Afterlife burden of proof

[nebulaJP]

George, george, george of the jungle - what out for that .... data??

Somehow I think not.

How many homeruns did Hank Aaron hit with a piece of data? You are questioning reality. That way lies madness.

I'm not questioning reality, I'm questioning the status quo. A reality made of data is reliable and serves the same purpose as the one you believe in. It's just as 'real'. The notion of an 'actual objective universe' is based on the unwarranted assumption that matter exists as anything other than data, for which there is no evidence.

The first people who posited a spherical earth or heliocentrism were also questioning the status quo.

 

[razeontherock]

matter exists as anything other than data, for which there is no evidence.

There is far more than a world full of evidence for this

 

[nebulaJP]

Another reason why I only want to talk about the nature of our universe rather than its origin is because if you don't know the nature of something, any discussion of its origin is pointless.

For example, the current mainstream theory of the origin of the earth involves accretion from the solar nebula. Well, they were only able to come up with this theory after learning about the nature of the earth (it's spherical), gravity and the solar system (heliocentrism).

Any theories postulated about the origin of the earth back when everyone thought it was flat would have been wrong. So, you should only worry about the origin of something after you have solidly established that your understanding of its nature is correct. And it has not been proven that matter exists as anything other than data. In fact, this is idea is contradicted by QM.

 

[nebulaJP]

There is far more than a world full of evidence for this

Elaborate please.

 

[nebulaJP]

If it is at rest relative to an observer, it is a particle, but if it is in relative motion it has wavelike properties, more pronounced as it approaches the speed of light. The wave passes through both slits. But Feynmann showed that you can treat it as a particle if you assume it that takes all possible paths, and sum them. (See his book "Q.E.D.") Then you get the same result. The truth seems to be that you can treat it as a wave or a particle, as convenient, and get the same results. One or the other might give simpler math, but produces the same result. The reality is not particle or wave.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." --- widely attributed to Richard Feynmann

P.S.

In my previous response to this I was working with what you said about relative motion having something to do with it, but I really don't agree with that, or maybe I just don't understand it.

Here is why. If you set up detectors at the slits and you also record the which slit information so that you are certain which slit the particles went through, you get the clump pattern. The particles are in motion as they go through the slits and past the detectors. The detectors are stationary and the particles are in motion. Recording the which slit information destroys the interference pattern. So, I don't see how relative motion has anything to do with this. It seems to be all about certainty.

This is just a little side note but, if you leave the detectors running but don't record the which-slit info, you get the interference pattern because there is no certainty about which slit the particles went through. I mention that because there is this common misconception that it is the interaction of the detectors with the particles that causes the collapse of the wave function but that isn't true. This has been disproven in many ways, such as with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser which derives the which slit info by means of entanglement rather than any direct interaction with the particles. But the simplest way to prove that the detectors aren't what causes the collapse is to just leave them running but don't record the which-slit info.

 

[nebulaJP]

I know, but for a physicalist, large objects are made up of small objects. The double slit experiment is scientifically reproducible and it proves that small objects just disappear. Some of the particles fired at the double slit apparatus go through neither slit. We know this because we know how many particles were fired and how many of them have made it to the screen. There should be a 1:1 ratio but there isn't.

However, as I mentioned, society does have irrefutable proof that small objects disappear and according to physicalists, large objects are made out of small objects, so to me, that is just as good.

OK, I just read some stuff and this whole line of my argument was wrong. You always have a 1:1 ratio of particles fired to particles that make it to the back screen, so none of them disappear. Unless you set up detectors at the slits and record the which-slit info (which causes a clump pattern), no one knows how the individual particles make it to the back of the screen to produce the interference pattern but it's theorized that each particle does one of four things: it goes through slit A, it goes through slit B, it goes through both slits or it goes through neither slit (meaning it finds some other way to get to the back screen). I thought that when they say it goes through neither slit it meant the particle disappeared but that isn't the case.

So, there is no proof that anything disappears.

 

[Paradoxum]

P.S.

Lets put it this way. If you were alone, placed an apple on a table, looked up at the ceiling for a split second and then back to the table and the apple wasn't there anymore, you wouldn't describe that as 'losing' the apple so I don't know why you would describe the tennis ball example that way.

This would be proof for you personally that large objects just disappear. Of course no one else would believe you. They would say that the apple MUST have rolled off the table and under the couch, that you didn't hear it fall, etc. But they would be wrong. That's all I was saying. Naturally, this wouldn't prove to society that large objects disappear, only to you.

I don't think it would prove to me that, or at least I hope it wouldn't. I know that the mind can do strange things. People have always believed crazy things and thought things have happened that probably didn't happen. It is much morel likely that something unlikely happened to the apple/ball, or that something strange happened to my brain, rather than assuming the apple/ball disappeared.

I don't know about you, but I was a strongly believing Christian for most of my life. Some of the things I thought happened then, I no longer think happened now. One has to be more critical of ones experiences.

However, as I mentioned, society does have irrefutable proof that small objects disappear and according to physicalists, large objects are made out of small objects, so to me, that is just as good.

But that doesn't mean that is how it works. Just assuming things doesn't bring truth.

To tell you the truth, I know for a fact that large objects disappear because the tennis ball story is true and happened to me, not that I expect anyone else to believe I'm correct in my assessment of what took place that day or that I'm not lying about it.

When was a Christian I once told an atheist friend that the only way I would stop believing in God would be if it was proven that the world was an illusion. I thought I could be sure that miracles and personal revelation proved God. Personal experience doesn't seem to be that safe a way to come to truth.

Off topic speculation follows: This is sort of a rule. It seems there is some rule in effect that ensures people can believe what they want. You will hear about paranormal stuff all the time but as soon as anyone tries to verify it or prove it scientifically there will be no evidence or a person or phenomenon will be discredited in some way, casting doubt on the whole thing. But apparently, there is no problem with everyone knowing that small particles disappear in the double slit experiment because it happens every time and is absolutely reproducible.

But what you are talking about is different. You might think that what happens to the small applies to the large, but scientists can't combine quantum theory with relativity.

You're saying there is nothing outside of our universe. How do you know that? Like I said before, I don't want this to turn into a debate about the origin of our universe. This is about the nature of our universe. If the discussion is about the origin it will just be a lot of speculation and that's beyond the scope of the thread. I'm using video games as an analogy. It's not a perfect analogy because, as I've already said, we know the origin and underlying mechanism behind the world of the video game whereas with our own universe we don't.

I don't know. There could be other universes, but I thought you meant that whatever the fundamental foundation of reality is, it is information.

 

[nebulaJP]

But what you are talking about is different. You might think that what happens to the small applies to the large, but scientists can't combine quantum theory with relativity.

That's because they are clinging to objective matter at all cost even if it means they have to posit parallel worlds and doppelgangers. Hopefully they won't have to bring leprechauns into it. With the informational universe theory, quantum mechanics and relativity are bridged elegantly.

I don't know. There could be other universes, but I thought you meant that whatever the fundamental foundation of reality is, it is information.

Never mind that I mentioned anything outside of our universe. I retract it. Information is all there is in our universe. There may be something other than information outside of our universe but it doesn't matter. We can't know what is out there if anything. The video game analogy isn't perfect for several reasons but the main one is that we know what makes the virtual world of the video game possible.

 

[Paradoxum]

That's because they are clinging to objective matter at all cost even if it means they have to posit parallel worlds and doppelgangers. Hopefully they won't have to bring leprechauns into it. With the informational universe theory, quantum mechanics and relativity are bridged elegantly.

Well if you know so much better then I'm sure you can write a scientific paper on it and submit it for peer review.

Never mind that I mentioned anything outside of our universe. I retract it. Information is all there is in our universe. There may be something other than information outside of our universe but it doesn't matter. We can't know what is out there if anything. The video game analogy isn't perfect for several reasons but the main one is that we know what makes the virtual world of the video game possible.

Maybe we are in the matrix, maybe not, I have no idea.

 

[nebulaJP]

Well if you know so much better then I'm sure you can write a scientific paper on it and submit it for peer review.

Oh sure, and have it pooh poohed by the closed minded, circular reasoning buffoons? No thank you. Poor Brian Whitworth has already tried this and they would not accept his ideas so he took his crayons and went home.

I haven't actually read any of these yet but here is some of his stuff for anyone who is interested:

http://brianwhitworth.com/VRConjecture.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT2.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT3.pdf

 

[Paradoxum]

Oh sure, and have it pooh poohed by the closed minded, circular reasoning buffoons? No thank you. Poor Brian Whitworth has already tried this and they would not accept his ideas so he took his crayons and went home.

I haven't actually read any of these yet but here is some of his stuff for anyone who is interested:

http://brianwhitworth.com/VRConjecture.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT1.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT2.pdf

http://brianwhitworth.com/BW-VRT3.pdf

Yes, scientists are buffoons.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You're right that it doesn't change anything as far as our day to day experience goes. Neither would the concept of a spherical earth have changed people's day to day experience in the 6th century BCE. Also, in practice, it changes very little of our current science. As far as pragmatic physics it doesn't 'matter' if matter is virtual or actual.

The only things different in science are some areas of theoretical physics. You don't need string theory with this because it explains how we get the world of everyday objects out of QM. But that is fine because they have been working on string theory for about 20 years now and getting nowhere with it. There is also no need to posit parallel earths or doppelgangers in order to explain QM, which is a good thing.

I am not very well versed when it comes to these scientific matters, admittedly.

I think it has implications when it comes to traditionally spiritual matters so that's different. Survival of the mind upon death becomes possible whereas with a physicalist model it's not.

You are not going to retain much of the mind either way.

The one we're experiencing.

Yes, sure. I understood as much. I was rather hoping for something ... more. Apparantly your thought processes (on which you based your argument to begin with) upon the 'outside' world. Regardless of whether this outside world is conceived of as matter, energy, physical, or data, or whatever.

I agree that we have no (scientifically reproducible) evidence that the mind can exist without a brain. However, when you have information rather than matter as the ground of all being it makes it possible.

Why couldn't there an equally good (or bad, depending on PoV) case be made for the mind existing without a brain with 'matter' as the ground of all being? (Keep in mind that these are pretty much just labels tucked onto what we have ultimately no clue about.)

My argument has always been that Afterlife isn't impossible, not that Afterlife is true. The reason it's possible is because the mind and the brain are both made of ones and zeroes. So death can be leaving part of your data behind rather than the end of your existence.



This is pretty abstract. What's up with 'life' in Afterlife being in italics? Are you saying the word Afterlife is a misnomer? If so is "continuation of the mind upon death" acceptable to refer to that philosophical concept? Afterlife is catchier.

I just put 'life' in afterlife in italics to emphasize it. It seems to have worked.

However, part of the problem that I always see is that there does not seem to be such an awful lot left of the mind after death. Thinking power is gone, perception is gone, memories are gone. And again it is pretty irrelevant whether you think reality as being made up of matter, energy, data, butterfly dreams, or whatever. Death does indicate a change of state somewhere within this matter/data/whatever. Any which way you conceive of things.

Except maybe you have some other ideas what life and death mean.



(And sorry, I haven't been following the rest of this thread.)