HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cpwm17 » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Name: Paul
Gender: Male
Hometown: Florida
Home country: USA
Member since: Wed Mar 31, 2010, 03:20 PM
Number of posts: 3,829

Journal Archives

Throughout history

people have often made assumptions that what they know exists in nature is all there is in nature. When it can be proven otherwise, they are always proven wrong.

The Catholic Church took it too seriously:


Giordano Bruno (Italian: [dʒorˈdano ˈbruno]; Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; 1548 17 February 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and astrologer. He is remembered for his cosmological theories, which conceptually extended the then novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism). He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center".

Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern. The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600.

What we know exists in Universe has gotten consistently larger. What we know is possible to exist has always been proven to here in great quantity. But based on the dogma of many, we should ignore silly issues concerning the possibilities of there being more beyond our know existence.

Giordano Bruno had no direct scientific evidence for a huge Universe, but he was using good logic and reasoning. He should have been listened to.

Until recently, a dominant view was that our Universe is all that there is and all of existence started at the Big Bang. That's nonsense that I have always found annoying. Fortunately that view is fading. Just because it's impossible, at least at present, to know what's beyond our Universe doesn't mean it's not reasonable to assume there's more.

I'm making reasonable assumptions concerning time and a greater existence beyond our own. From what I find reasonable assumptions, I have some logical reasoning why our current conscious experience isn't all there is.

I don't claim to have proof nor do I think any harm, such as hell, should come to those that think differently. I find the subject interesting since it touches on the nature of consciousness, which science finds very difficult to understand.

I think there is a good chance that our Universe is infinite in size. All evidence is that it is flat, which means space extends forever.

Nothing here is provable. I make what I consider reasonable points which lead me to think I have the preponderance of evidence. I have taken up the burden of providing evidence. That isn't the same as me making those with different opinions having the burden of proof.

I addressed the teapot above.

You are the one that has a belief, without realizing it, that consciousness is a thing.

Nothing gets transported and there is nothing that requires continuity in time or place. When we die there is nothing that disappears, so in a future conscious existence there is nothing that needs to be transported. I see no reason that the lack of continuity between each appearance of a conscious-self should be a problem.

As I wrote previously, mathematics strongly indicates that I am not experiencing the only appearance of my conscious-self. Also, by my very conscious existence, I prove that my consciousness is naturally possible. In the infinite time in the future, everything that is possible will happen an infinite number of times. Only impossible things can't happen in the infinite future.

Science works because there are repeatable patterns in nature.

That's why we can study physics, chemistry, and any other science.

An alternative would be nature acting by the whims of a god. In that case, a natural (really supernatural) event that has been proven to happen once may not be possible to happen again. That's not the world we live in.

Anything in nature that has been proven to be able happen once has been proven to be able to happen any number of times. A chemical reaction that works once will be repeatable.

A particular conscious-self is a product of nature. Our minds are not magic and there is no evidence for a soul. If whatever brain processes that create my current consciousness are ever duplicated in the future, my consciousness should return. There is no evidence of any separate entity that disappears and dies when my body dies and no records of my current conscious existence are kept anywhere in nature. My consciousness just shuts off, returning me to the exact same state I was in before I was alive.

I use a similar argument against the requirement to prove the negative

concerning the existence of a god: it's not up to me to prove the negative that a basketball is orbiting Pluto. It's a crazy claim in the first place (it's not a natural object and there's no way it could have gotten there, at least until recently) and it's not possible to prove the negative. But there is good reason to assume the negative.

Likewise, minds are products of physical brains and millions of years of evolution. Minds live in the natural world and don't have superpowers, like a god. An existing god is a far-fetched low-probability event. No one needs to prove the negative for god. No god is the default.

I assume a conscious mind is natural. A conscious mind only being able to exist once would not be natural, if we judge the conscious mind like other natural events. That's how nature works, at least for those things that can be proven. A conscious mind has some difference than other natural processes that behave like they are natural - that is, events that happen with repeatable patterns. But from everything we know about nature, if consciousness is natural, then consciousness needs to act like it's natural and not have limits on how many times it can appear.

Just like the low to zero probability event where all of existence starts with a god, it is a zero probability event for my conscious-self to exist now in all of infinite time if I only got one life. It takes a lot of faith to believe, or even think reasonable, either of these versions of reality.

You made a claim that a particular conscious-self can't ever reapear.

If I were to scientifically verify that something is possible once, I have verified that it is possible any number of times. That's why science works.

If stuff happened in only ones, science won't work. That's the world operated by the whims of a god. There is no evidence for any god.

Consciousness is a natural process. It's not knowable how a brain can make consciousness, but all evidence is that it is created by brain processes.

When we die we are in exactly the same state we were in before we were born. In an infinite universe or multiverse in time or size, anything that is possible will happen an infinite number of times. Since there is no evidence for any dying soul, we are likely to return with the same consciousness in a different body.

The Universe is huge or infinite.

Host: What is the origin of life? Its a question scientists, philosophers and theologians have debated for centuries. If you believe one widely accepted scientific theory, life on Earth was one big happy accident, overcoming the astronomical odds against it.

The Universe is astronomically huge and astronomically old. There is also a good chance there is far more beyond our Universe. Given enough chances, the highly improbable becomes guaranteed.

A god is generally defined as a first cause. A god would be far more complex than the most complex life we know, in a form that contradicts all we know that is possible here in our Universe. What are the chances, of all the imaginable starting points, the single starting point of all of existence is this invisible critter with super powers?

A starting point with dumb matter and energy seems infinitely more plausible. Life starting by a low odds event in our ancient and huge Universe is infinitely more likely than the starting pint of all of existence starting with this mysterious critter with super powers.
Go to Page: 1