Quantum Immortality Test

[Kylie]

Ugh…

You dislike of an explanation is not an argument against it.

You have never provided an argument against the scientific explanation for the Mandela effect, and your arguments for the Mandela effect have never been anything better than, "It has to be right because I believe it very strongly."

 

[JohnEmmett]

"It has to be right because I believe it very strongly."

Straw man argument. Again.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

The difference between us is that my arguments are supportable.

 

[JohnEmmett]

The difference between us is that my arguments are supportable.

I try to have good conduct. For the sake of karma…

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd rather have evidence.

As has so often been shown, memory - no matter how strong and vivid it is - can not be relied upon.

Indeed - even the so-called 'flashbulb' memories of extraordinary events (e.g. 9/11), that produce a vivid snapshot-like memory, have been shown to be prone to inaccuracies.

How accurate are Memories of 9/11?

"Our measure of accuracy is consistency with what people told us in the survey the week after the attack. From that first survey to the second survey a year later, the overall consistency of the details of how they learned of 9/11 was only 63 percent. At the third survey, three years after the attack, consistency was 57 percent. So people were only a little more than 50 percent right for a lot of the details.​

But they were particularly bad at remembering what their emotions were after 9/11—accurate only about 40 percent of the time, after a year. And yet overall, for all those details, people's confidence in their memories was, on average, greater than 4 on a scale of 1 to 5."​

 

[JohnEmmett]

You may remember the past differently because it really was different.

Due to the Mandela Effect.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Everyone will become aware.

Of what few are aware of.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You may remember the past differently because it really was different.

Due to the Mandela Effect.

Seems legit. After a year 37% of people were in a timeline with a different version of 9/11. After 3 years 47% of us had changed timeline. That's a far better explanation than problems with memory.

 

[Kylie]

Straw man argument. Again.

You keep saying that, yet I have already asked you to show me even a single post of yours that does not boil down to this, and you seem incapable of doing so.

 

[JohnEmmett]

You keep saying that, yet I have already asked you to show me even a single post of yours that does not boil down to this, and you seem incapable of doing so.

Logical fallacy.

With the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold.

This fallacy can be unethical if it’s done on purpose, deliberately mischaracterizing the opponent’s position for the sake of deceiving others.

 

[JohnEmmett]

That's a far better explanation than problems with memory.

You prefer to be skeptical. Fine…

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You prefer to be skeptical. Fine…

And you're credulous. So......?

 

[JohnEmmett]

And you're credulous. So?

Not everyone can know.

Not everyone wants to know.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Not everyone can know.

Not everyone wants to know.

But you claim to? Why?

 

[Kylie]

Logical fallacy.

With the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold.

This fallacy can be unethical if it’s done on purpose, deliberately mischaracterizing the opponent’s position for the sake of deceiving others.

If I am constructing a strawman, then you should be able to easily show me a post of yours where your evidence doesn't boil down to, "But I believe it really strongly, so it must be true!"

Time to back up your claims that I am resorting to a strawman argument.

 

[JohnEmmett]

But you claim to? Why?

It is everywhere…

 

[Bungle_Bear]

It is everywhere…

Evidence in support of faulty memory is, indeed, everywhere. So why do you claim to know that this evidence is bunk and the real explanation for every faulty memory is people changing timelines, something for which there is no evidence?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Evidence in support of faulty memory is, indeed, everywhere. So why do you claim to know that this evidence is bunk and the real explanation for every faulty memory is people changing timelines, something for which there is no evidence?

There is endless evidence. But you (and others) are endlessly unable (or unwilling) to appreciate, know this evidence. As it is.

Instead, you are endlessly debating it. Since it seems this is what you do regardless of what I say. Regardless of the evidence I share.

I suspect this is about levels of reality. And our ability (or inability) to be aware of the transcendental.

 

[Kylie]

There is endless evidence. But you (and others) are endlessly unable (or unwilling) to appreciate, know this evidence. As it is.

Instead, you are endlessly debating it. Since it seems this is what you do regardless of what I say. Regardless of the evidence I share.

I suspect this is about levels of reality. And our ability (or inability) to be aware of the transcendental. This Effect is quite a test. And I cannot pass it for others.

Just because we don't agree with your interpretation of the evidence doesn't mean we don't appreciate it. You just think, for some reason, that you are incapable of being wrong.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There is endless evidence. But you (and others) are endlessly unable (or unwilling) to appreciate, know this evidence. As it is.

Instead, you are endlessly debating it. Since it seems this is what you do regardless of what I say. Regardless of the evidence I share.

I suspect this is about levels of reality. And our ability (or inability) to be aware of the transcendental. This Effect is quite a test. And I cannot pass it for others.

You have not presented any evidence. Anecdotes and stories are not evidence.