? They both happen. Considering this is a subatomic principle, and we are comprised of subatomic structures, then R4 is not the end of our perception…R5, causality, is.

What huh? No.

It’s pretty damn simple, really.

  1. We start as one point of causation, a spark of self awareness.
  2. This point can travel in MULTIPLE directions of infinetly varied degrees.
  3. This direction NECESSARILY goes on towards infinity due to the problem that self awareness is always possible.
  4. Therefore, I am immortal, necessarily.

Trix, you’re hardly what I’d call an empiricist… I reserve that for people who are more anal retentive and accurate. You’re a philosophical historian. You don’t need empirical evidence to accept an idea as valid or invalid, do you? Doesn’t reason superceed all the inductive truths that you see in science?

And besides, all empirical truths start as philosophical probabilities, correct?

I’m sorry you have such issues with the way I describe things. Unfortunately, it seems like the only way to accomplish my point and reach the crowd I’m speaking to. If you have a better way, by all means, tell me.

For the time being, though, I’m going to continue using the methods that worked so far for everyone else other than you.

okay, calm down. i didn’t mean my comments to be a slag at your presentation style at all, its just my personal tastes that should not affect your style at all (and i’m sure it won’t). certainly shouldn’t affect my comprehension, (it doesn’t) but it makes things go slow on my end. that’s all i meant by it, as pertaining to your post.

i mean, i can give you an explaination for the failings of images as ideas, as i am currently writing a paper on it. it does come down to different tastes intellecutally, really, but more strongly it has to due with what one views the purpose of thought/understanding is. and from my learnings with math, and my friends who are in math currently, the image part for them plays not as big a role as your post suggests. while certainly all numbers can be graphed and mapped out, when it comes to advance math there are limits. this is off topic, but you seemed rather offended. while there are no doubt many who like your style, i’m arguing with you now. and i think i should tell you what i have problems with, but like i said, no your fault.

alright, i can’t accept anything past step 1. and step 1’s a strench. it seems you’re divorcing the self-awearness from experiences. i would say awearness, or consciouness, is dependent on the events we expereince. you agree with this.

i still maintain that the events are far more determinate than you’ve claimed. while the mind can hold an infinite amount of directions, i think that nothing is stronger than actual expereinces. while there is a viel of perception, it’s not a portal to other worlds/universes.

but maybe i’ve missed your arguements b/c i can’t really grasp your pics. wanna hear an analogy i can’t get? “infinity is like a child at play, caught in draughts” that’s from heraclitus. also, he has another image about pollet which is a greek drink that was made up of wine mixed with CHEESE and BARELY. BARELY. wtf? also, in the niocheaman ethics, aristotle uses an image of justice being similar to virtue by saying the two words are hynomous, like the words “lock” and the skin under an animal’s neck. that’s right, because i’ve always said, did you put the keys in the skin under an animal’s neck?

images go only so far.

oh, i can do anal.

God in heaven is the only real reality.

For what does it profit a man if he gains a thousand realities or a thousand lives, if only to lose his soul in the end?

Even if you live a million realities for a million years, would you find joy? Would you find happiness? Would you find your creator?

For what is the use of life without God to confirm you?

You gain all the gold in all the lands, but does it fill you?

You gain all the women of all the lands, but does it satisfy your eternal thurst?

After a million years of one reality after another, hopefully you’ll see, God is the only real reality.

Trust me, it’s the fast way.

Heh, all of Calculus can be derived from 3 pictures.

But that’s not really higher math, so you’re right. The fact of the matter, though, even if it’s not 100% correct, you can associate very complex systems with several much simpler systems. You can feel the big picture by visualizing how the smaller pictures play a role. Surely your math friends wont contradict me on this.

Ehhh, no not really…I’m not divorcing the two. Self awareness is an experience. We experience our own actions, no? Self awareness is the process of experiencing yourself. Experience is implied in self awareness.

I fail to see your argument against step 1. Are you saying you’re uncaused? Are you saying your self awareness is uncaused? Are you arguing for the sake of it, or because you are witholding some perspective I have yet to see.

A point in causation occurred. In this point, a form capable of processing itself spawned. That’s all step one is saying… I don’t see the beef.

Maintain it if you so desire, but it’s untrue. I can construct a simple experiment in your dorm/house/appartment to show you how it is untrue, too.

Superposition…

If two things can happen at once, they will happen at once. This is on the subatomic level, which as we all know, affects the macro level (if it did not, then what, per se, sparks a neuron?).

Ever see a kid playing against a harsh wind? He makes motion in one direction, but no matter how much energy he puts into it, he still has much farther to go before his goal. No matter how hard he pushes, the wind pushes back, almost to the point it lifts him off the ground. He is motion without movement.

Dunno, that’s what I see when I read that.

Homonymous? As in “having the same name”? Perhaps you’re losing something in translation. It does not mean he’s wrong… perhaps it’s almost laugably obvious in his time. I think that’s your problem here. You’re looking at classic greek philosophers and getting frustrated because they don’t speak English LOL. Why not look at modern English philosophers, or modern physicists? Then spend a great deal of thought trying to put their complex ideas into simple analogies. These anaologies are very effective.

I don’t think you’re having a problem with what I’m saying, in that respect. I think you just want to nit pick something that is currently getting on your nerves from other…older… philosophers.

I’m open to suggestions, Trix. You pose lots of problems and very few solutions. You don’t even act as though you should justify your own beliefe systems. You just say, “I don’t agree with that, I think X is right” … and that’s IT. That’s all you say. No support, no nothing. I wont lie, it’s annoying.

So I’ve heard.