Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 29, 2024, 8:49 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A physical argument for an afterlife
#11
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
(March 14, 2015 at 1:41 pm)IATIA Wrote: In a multi-world scenario, there would be another you, but not being made of the exact same particles, it would have it's own consciousness.


Do you know the concept of identical particles in Quantum Mechanics?
Reply
#12
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
Do you have a point?
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#13
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
This reminds me of an old argument. In Star Trek a transporter reduces people to atoms on the ship and reassembles them from atoms on a planet or elsewhere. The question is, were they really transported, or did the transporter kill one person on the ship and create an identical person on the planet. I'd argue the later. It's not immortality, just rebirth of a duplicate. And I'd no more step into the transporter room than allow myself to be killed to create a clone of myself.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#14
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
Quote:"It's not immortality, just rebirth of a duplicate. And I'd no more step into the transporter room than allow myself to be killed to create a clone of myself."
For similar reasons I don't care much for trans-humanist bull about near-immorality via uploading minds to computers.
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#15
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
(March 14, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote:
Quote:"It's not immortality, just rebirth of a duplicate. And I'd no more step into the transporter room than allow myself to be killed to create a clone of myself."
For similar reasons I don't care much for trans-humanist bull about near-immorality via uploading minds to computers.

That's pretty much it. It might make my nearest and dearest happier, but it wouldn't do anything for me personally. I'd be gone, gone, gone.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god.  If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
Reply
#16
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
(March 14, 2015 at 8:44 pm)Jenny A Wrote: This reminds me of an old argument. In Star Trek a transporter reduces people to atoms on the ship and reassembles them from atoms on a planet or elsewhere. The question is, were they really transported, or did the transporter kill one person on the ship and create an identical person on the planet. I'd argue the later. It's not immortality, just rebirth of a duplicate. And I'd no more step into the transporter room than allow myself to be killed to create a clone of myself.

There was an episode of the re-booted Outer Limits (mid 90s as I recall) that explored that idea more fully.

Interstellar travel is done via perfectly duplicating a person elsewhere and destroying the original that 'stayed home'.

It was a pretty chilling thing to contemplate.
 The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it. 




Reply
#17
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
(March 14, 2015 at 11:19 pm)Jenny A Wrote:
(March 14, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: For similar reasons I don't care much for trans-humanist bull about near-immorality via uploading minds to computers.

That's pretty much it. It might make my nearest and dearest happier, but it wouldn't do anything for me personally. I'd be gone, gone, gone.
I'm rambling now but this is kind of why I don't care about reincarnation being true or not. What is being reincarnated? My memories? Whoop-de-do!
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#18
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
Quote:What do you think about it?

You make many assumptions.
Reply
#19
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
(March 14, 2015 at 11:19 pm)Jenny A Wrote:
(March 14, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: For similar reasons I don't care much for trans-humanist bull about near-immorality via uploading minds to computers.

That's pretty much it. It might make my nearest and dearest happier, but it wouldn't do anything for me personally. I'd be gone, gone, gone.

The you from yesterday might have suffered the same fate, and you might be going to as well, in a moment. Who says there is now the type of personal continuity we desire , without uploading or duplicating. Is it a testable notion whether this continuity of the self as you desire it even exists?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#20
RE: A physical argument for an afterlife
(March 14, 2015 at 8:44 pm)Jenny A Wrote: This reminds me of an old argument. In Star Trek a transporter reduces people to atoms on the ship and reassembles them from atoms on a planet or elsewhere. The question is, were they really transported, or did the transporter kill one person on the ship and create an identical person on the planet. I'd argue the later. It's not immortality, just rebirth of a duplicate. And I'd no more step into the transporter room than allow myself to be killed to create a clone of myself.

They dealt with this in an episode of the next generation where they ended up with two Rikers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geMGo2P94j4



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Physical Jew Alex K 31 7918 June 5, 2017 at 5:21 pm
Last Post: Alex K
  Are Particles 'Physical Things' or 'Abstract Ideas'? Mudhammam 56 10090 April 15, 2015 at 6:45 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  The Constraints of Physical Law Mudhammam 4 2088 March 26, 2014 at 11:18 am
Last Post: Neo-Scholastic
  Cosmology of the physical universe Jackalope 2 2141 September 8, 2012 at 3:25 am
Last Post: Jackalope



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)