Posts by slimboyfat

39

Why the resurrection must be true

by slimboyfat in

okay i was thinking about it.

and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.

but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.

slimboyfat

The longer you wait, the more distant into the past, the more diluted any information gets.

Processes of information retrieval that are already feasible show that the rate of recovery is much quicker than degradation. For example the continents are still changing position, But the science of plate tectonics advances so quickly that the information "lost" between the development of techniques to trace the past movement of the continents is so negligible as to be non-existent.

DNA is also subject to degradation over time, but advances in technology are so much quicker than the loss of information that old murders can be solved, and the de-extinction of long dead species is now considered feasible.

https://youtu.be/XKc9MJDeqj0

If such seeming science fiction examples of information retrieval is possible, even today. Then it would seem to follow that, given enough progress, the material composition of the universe itself will inevitably be quantified. At which point, if the materialist conception of reality is correct, not only is resurrection feasible, it is inevitable.

39

Why the resurrection must be true

by slimboyfat in

okay i was thinking about it.

and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.

but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.

slimboyfat

Isn't it the case that energy and matter are interchangeable and cannot be destroyed? The phraseology "require more energy than exists in the universe" seems to imply that once energy has been used to accomplish a function it is thereafter lost. But that is not how it works as I understand it. After energy accomplishes something it still exists at the end of the process, just in a different form. So maybe it is imossible to process the information concerning the whole universe all at once, but parts of it can be processed successively, until it is all quantified.

Plus as more and more of the universe is given over to processes which involve understanding itself (consciousness) we will realise we are reaching a point where the universe itself is destined to be self-aware, not merely beings within it. This super consciousness, as it expands and advances, will necessarily involve all consciousness that exists and has ever existed. So the part of the universe that is the subject expands and the part that is the object shrinks, to the point where the universe is pure consciousness. Necessarily involving the consciousness of all beings that have ever existed. This is a basic argument for panpsychism. I have until now assumed that conscious beings are discrete entities and matter is easily divided between conscious and unconscious, but these are not safe assumptions

39

Why the resurrection must be true

by slimboyfat in

okay i was thinking about it.

and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.

but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.

slimboyfat

It would have to be a very altruistic society to forgo the pleasures of their own present, forward looking lives, to present some forgotten ancestor with a return to a second presence.

My argument is that each generation has sufficient interest in their parents and immediate relatives to insist that they are brought back when it becomes feasible to do so. When they are brought back they will feel the same about their parents and so on. "Some forgotten ancestor" doesn't enter the picture. Plus however difficult or onerous it may be to accomplish, given time and progress, you simply need to wait longer until it becomes feasible.

39

Why the resurrection must be true

by slimboyfat in

okay i was thinking about it.

and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.

but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.

slimboyfat

bohm according to the video above about how physical cloning is not possible, it says that an extremely close approximation is theoretically possible but that quantum mechanics prevents an exact physical clone without destroying the original in the process of retrieving the information. A resurrection does not involve replicating or destroying one original, but extrapolating from numerous points in the past to recreate a being which resembles multiple point but may not be exact to any given one.

It also says that it is not clear that consciousness arises from processes at a quantum level. As time goes on, the closer the approximation that humans are able to create must become. The information needed will be immense, but given time and progress it becomes inevitable. You mention all sorts of complicated processes that make the information difficult to retrieve. But as long as those processes follow consistent laws which are discoverable, then no matter how long or convoluted, the information is in principle retrievable at an ordinary mechanical level. Since humans operate and function on a scale at which ordinary physics rules apply rather than quantum mechanics, the information that can be retrieved will be enough to recover what is needed to reconstruct an entity that is constituted and functions as the original.

So the philosophical question again is whether an exact copy which has the same composition and functions the same as the original person is a resurrection of that person.

39

Why the resurrection must be true

by slimboyfat in

okay i was thinking about it.

and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.

but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.

slimboyfat

Okay bohm so different rules apply to physics on a very small scale than apply at a large scale, meaning that exact reconstruction of position and velocity of all matter may be impossible. We can work out exact movements of stars and planets, but the exact movement of all subatomic particles in the universe is not possible, not even in theory. Is that it? If that is so I think there are philosophical issues that remain.

First of all how close an approximation would count as a resurrection? Say the information about the past that was recoverable was enough to mean that an almost exact copy of a person could be made. All the atoms seem to be in same configuration and the being functions as we would expect an exact copy to function. Would that count as a resurrection, even if uncertainty or variation on a very small scale exists?

If we rebuilt the Titanic for example, atom for atom as it existed before, and it sailed and functioned as the original. But there may be variation or uncertainty at an atomic or subatomic scale. Would there be a meaningful distinction or objection to considering new Titanic an equivalent to the original? Similarly if the detail of information was sufficient to make a copy of person such that it was configured, appeared and functioned as the original, would that qualify as a resurrection? In other words are we simply material, an extremely complex biological machine, or something more? If we are simply highly complex machines then a copy which is so close an approximation that it functions in a predictably similar way to the original would count as a resurrection. To argue otherwise would seem to involve arguing that we are more than our material composition or resulting functions. That there is more to reality than purely the material.

39

Why the resurrection must be true

by slimboyfat in

okay i was thinking about it.

and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.

but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.

slimboyfat

Waton as I said to Simon above it seems to me it all comes down to information and level of detail. Imagine thousands of years ago if we told humans it was possible to calculate the position of the earth, planets and stars, thousands and millions of years in the past, or into the future, based on their current position and movement, that would seem incredble. But the advance of knowledge makes it possible. It doesn't mean current knowledge implies that all states and points of time exist together, but that the information about each stage is recoverable.

As knowledge of the composition and laws governing the universe become ever more detailed, doesn't the ability to predict or reconstruct the exact atomic configuration of the universe at any point, past or future, become inevitable?

22

Looking for a Book on Evolution

by Saethydd in

i am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (specifically the jw strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational.

i would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but i know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.. some examples of what i'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible..

slimboyfat

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins was what convinced me. He wrote this book in the 1980s. I think he was less confrontational and stuck more to the science back then.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Blind-Watchmaker-Richard-Dawkins/0141026162/

39

Why the resurrection must be true

by slimboyfat in

okay i was thinking about it.

and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.

but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.

slimboyfat

Rainbow Troll, (sorry not Trout ha!)

A song for a fellow believer in the eternal return.

Heaven

Everyone is trying to get to the bar.
The name of the bar, the bar is called Heaven.
The band in Heaven plays my favorite song.
Thwey play it once again, they play it all night long.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

There is a party, everyone is there.
Everyone will leave at exactly the same time.
Its hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, and so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

When this kiss is over it will start again.
It will not be any different, it will be exactly the same.
It's hard to imagine that nothing at all
Could be so exciting, could be so much fun.

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

https://youtu.be/tCs8WgPcnCU

39

Why the resurrection must be true

by slimboyfat in

okay i was thinking about it.

and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.

but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.

slimboyfat

There were also important caveats in the video.

1. For example it said creating an exact copy from an existing thing is impossible. Does this only apply to things existing simultaneously? In the case we are talking about it involves recreating something known to exist in the past, not creating two of something side by side. But I suspect the problem is about exactness of information rather than physical simultineity.

2. It said it is impossible inside the universe. Is there any good reason for restricting action to "inside the universe"? Could new universes or parallel dimensions be used to recreate the entities using the information from this universe.

3. It said we are not sure whether quantum mechanics is involved in the mechanisms from which consciousness arises.

4. It said exact copies are impossible but very close approximations would be possible. Would a very nearly exact copy of a human, closer to you now than you are to yourself last week, for example, be sufficient to effect a resurrection?

39

Why the resurrection must be true

by slimboyfat in

okay i was thinking about it.

and it is a transhumanist argument and nothing new, i do realise that before anyone points it out.

but it struck me afresh today that the resurrection must happen.. firstly, to state the obvious, a rational materialist conception of reality seems to exclude resurrection.

slimboyfat

Rainbow Trout yes we have discussed the eternal return before. Many have taken it from Nietzsche as a metaphor for how to live life, but I find it a compelling idea in itself.

Island Man I am not going to pretend I followed the maths of your video. I suspected quantum mechanics may spoil the predictability of the universe. But ultimately this is what I am driving at. Either the material universe obeys laws that are discoverable and predicable or not. If quantum mechanics means they are ultimately not discoverable and predicable then we need to revisit uniformitarianism a key component of a purely materialist conception of reality. And if it doesn't hold then there seems little solid basis on which to insist on a purely materialist conception of reality in the first place.