Why do we still argue about this? Both sides of the argument are trying to prove something that we have no proof of. The day we can bring people back to life is the day we will know once and for all who is correct. It's like aliens, we won't know until it happens.
[QUOTE=minilandstan;29901398]Why do we still argue about this? Both sides of the argument are trying to prove something that we have no proof of. The day we can bring people back to life is the day we will know once and for all who is correct. It's like aliens, we won't know until it happens.[/QUOTE]
...People are brought back to life a lot.
Mr. Hawking makes a good point that we really shouldn't be relying on a religious reassurance to make us feel comfortable about living average lives.
You only live once, so soak in as much of life as you can while you can.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;29891798]I was getting him to admit that there's more to consciousness than just chemical processes in one's brain. I wasn't suggesting a potential afterlife. [/QUOTE]
I'm aware that I'm awfully late but... WHAT!?
I don't believe there is a conscience without your brain, because your brain controls your consciousness with signals and chemicals, and when the brain stops functioning the brain stops sending you the signals and chemicals your consciousness consists of.
Your "re-assembly in the future theory" was answered with that it would not be me, it would be someone completely identical to me but still not the same as me. This means I believe it is absolutely impossible to transfer one persons consciousness to another body without using the original persons brain, because the original person would already be dead. The person re-assembled in the future would be identical to me, it would think it was me, it would almost be the same person. However the original person died, and this is just an identical replica of this person with a mind that works exactly identical but still separate from the original person.
I do not believe in anything supernatural what so ever. I do not believe in any deity, I do not believe in heaven or hell, I do not believe in an after life, I do not believe in consciousness being transfered to other bodies or worlds without moving the whole brain, I do not believe in souls, I do not believe in ghosts, I do not believe in destiny, I do not believe in luck and superstition.
I believe that there exists nothing in the universe that can never be explained. If something in the world can not be explained it is because we do not yet have enough knowledge to explain it, or because it doesn't exist and therefor does not need an explanation.
[QUOTE=Simski;29902867]I believe that there exists nothing in the universe that can never be explained. If something in the world can not be explained it is because we do not yet have enough knowledge to explain it, or because it doesn't exist and therefor does not need an explanation.[/QUOTE]
Well, no. That's not true. Any formal system that is consistent cannot be complete. There are always mathematical theorems that are true but cannot be proven.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29902951]Well, no. That's not true. Any formal system that is consistent cannot be complete. There are always mathematical theorems that are true but cannot be proven.[/QUOTE]
So I believe this to exist, but we lack power or knowledge to explain it. If it has supporting evidence, I believe there is reason to believe it exists.
I still believe you misinterpreted me though. I believe there is nothing in the universe that exists without a explanation, if it does not have an explanation it is because it does not exist. This does however not mean that something can not exist just because us humans can not explain it yet, it only means that it exists with an explanation we can not or have not yet obtained. If something can be proved in theory, then that is evidence that it might exist but we do not have the things required to prove it.
This does not apply to anything supernatural at all, anything that relies on the idea of not existing in this world or being things that does not need explanations, because if something completely lacks explanation it is because that something does not exist. It completely lacks any form of evidence that can ever prove that it exists, and only things that does not exist completely lacks any forms of evidence that can prove that it exists.
No see, it CAN'T proved in theory. It is proven that it is impossible to prove. Things like the continuum hypothesis can be shown to be unprovable.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29903120]No see, it CAN'T proved in theory. It is proven that it is impossible to prove. Things like the continuum hypothesis can be shown to be unprovable.[/QUOTE]
Why do people still believe in it if it's impossible to prove :S?
Well they don't believe the continuum hypotheses. That we're unsure of, I was just giving an example. The point is that Gödel showed that there can be statements which are true within a formal mathematical system but impossible to prove.
So that fact that we can't prove something is true doesn't mean it's not true.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29903231]Well they don't believe the continuum hypotheses. That we're unsure of, I was just giving an example. The point is that Gödel showed that there can be statements which are true within a formal mathematical system but impossible to prove.
So that fact that we can't prove something is true doesn't mean it's not true.[/QUOTE]
Well then it is proven to exist as a mathematic theory, but not as something that exists in real life.
In the same sense that thoughts exist and it is possible to prove that humans think, but thoughts are still an abstract concept that only exist in our heads.
Uh, mathematical theorems are real. I hate to break it to you, but mathematics is intrinsic to nature.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29903346]Uh, mathematical theorems are real. I hate to break it to you, but mathematics is intrinsic to nature.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how you believe this contradicts my first statement tough.
Clearly they exist, but we don't have the capability to provide the evidence that they exist because we do not have infinite power over reality.
They exist as theories that can't be disproved, like gravity.
The first statement I replied to was this:
[QUOTE=Simski;29902867]I believe that there exists nothing in the universe that can never be explained. If something in the world can not be explained it is because we do not yet have enough knowledge to explain it, or because it doesn't exist and therefor does not need an explanation.[/QUOTE]
My interjection seemed entirely relevant.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29903474]The first statement I replied to was this:
My interjection seemed entirely relevant.[/QUOTE]
I think I just phrased myself badly then.
Instead of "explain", "makes logical sense" would be a better term. Everything that exists, has an answer to why and how it exists.
I believe nothing exists that does not make logical sense, even if we do not yet have the explanation for what that sense is.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;29903346]Uh, mathematical theorems are real. I hate to break it to you, but mathematics is intrinsic to nature.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, a lot of the stuff that's unprovable is also fairly distanced from reality compared to everything else. The incompleteness theorem is more a giant blinking neon sign that there are still imperfections in the language of mathematics and that sort of thing, not a an excuse to assume the universe is riddled with little impenetrable mathematical black boxes.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29904409]The incompleteness theorem is more a giant blinking neon sign that there are still imperfections in the language of mathematics and that sort of thing, not a an excuse to assume the universe is riddled with little impenetrable mathematical black boxes.[/QUOTE]
Nooo... not so much. Like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it's not our fault for having inexact methods, it's a fundamental limit.
Well sure, but a fundamental limit to how well you can measure something doesn't preclude everything in the universe having an explanation (or as he seems to be rewording it "understandable nature" maybe), unless you're trying to get into something waaaaay out there (and you could pick shallower targets.)
[editline]18th May 2011[/editline]
This conversation is getting silly fast, isn't it?
I don't think so.
[editline]18th May 2011[/editline]
But anyway it kind of comes down to what he means precisely by an "understandable nature."
[editline]18th May 2011[/editline]
Not having arbitrary measurement precision doesn't really affect that but unprovable theorems sure might.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;29891141]How can you or anyone know I'm not a fifty foot invisible spider cyborg with an internet connection wired into my massive mandibles?
In lieu of any reason to suggest a thing exists, you shouldn't concern yourself with its existence, or you'll be worrying about an infinite amount of stupid shit you can conceive like planet-sized foam coathangers or Bhorgmo, the all-elephant.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, the most appropriate response is that it is possible, all you being a fifty foot invisible cyborg is as valid the idea that the world does not exist and is simulation, as is the idea there is an afterlife.
The bottom line is don't fucking worry about it, because there are an infinite number of possibilities - if there is an afterlife, cool, but if not, I might as well operate with the assumption that there is none, and ensure that such unproven things do not affect my (current) life.
To the fucktards that says that religion gives you morals, fuck no, before religion, were we curbstomping babies and stealing everything? No we weren't. I don't do these things because it would make me an asshole, only reason you people do it is because some invisible friend told you not to.
I've been looking for this answer, asking everybody I know, psychologists, teachers, relatives, friends, but nobody's been able to give it to me straight. The concept scares me, and I'm hoping somebody can explain it a bit.
How can something come from nothing? Something being our existence, or the reality we live in. Imagine a video game, a developer created it. Our reality, for all we know, just exists. How did it come to exist?
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;29907990]I've been looking for this answer, asking everybody I know, psychologists, teachers, relatives, friends, but nobody's been able to give it to me straight. The concept scares me, and I'm hoping somebody can explain it a bit.
How can something come from nothing? Something being our existence, or the reality we live in. Imagine a video game, a developer created it. Our reality, for all we know, just exists. How did it come to exist?[/QUOTE]
We don't know if it came from nothing. All we know (or what is most likely) is that all mass in existence (aka. the entire universe) was into an extremely dense and small spot, and then exploded (or expanded really much really fast). Might have been there all along.
My puny human mind cannot comprehend it though.
[QUOTE=Chrille;29908100]We don't know if it came from nothing. All we know (or what is most likely) is that all mass in existence (aka. the entire universe) was into an extremely dense and small spot, and then exploded (or expanded really much really fast). Might have been there all along.
My puny human mind cannot comprehend it though.[/QUOTE]
Mine either, and it's messing with me to the point where my stomach hurts. I don't understand how the entire universe came to be. Imagine zooming out from our planet and then our universe and then blank. I'm not looking forward to death, and I'm not enjoying my current state of mind about eternity.
[QUOTE=TropicalV2;29907990]
How can something come from nothing? Something being our existence, or the reality we live in. Imagine a video game, a developer created it. Our reality, for all we know, just exists. How did it come to exist?[/QUOTE]
The answer is that it is extremely difficult to conceptualize, because we're never really experienced non-linear progression of time, lack of causality and so on.
It's a bit like asking a person who has been blind all their life to imagine colour.
We've been playing by the rules of reality our entire existence, and whatever/if there was something before the big bang, all those rules are thrown out.
There is very little reason to believe that there is an afterlife in the traditional sense seeing as how consciousness is a construct of the mind. When you die, your brain dies and likely, your consciousness with it. If there is such a thing as an afterlife, chances are you won't remember your previous one and thus it doesn't even really matter.
[QUOTE=Fr0z3n F14m3;29910969]There is very little reason to believe that there is an afterlife in the traditional sense seeing as how consciousness is a construct of the mind. When you die, your brain dies and likely, your consciousness with it. If there is such a thing as an afterlife, chances are you won't remember your previous one and thus it doesn't even really matter.[/QUOTE]
There is a convincing possibility that merely our existence is moved on. But this is again, a psychedelic perspective.
Our memories will die, and we will start from scratch in whatever abyss the happenings decide. :pcgaming:
I believe that Akayz was a hypnotoad in his past life
[QUOTE=AK'z;29911042]There is a convincing possibility that merely our existence is moved on. But this is again, a psychedelic perspective.
Our memories will die, and we will start from scratch in whatever abyss the happenings decide. :pcgaming:[/QUOTE]
Your consciousness won't be sustained. And if you mean that whatever electrons and nuclei and neutrons we consist of will change merely state but continue to exist, then according to that logic everybody has existed since the big bang.
[QUOTE=Chrille;29911183]Your consciousness won't be sustained. And if you mean that whatever electrons and nuclei and neutrons we consist of will change merely state but continue to exist, then according to that logic everybody has existed since the big bang.[/QUOTE]
There still is the mere confusion as to what caused it. Was it two universes colliding?
[QUOTE=Simski;29903412]I don't understand how you believe this contradicts my first statement tough.
Clearly they exist, but we don't have the capability to provide the evidence that they exist because we do not have infinite power over reality.
They exist as theories that can't be disproved, like gravity.[/QUOTE]
He thinks gravity can't be disproved! HE HE HE
Mathematical theorems are entirely true and real. They are based on proof and logic. They exist because we can prove they exist, as mathematics is just a construct, an idea. This idea can be applied to the real world, but it does not need to be applied to the real world.
Now, the Theory of Gravity:
It's a statement comprising of observations. We see gravity, therefore it seems to be exist, and the evidence is definitely in its favor. This isn't really disprovable because it's just a thing saying "Oh hey this looks like it exists based on all the evidence we have".
Then, you have the Law of Gravity, which is a statement of how it appears to work. However, this is entirely disprovable. This only applies to specific situations and what not and is considerably less powerful.
So stating that gravity cannot be disproved is a bit poorly phrased for that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.