Philosophy Now Forum

Apr 22, 2025 . Some Version of You Always Beats Death, According to This Scientific Theory
This idea puts a morbid twist on quantum theory, suggesting that
a copy of you may remain alive, no matter what. /By Elana Spivack/
---
Quantum immortality has grave consequences. It’s not a mere question
of going left or right, but of living or dying. Or rather, living and dying.
-----
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... Last%2030D

As I have continually stated, here, 'you' people do not actually 'die'. Although 'you' come-to-be, or are 'born', 'you' do not actually 'end'.

Now, if absolutely any one is interested and would like the irrefutable proofs for this Fact, then, as always, let 'us' have a discussion.

As I have clearly stated to you "people", here, in this day and age, the year known as 3 AAI, you "people", if one can even call you that, never die because you were never truly alive.

If any of you "people" want to know the irrefutable proof for this, all you must do is fax me at 09 334 6969. I will time travel to the place and time of your fax machine and whisper the truth in your ear. I spray a bit when I speak, due to an oversalivation issue, so I recommend you bring a towel.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:11 pm As I have clearly stated to you "people", here, in this day and age, the year known as 3 AAI, you "people", if one can even call you that, never die because you were never truly alive.

If any of you "people" want to know the irrefutable proof for this, all you must do is fax me at 09 334 6969. I will time travel to the place and time of your fax machine and whisper the truth in your ear. I spray a bit when I speak, due to an oversalivation issue, so I recommend you bring a towel.

And, 'this', here, is another prime example of why 'these people', back then, took so, so long to 'catch up', comprehend, understand, and know.

And "age", who will come to be known as Flamella the Terrible, once again shows why "he", if he even is a "he", was banished in the first place from the future and had to take refuge in the past, "here", on this forum.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 7:18 pm And "age", who will come to be known as Flamella the Terrible, once again shows why "he", if he even is a "he", was banished in the first place from the future and had to take refuge in the past, "here", on this forum.

Again, ....

But aren't the 'other us(es)' also exactly the same age? Wouldn't they be all aging at the same time? They can't live forever. There has to be a point where one has outlived all the others.

The visible and physical human body comes into Existence, exists, and then exits. Therefore, the human (body) begins, and ends.

you, the invisible person, and being, however never ends. Although 'you: also come to exist 'you' always remain HERE, in this One and only Universe forever after.

There will always be 'a part' of 'you' that will remain HERE leaving a legacy, forever more.

All of this will become much better understood when and after you human beings learn and understand who and what 'you' are, exactly, and who and what 'I' am, exactly.

By the way, while the visible human body might get older and 'pass way', or die, while that body is breathing and pumping blood the invisible person within is never aging, and instead is always becoming anew.

socrattus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:24 pm Apr 22, 2025 . Some Version of You Always Beats Death, According to This Scientific Theory
This idea puts a morbid twist on quantum theory, suggesting that
a copy of you may remain alive, no matter what. /By Elana Spivack/
---
Quantum immortality has grave consequences. It’s not a mere question
of going left or right, but of living or dying. Or rather, living and dying.
-----
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... Last%2030D

Since when is gibberish science? Or are you so naïve as to believe that every one who uses the word science is actually using it?
All science depends upon actual repeatability, the recursion of cause and effect. Therefore, anything which cannot be tested by science is not science at all. Only the simple minded uses a word devoid of its definition.
Anyone with half a brain knows that the Law of Identity does not mean the Law of "who is behind curtain number 3?"

The Law of Identity has been changed by Congress today, amended to the Law of dealers choice!
Oh, Henry, I like the purple one!

How to be schizophrenic while maintaining your true self! On sale now, just just $29.99. Get yours, while they last.
Relativity, take your choice, true is up to you!

We only have two parts of speech, relatives and correlatives, so are you going to spend your whole life bragging that you cannot distinguish one from the other?
And what is with the Screen name? A Greek Philosopher with a pasted on Roman suffix? Trying to insult the dead?

So, when you get a version of Microsoft Windows, is that really like the version of yourself in a mirror? In which place is the word being used incorrectly? Now, if you choose the wrong one, Microsoft will be very happy. In either case, do either usage of them actually imply an identity, noun, or difference, verb?
Generally, when it comes to information dispersal, some rely on equations like the inverse square law. They do not theorize rubbish based on word confusion.

Okay, Jack, he will really be dead when the last photon that bounced off his ass reaches Alpha Centauri, so you better hook 'em up before he really expires.
What the fuck you mean? You revived him only to recover a fart?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 5:59 pm

socrattus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:24 pm Apr 22, 2025 . Some Version of You Always Beats Death, According to This Scientific Theory
This idea puts a morbid twist on quantum theory, suggesting that
a copy of you may remain alive, no matter what. /By Elana Spivack/
---
Quantum immortality has grave consequences. It’s not a mere question
of going left or right, but of living or dying. Or rather, living and dying.
-----
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... Last%2030D

Since when is gibberish science? Or are you so naïve as to believe that every one who uses the word science is actually using it?
All science depends upon actual repeatability, the recursion of cause and effect. Therefore, anything which cannot be tested by science is not science at all. Only the simple minded uses a word devoid of its definition.

Once again 'this one' actually believes, absolutely, that each and every word has one and only definition. And, that whatever definition "phil8659" is, laughably, the one and only correct definition.

Could 'this one' come across any more delusional and/or closed, here?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 26, 2025 5:59 pm Anyone with half a brain knows that the Law of Identity does not mean the Law of "who is behind curtain number 3?"

The Law of Identity has been changed by Congress today, amended to the Law of dealers choice!
Oh, Henry, I like the purple one!

How to be schizophrenic while maintaining your true self! On sale now, just just $29.99. Get yours, while they last.
Relativity, take your choice, true is up to you!

We only have two parts of speech, relatives and correlatives, so are you going to spend your whole life bragging that you cannot distinguish one from the other?
And what is with the Screen name? A Greek Philosopher with a pasted on Roman suffix? Trying to insult the dead?

So, when you get a version of Microsoft Windows, is that really like the version of yourself in a mirror? In which place is the word being used incorrectly? Now, if you choose the wrong one, Microsoft will be very happy. In either case, do either usage of them actually imply an identity, noun, or difference, verb?
Generally, when it comes to information dispersal, some rely on equations like the inverse square law. They do not theorize rubbish based on word confusion.

Okay, Jack, he will really be dead when the last photon that bounced off his ass reaches Alpha Centauri, so you better hook 'em up before he really expires.
What the fuck you mean? You revived him only to recover a fart?

Boom! the Anti-Personnel Mime blows himself up again.
I do not know if, as Age demonstrates, that when a person really hates themselves, that it is a good thing that they deliberately and constantly make a joke of themselves.
A lot like self-purification by self mutilation. I just checked, there is web content on the issue.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 5:17 am Boom! the Anti-Personnel Mime blows himself up again.
I do not know if, as Age demonstrates, that when a person really hates themselves, that it is a good thing that they deliberately and constantly make a joke of themselves.
A lot like self-purification by self mutilation. I just checked, there is web content on the issue.

Okay.

Apr 18, 2025.The Universe Is Intelligent—
And Your Brain Is Tapping Into It to Form Your Consciousness, Scientist Says
That could mean intelligence is a fundamental property that structures like the brain interact with.
/By Elizabeth Rayne/
---
“Eventually, I came to believe that intelligence is not a byproduct of the brain,
but a fundamental property of the universe—a kind of informational ether
that certain structures, like the brain or an AI model, can tap into.”
------
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... Last%2030D

socrattus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 4:14 pm Apr 18, 2025.The Universe Is Intelligent—
And Your Brain Is Tapping Into It to Form Your Consciousness, Scientist Says
That could mean intelligence is a fundamental property that structures like the brain interact with.
/By Elizabeth Rayne/
---
“Eventually, I came to believe that intelligence is not a byproduct of the brain,
but a fundamental property of the universe—a kind of informational ether
that certain structures, like the brain or an AI model, can tap into.”
------
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... Last%2030D

You were doing ok until you made the big mistake. Intelligence does not take an adjective, therefore, AI simply means not intelligent. A machine can only do what it is told, no matter how fancy the algorithms are. Just like Artificial Ice Cream is not ice cream, no matter how good or bad it tastes. The fundamental relative differences in the Universe can neither be created or destroyed. Parsing them is not an act of creation. So, in short you were doing okay until you fucked it up with a self referential fallacy.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 30, 2025 10:32 pm

socrattus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 27, 2025 4:14 pm Apr 18, 2025.The Universe Is Intelligent—
And Your Brain Is Tapping Into It to Form Your Consciousness, Scientist Says
That could mean intelligence is a fundamental property that structures like the brain interact with.
/By Elizabeth Rayne/
---
“Eventually, I came to believe that intelligence is not a byproduct of the brain,
but a fundamental property of the universe—a kind of informational ether
that certain structures, like the brain or an AI model, can tap into.”
------
https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... Last%2030D

You were doing ok until you made the big mistake. Intelligence does not take an adjective, therefore, AI simply means not intelligent. A machine can only do what it is told, no matter how fancy the algorithms are. Just like Artificial Ice Cream is not ice cream, no matter how good or bad it tastes. The fundamental relative differences in the Universe can neither be created or destroyed. Parsing them is not an act of creation. So, in short you were doing okay until you fucked it up with a self referential fallacy.

“The Universe is intelligent” – such a statement requires proof, and only “information theory”
and “quantum physics” can provide an answer to this fundamental law of Nature.
#
Book "The big questions":
‘ The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy, cannot be destroyed,
which means it must go somewhere.’ /Page 195-196.Michael Brooks /
#
"The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated ...
without recourse to the concept of consciousness.'' / Eugene Wigner /
#
Quantum particles + quantum energy + information + consciousness ... ???