Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Will Bouwman]

...when I croak, it will be final...

That is a very strong possibility, I don't think quantum immortality is going to save us. Consciousness is a funny old thing though.

There is zero connection which negates any personal immortality as Everett supposed. If not true, what need would there be to speculate on the matter?

I would be more persuaded if there were at least one person who is older than 150 say; a Neanderthal perhaps. Come to think of it...

Just my two and half cents worth of useless assumptions. Like Socrates, I know that I know nothing...or was that Sergeant Schultz?

They are both estimable examples of intellectual virtue.

[Dubious]

...when I croak, it will be final...

That is a very strong possibility, I don't think quantum immortality is going to save us. Consciousness is a funny old thing though.

There is zero connection which negates any personal immortality as Everett supposed. If not true, what need would there be to speculate on the matter?

I would be more persuaded if there were at least one person who is older than 150 say; a Neanderthal perhaps. Come to think of it...

Just my two and half cents worth of useless assumptions. Like Socrates, I know that I know nothing...or was that Sergeant Schultz?

They are both estimable examples of intellectual virtue.

My mistake, I haven't used the word "statistical" in the right context. Should have looked befored I leaped! I'm usually more careful than that.

[Will Bouwman]

Let him without fuckups cast the first stone.

[Immanuel Can]

...quantum mechanics is incomplete...we do not understand the mechanism...

But, as I recently said to Alexis Jacobi, you have to distinguish between the micro and the macro.

That, I'm sure you agree, seriously challenges causality at the micro level.

How can you make these claims?

An "incomplete" theory "seriously challenges causality"? "We don't understand the mechanism," but the mechanism is supposed to be the reason we ought to doubt causality? And then, "you have to distinguish between the micro and the macro," but we're going to use uncertainty at the micro level to undermine confidence in the macro phenomena?

You have to admit yourself that that hardly adds up. Even "at the micro level," how strong could that supposition be? Rather, the warranted assumption is that the paradox we observe is probably a function of the "incompleteness" of the theory itself. Is that not perfectly obvious?

...you can do science in a non-causal paradigm...If you don't understand that, I can try and explain further.

Absolutely. I'll need an example of how you think we could do science if we can't possibly know that any given cause is even probabilistically linked to the observed effect. That, I am most eager to hear.

If, on the other you continue as if I hadn't said it, I won't waste any more time on you."

Yes. I had a kid on my block who thought like that. "If you won't play my way, I'm taking my ball and going home."

But cool your jets. I've addressed your claims. Now the ball is in your court.