« on: 09/07/2021 01:37:57 »
I was talking with someone on a similar site to this and somehow the conversation turned into weather there was an afterlife, this 2nd party was absolute in his opinion that there was no afterlife, he diddn't even think of it as an opinion.You can safely categorize them as zealots, yes. Science just says there's no evidence either way. In fact, it is completely outside the realm of methodological naturalism under which science has made most of its progress. That means its a philosophical topic, not a scientific one at all.
I said that science had no proof to the negative and he said there was no proofSounds like you're in agreement with this other guy then. Science has no proof of anything. Proof is for the mathematicians. Science makes predictions based on evidence. It does not assert truth or demonstrate proofs.
plus the fact no one had ever come back from the dead was proof of no afterlife.He apparently lacks a logical argument if he thinks that the absence of evidence is proof (not even evidence) of absence. Nobody's ever come back from Mars either, but it doesn't prove Mars doesn't exist.
On the same site I got into another debate with someone over atoms. He to was extreme in his position and provided a link to a site backing up his claim. Interestingly, his reference source said that was they were saying was just a theory.Not sure what the claim was. X is possible? X is the only answer? Regardless of what X is (you just said it concerned atoms), the latter is wrong. It doesn't sound like you're talking about the assertions of knowledgeable scientists, but rather the assertion of some random guy on a web forum (like me). People on forums make all sorts of random claims and assert their absolute truth despite self-contradictions and evidence to the contrary. This site certainly has its share of these types.
I googled if there was a limit to how many memories a person's brain could store and I found an answer written by a neurologist that the answer was absolutely yes.Interesting to try to demonstrate that. It seems actually a pretty outlandish claim to suggest otherwise, so I'd actually be more interested in hearing the counter-argument to it. Maybe we ditch the assumption that a given brain is confined to a reasonable volume in a human head.
There is a theory that matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space.Really? I can think of an awful lot of ways 3 balls can be arranged in a room. Can't think of a limit in fact, but given a Planck limit, there seems at least to be a limit to the number of arrangements that are measurably distinct. Based on that, you don't need to be a neurologist to expand the argument to the brain-memory thing.
There are finite number of different objects that can exist and events that can happen within that space. This also means that somewhere out in the universe there are exact copies of Earth, you and me doing exactly what we are doing right now. By pure coincidence.In fact, it's been calculated (Tegmark) how far away the nearest such copy is, and it unreasonably assumes counterfactual definiteness, without which the nearest copy of you is* much closer. The interesting thing is that the exact copy of you also has an exact copy of me nearby.
* Depends heavily on your definition of what 'is' is - Clinton.
My father told me that, he was a scientist, he worked for a chemical company and later as consultant setting up laboratories.That makes him a scientist, but it doesn't make him an expert on all the opinions he might express. I certainly know many things that some real scientist (like my sister-in-law) does not, but she certainly can out-jargon me in her field.
He subscribes to multiple science magazines, he has a hobby in astronomy. He's the most intelligent, knowledgeable and scientifically minded person I've ever known. And he talked about this theory like it was gospel, a perfectly known fact, he diddn't even call it a theory. There is no doubt in his mind about it at all. And later he told me his scientists friends believe it too.You sound like you doubt it or at least refuse to accept the absolute truth of it. Do you have a reference so I can add my humble opinion? I try not to say loaded comments like 'it's gospel', but you make it sound like a very well accepted thing and not some crackpot idea or philosophical interpretation of some scientific topic. Yes, there's a theory that predicts the sun rising tomorrow, but technically it's still a prediction of a theory and not a proven thing.
I looked on the web to find out if it was true and the reply I go was quote "Yes, next."
I asked on a science website and most of them said it was true, including one who said it was true, certain and obvious "as 2+2=4."
Non sequitur. You can only be certain that an arrangement is reproduced somewhere if both space and the number of objects in it are infinite.Non sequitur, yes, even given your infinite space and matter. What is mathematically certain is that if there is a defined state to all that matter (a huge and unreasonable if, but one that Tegmark assumes when making his calculation), then there will be pairs of observable universes which are identical within a finitely calculable separation distance (along lines of constant cosmological time) from each other.
That's kind of like saying that (without peeking) we cannot prove there is a second '3' in the decimal representation of Pi, but there will be a dup digit somewhere in the first 11 digits.
However if you accept that there is nothing unique about any one local arrangement of objects, then all local arrangements must be replicated somewhere, including the arrangement of arrangements, so there must be more objects than there are in your infinite space, which must be bigger than itself..Which is the mathematical equivalent of saying something like ∞² > ∞ which is wrong. It doesn't even have a different cardinality.
The following users thanked this post: Zer0