View Poll Results: In your personal opinion, do you feel that "If I am immortal, then I will soon die" is val

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it is valid

    0 0%
  • No, it is not valid

    6 60.00%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • The question doesn't make sense.

    4 40.00%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 91

Thread: If I am immortal, then I will soon die

  1. Top | #61
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,367
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,273
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post



    Establish
    3. To cause to be recognised and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.
    recognise
    1. formally acknowledged or accepted as valid
    2. widely accepted as being true
    Thus, proof that atoms exist only results in the existence of atoms being widely accepted as true.

    This is of course very different from us knowing that atoms exist, since it may be false even if we all accept it as true.

    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    We don't believe we know that, we actually know it.
    Prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Our very state of awareness and knowing proves that there is something rather than nothing because without one the other is not possible.
    We are unable to prove that we are in a "state of knowing" that atoms exist.

    There is something, we know that, but we don't know what it is beyond the appearance of it.
    EB
    For a start, I didn't say that atoms exist. I said that something exists, something that we name or call 'atoms' 'energy' 'probability waves' etc...if you can see the distinction between the label and the phenomena itself.

  2. Top | #62
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    For a start, I didn't say that atoms exist. I said that something exists, something that we name or call 'atoms' 'energy' 'probability waves' etc...if you can see the distinction between the label and the phenomena itself.
    So something exists that I label God.

    Good we could agree on that.
    EB

  3. Top | #63
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,736
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,949
    Rep Power
    55
    We know matter can be viewed either as wave or particle.

    Some believe God exists .....

    Nope. Not equivalent.

    Back to the logic shop.

  4. Top | #64
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,367
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,273
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    For a start, I didn't say that atoms exist. I said that something exists, something that we name or call 'atoms' 'energy' 'probability waves' etc...if you can see the distinction between the label and the phenomena itself.
    So something exists that I label God.

    Good we could agree on that.
    EB
    Whatever it is that we call atoms, energy wavelength, etc, has a demonstrable effect in the physical world, the world appears to be made of this 'stuff' whatever it actually is - anyone can test its properties - but we have no such correspondence or testability with what we call 'God'

  5. Top | #65
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    For a start, I didn't say that atoms exist. I said that something exists, something that we name or call 'atoms' 'energy' 'probability waves' etc...if you can see the distinction between the label and the phenomena itself.
    So something exists that I label God.

    Good we could agree on that.
    EB
    Whatever it is that we call atoms, energy wavelength, etc, has a demonstrable effect in the physical world, the world appears to be made of this 'stuff' whatever it actually is - anyone can test its properties - but we have no such correspondence or testability with what we call 'God'
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    For example, we may want to explain all the materials we find in nature in terms of atoms. The theorised properties of atoms become the premises that we assume, and we can then prove logically that materials made from these atoms, as we would assume them, would have a number of properties. And then, we could compare the properties so inferred from our premises to the properties we observe the materials found in nature to have. This is of course gross simplification of the actual story but this is the logical backbone.

    So, we did that. However, what does that prove? This proves only that if atoms exist as we theorised them, they would nicely explain all our observations of the materials found in nature. But merely finding that the properties of materials predicted because inferred from our hypothetical atoms coincide with the properties we observe the materials to have in nature isn't proof that atoms really exist.as theorised. And as long as we cannot prove these theorised atoms are all there is, we cannot be certain that materials in nature don't have other properties, not yet observed, which could then be a big surprise in store. In effect, we cannot prove the existence of atoms as theorised.

    Of course, we went further, explaining atoms in terms of elementary particles, but the situation remains the same from a logical perspective. The difference is between observed properties and unobserved reality. Our models are models of properties because we can observe various properties in nature. Observing properties doesn't prove the reality that causes the properties. Another way to say it is to say that finding n properties doesn't guaranty there is not in fact n +1 properties. And as long as we don't know all the properties there are in nature, whatever our theories, we may end up with a big surprise at absolutely any time. Again, think of dark matter and dark energy.

    Still, of course, you can believe rationally that science proves atoms exist, or elementary particles exist. This is all we have, so it is the rational attitude. But rationality is based on what we believe we know, not on what we know.
    I still don't know what you have to object.
    EB

  6. Top | #66
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,367
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,273
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I still don't know what you have to object.
    EB
    Just pointing out the basics, that our perception of the objective world/reality is being shaped and tested by that objective world. It is an objective world because it does not cater to anyone's erroneous perception of it. It is what it is regardless of anyone's beliefs about it.

  7. Top | #67
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I still don't know what you have to object.
    EB
    Just pointing out the basics, that our perception of the objective world/reality is being shaped and tested by that objective world. It is an objective world because it does not cater to anyone's erroneous perception of it. It is what it is regardless of anyone's beliefs about it.
    Circular reasoning.
    EB

  8. Top | #68
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,367
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,273
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    I still don't know what you have to object.
    EB
    Just pointing out the basics, that our perception of the objective world/reality is being shaped and tested by that objective world. It is an objective world because it does not cater to anyone's erroneous perception of it. It is what it is regardless of anyone's beliefs about it.
    Circular reasoning.
    EB
    No. It happens in the brain prior to thought and reasoning. An infant learns about the world before it can even think, yet alone reason.

  9. Top | #69
    Member aupmanyav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Posts
    160
    Archived
    18,926
    Total Posts
    19,086
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Personal opinion may not be logical. Its possible that an immortal may feel that they are going to die, but their feeling of impending death has no bearing on their actual condition, that condition being their state of immortality. Which, by definition, means they cannot die.
    An immortal can die and take some other form or what constitutes the immortal may still continue to live. For example, I am an immortal. After I die my atoms will disperse and live in millions of other forms. Basic 'Advaita' philosophy in Hinduism.

    Sankaracharya 800 AD:

    "na me mṛtyuśaṅkā na me jātibhedaḥ, pitā naiva me naiva mātā na janmaḥ;
    na bandhur na mitraṃ gurunaiva śişyaḥ, cidānandarūpaḥ śivo'ham śivo'ham."

    I do not have fear of death (I have no separation from my true self). Nor have I discrimination on the basis of birth. I have no father or mother, nor did I have a birth. I am not the relative, nor the friend, nor the guru, nor the disciple. I am indeed, the form of eternal bliss, I am Siva, I am, Siva.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atma_Shatkam

  10. Top | #70
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    11,762
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    12,469
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by aupmanyav View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Personal opinion may not be logical. Its possible that an immortal may feel that they are going to die, but their feeling of impending death has no bearing on their actual condition, that condition being their state of immortality. Which, by definition, means they cannot die.
    An immortal can die and take some other form or what constitutes the immortal may still continue to live. For example, I am an immortal. After I die my atoms will disperse and live in millions of other forms.
    Do you honor all the other previous forms, whose atoms comprise the body you have now appropriated as your own? Do they "live" within you, as well as within millions - or trillions - of other forms?
    All I can say is your "immortality" is extremely dilute.


    As far as the OP question - time will tell. Whether it specifically tells me anything is an open question.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •