[The dancing game]

Sure it does. Do you say there are other options than 'somethingness' and 'nothingness'? No? Since all your other options are logically a part of 'somethingness'. So there are two options, like flipping a very flat coin (they do land on their edge sometimes, just because of the Senile and whatnot), you COULD by theory predict the odds of what the outcome would be, if you knew the weight of the coin, the strength of the flip, etc etc. Even knowing only one of those factors perhaps could skew the odds. But we have none of those factors to skew the odds with regards to an afterlife, I do not argue. Just in this given situation.

[Dolmen 2.0]

point of counter: is reincarnation an afterlife? And if one dies and has no recollection of past lives but comes again to live another life is that truly rebirth?

I ask because i find the thought of a digital afterlife interesting but also cyclical. If one was a program one could be repurposed again and again. Think of it as being ram and then aquiring different purposes or tasks each time life reboots. Files deleted do not imply death or destruction exactly. Rather its a form of mind wipe or reset. Perhaps humans and computers undergo similar cycles? As soundly argued by the above theres no real way of knowing we even have a definate end after the fact. Spirits could be memory space and flesh and bones an analogue of writtable capacity.

[The dancing game]

I do believe it is an after life, for it is a happening that happens after your life. Gaining a new one. And interesting idea, but then, why die at all in a digital world? Is there a flaw somehow in our big machine? Is it time? It can't be of course, since we start out as sperm really. And there's the whole chicken egg thing.

[Defiance]

The dancing game, on 14 June 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Sure it does. Do you say there are other options than 'somethingness' and 'nothingness'? No? Since all your other options are logically a part of 'somethingness'. So there are two options, like flipping a very flat coin (they do land on their edge sometimes, just because of the Senile and whatnot), you COULD by theory predict the odds of what the outcome would be, if you knew the weight of the coin, the strength of the flip, etc etc. Even knowing only one of those factors perhaps could skew the odds. But we have none of those factors to skew the odds with regards to an afterlife, I do not argue. Just in this given situation.

It isn't a 50/50 chance. Again, I suck at this sort of thing, but here goes:

I think that flying purple unicorns might exist. Obviously, the counter is that they don't exist. I have nothing to prove that they exist, and yet still I label them as having a 50% of existing. This simply does not work - just because two opposite thoughts exist does not give them equal probability. I can back up their non-existence with a substantial amount of evidence, but I can't do the same for them existing.

[Use Of Weapons]

Defiance, on 14 June 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

The dancing game, on 14 June 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Sure it does. Do you say there are other options than 'somethingness' and 'nothingness'? No? Since all your other options are logically a part of 'somethingness'. So there are two options, like flipping a very flat coin (they do land on their edge sometimes, just because of the Senile and whatnot), you COULD by theory predict the odds of what the outcome would be, if you knew the weight of the coin, the strength of the flip, etc etc. Even knowing only one of those factors perhaps could skew the odds. But we have none of those factors to skew the odds with regards to an afterlife, I do not argue. Just in this given situation.

It isn't a 50/50 chance. Again, I suck at this sort of thing, but here goes:

I think that flying purple unicorns might exist. Obviously, the counter is that they don't exist. I have nothing to prove that they exist, and yet still I label them as having a 50% of existing. This simply does not work - just because two opposite thoughts exist does not give them equal probability. I can back up their non-existence with a substantial amount of evidence, but I can't do the same for them existing.

Clearly, the Rule of Cool comes into play with flying purple unicorns. The Rule of Cool trumps all probability

[The dancing game]

Ahhh, but Purple Unicorns are NOT the opposite of nothing! they are the opposite of a small part of nothing. SOMETHING, all of something is the opposite of nothing, unicorns are but a part of something. They're the .00001%. Very unlikely.

[Blind Sapper]

When you are speaking of "afterlife", are you speaking of a place, a condition of the self, a preservation of the "self"? One could have multiple interpretations of the "afterlife".

If afterlife is a place that exists, that is indeed something. But what if there is no such thing as a "soul"? Let's say that the image of the self, the personality, the individual is lost when death occurs (or life stops). No ghost, no nothing.
This would result in an afterlife as a location, but no experience of it, as there is nothing and no one to experience it. An empty house, if you will. One could argue that the house exists even if there is nobody to experience it (if a tree falls in a forest...), but of course, can you verify something if there is no evidence?

This would mean that there is something (afterlife[location]), but there is also nothing (afterlife[experience]). Of course, this is only a dissection of the definition of afterlife, and has nothing to do with probability.

But one could say that there is a 50% chance of this exact situation occuring, and 50% chance of it not occuring.

Which is in contradiction with the statement: "50% chance nothing, 50% something."

One cannot have both a .5 chance of something and .5 chance of nothing at the same time as .5 chance of one event and .5 chance of anything else when both of the statistics are describing one event. An overlap would be necessary, and where would that happen?

Anyway, a reasoning of "Something or nothing" is not transferrable to probability. If anything, it leaves the question open for a lot of misjudgement and alternate interpretations. Vocabulary, unfortunately, is simply inadequate to express what the universe and its afterlife are like, or are most likely to be like. Also, it cannot fully encompass the right probability of what it can be like.

For example, sets. Let's put the words as representing events as a set.

The set of Nothing would be (1). As you stated, nothing is the abscence of something, so it can only be one event.
The set of Something would be (infinity-1), as any event in which there is not nothing is something. This would be infinity minus one, the one being the event in the other set.

A person cannot make a real mathematical probability with the sets of Something and Nothing, which represent (1) and (infinity-1).

Of course, this is a wonderful topic to debate when only vocabulary is involved.

[worry]

All those .0000001s you're using are irrelevant, since 100% of people who die are going to the same situation regardless of their beliefs. The likelihood of their individual beliefs isn't really a factor in your original 50/50 situation. Being wrong doesn't effect the outcome, given the barrier.

[The dancing game]

Blind Sapper, on 14 June 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

When you are speaking of "afterlife", are you speaking of a place, a condition of the self, a preservation of the "self"? One could have multiple interpretations of the "afterlife".

If afterlife is a place that exists, that is indeed something. But what if there is no such thing as a "soul"? Let's say that the image of the self, the personality, the individual is lost when death occurs (or life stops). No ghost, no nothing.
This would result in an afterlife as a location, but no experience of it, as there is nothing and no one to experience it. An empty house, if you will. One could argue that the house exists even if there is nobody to experience it (if a tree falls in a forest...), but of course, can you verify something if there is no evidence?

This would mean that there is something (afterlife[location]), but there is also nothing (afterlife[experience]). Of course, this is only a dissection of the definition of afterlife, and has nothing to do with probability.

But one could say that there is a 50% chance of this exact situation occuring, and 50% chance of it not occuring.

Which is in contradiction with the statement: "50% chance nothing, 50% something."

One cannot have both a .5 chance of something and .5 chance of nothing at the same time as .5 chance of one event and .5 chance of anything else when both of the statistics are describing one event. An overlap would be necessary, and where would that happen?

Anyway, a reasoning of "Something or nothing" is not transferrable to probability. If anything, it leaves the question open for a lot of misjudgement and alternate interpretations. Vocabulary, unfortunately, is simply inadequate to express what the universe and its afterlife are like, or are most likely to be like. Also, it cannot fully encompass the right probability of what it can be like.

For example, sets. Let's put the words as representing events as a set.

The set of Nothing would be (1). As you stated, nothing is the abscence of something, so it can only be one event.
The set of Something would be (infinity-1), as any event in which there is not nothing is something. This would be infinity minus one, the one being the event in the other set.

A person cannot make a real mathematical probability with the sets of Something and Nothing, which represent (1) and (infinity-1).

Of course, this is a wonderful topic to debate when only vocabulary is involved.

Very interesting math, that last one. Gave me a bit to think on. I think its defensible, so cheers. But I would argue that the nothing is infinite as well, you can divide it into as many little nothings as you need. Nothing is huge! Its everything something wasn't, and something cannot be everything, I assure you, or it would all overlap itself (the universe cannot be infinite, or other infinite things would exist within it) And you can do fine math with infinity and infinity, they're a 1:1 ratio. Also, location and experience each fall into 'something', and so are not truly separate. Afterlife is simply any awareness after death I do believe. Also, worry, you're repeating yourself but maybe a little more wrongly if I read it correct (which I no doubt didn't, damn our language and the Senile both)...there is no rule stating that everyone must experience the same afterlife at all!

[Gust Hubb]

100%

We are in the afterlife.

[The dancing game]

Gust Hubb, on 14 June 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

100%

We are in the afterlife.

I do enjoy this place, so many wonderful ideas float. But by semantics, I slay thee! We cannot be, unless you believe in reincarnation. Afterlife is as our language defines it, the place where the consciousness goes after this body dies. So afterlife could be this, but then we'd be going back to true life I'm supposing, which would therefor be this afterlife. If we headed to a void then the void is the afterlife to this. And afterlife is a stage, it has to come after, if that makes sense.

[worry]

Gust Hubb, on 14 June 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

100%

We are in the afterlife.

[Defiance]

The dancing game, on 14 June 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Ahhh, but Purple Unicorns are NOT the opposite of nothing! they are the opposite of a small part of nothing. SOMETHING, all of something is the opposite of nothing, unicorns are but a part of something. They're the .00001%. Very unlikely.

It just gets down to interpretation at this point; obviously, how you understand statistics and semantics differs from me. I was not talking about flying purple unicorns being the opposite of nothing; they are simply the opposite of them not existing (although, by attempting to quantify nothing, aren't we in fact giving it something?).

The same thing holds true with the afterlife. The opposite of the afterlife is not nothing in its entirety, because nothing in its entirety would mean no existence at all. The opposite of the afterlife is there being no afterlife; therefore, the opposite of the afterlife is simply another "part of nothing" since, as I've said before, nothingness in its entirety would mean that nothing whatsoever would exist.

[The dancing game]

Not existing IS nothing though, it's an absence. Every absence is a nothing, and they're all the same thing, nothing. And oh please do not delve into the slime that is 'Oh well I can't conceive nothing because even to think of a nothingness is a thing!'...you know what nothingness is. You can't imagine it perhaps, but we can know its concept. Like a 4th color, it can be talked about. And nothing is infinite, even a small part can be divided endlessly, whereas you logically would reach an end with something, it would just be almost impossible to imagine. A not-afterlife is nothing. Everything that isn't is nothing =P Funny thing, that. Perhaps you're right though and we've each just taken different logical Paths.

[D'rek]

Let's say there really is a 50/50 chance of nothing vs something.

We already live a life that is "something", and given how much momentum there is in the universe (physically, metaphysically, metaphorically, esoterically, etc) it is therefore more likely that there will continue to be "something" after death.

[The dancing game]

D, on 14 June 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

Let's say there really is a 50/50 chance of nothing vs something.

We already live a life that is "something", and given how much momentum there is in the universe (physically, metaphysically, metaphorically, esoterically, etc) it is therefore more likely that there will continue to be "something" after death.

Interesting path you choose! A digression of course, but I was severely hoping we would have some, they're lovely Thank you. Continuity, yes, I see it. I don't agree, though I agree your logic is correct on your Path. I am not right now, though, and so must think a bit if there is to be a disagreement, though it would be an arbitrary thing.

[Blind Sapper]

The dancing game, on 14 June 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

Blind Sapper, on 14 June 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

When you are speaking of "afterlife", are you speaking of a place, a condition of the self, a preservation of the "self"? One could have multiple interpretations of the "afterlife".

If afterlife is a place that exists, that is indeed something. But what if there is no such thing as a "soul"? Let's say that the image of the self, the personality, the individual is lost when death occurs (or life stops). No ghost, no nothing.
This would result in an afterlife as a location, but no experience of it, as there is nothing and no one to experience it. An empty house, if you will. One could argue that the house exists even if there is nobody to experience it (if a tree falls in a forest...), but of course, can you verify something if there is no evidence?

This would mean that there is something (afterlife[location]), but there is also nothing (afterlife[experience]). Of course, this is only a dissection of the definition of afterlife, and has nothing to do with probability.

But one could say that there is a 50% chance of this exact situation occuring, and 50% chance of it not occuring.

Which is in contradiction with the statement: "50% chance nothing, 50% something."

One cannot have both a .5 chance of something and .5 chance of nothing at the same time as .5 chance of one event and .5 chance of anything else when both of the statistics are describing one event. An overlap would be necessary, and where would that happen?

Anyway, a reasoning of "Something or nothing" is not transferrable to probability. If anything, it leaves the question open for a lot of misjudgement and alternate interpretations. Vocabulary, unfortunately, is simply inadequate to express what the universe and its afterlife are like, or are most likely to be like. Also, it cannot fully encompass the right probability of what it can be like.

For example, sets. Let's put the words as representing events as a set.

The set of Nothing would be (1). As you stated, nothing is the abscence of something, so it can only be one event.
The set of Something would be (infinity-1), as any event in which there is not nothing is something. This would be infinity minus one, the one being the event in the other set.

A person cannot make a real mathematical probability with the sets of Something and Nothing, which represent (1) and (infinity-1).

Of course, this is a wonderful topic to debate when only vocabulary is involved.

Very interesting math, that last one. Gave me a bit to think on. I think its defensible, so cheers. But I would argue that the nothing is infinite as well, you can divide it into as many little nothings as you need. Nothing is huge! Its everything something wasn't, and something cannot be everything, I assure you, or it would all overlap itself (the universe cannot be infinite, or other infinite things would exist within it) And you can do fine math with infinity and infinity, they're a 1:1 ratio. Also, location and experience each fall into 'something', and so are not truly separate. Afterlife is simply any awareness after death I do believe. Also, worry, you're repeating yourself but maybe a little more wrongly if I read it correct (which I no doubt didn't, damn our language and the Senile both)...there is no rule stating that everyone must experience the same afterlife at all!

The problem with using vocabulary to try and explain a mathematical probability is that it can be endessly debated, and heaven forbid if someone misinterprets what you are trying to say...

[The dancing game]

Its important not to actually read things, thats why. My hatred of our language is endless! Gah. Love-hate relationship. With bondage. Shackling my tongue, who ever heard of such obscenity...

[Orlion]

Defiance, on 14 June 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

The dancing game, on 14 June 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

Sure it does. Do you say there are other options than 'somethingness' and 'nothingness'? No? Since all your other options are logically a part of 'somethingness'. So there are two options, like flipping a very flat coin (they do land on their edge sometimes, just because of the Senile and whatnot), you COULD by theory predict the odds of what the outcome would be, if you knew the weight of the coin, the strength of the flip, etc etc. Even knowing only one of those factors perhaps could skew the odds. But we have none of those factors to skew the odds with regards to an afterlife, I do not argue. Just in this given situation.

It isn't a 50/50 chance. Again, I suck at this sort of thing, but here goes:

I think that flying purple unicorns might exist. Obviously, the counter is that they don't exist. I have nothing to prove that they exist, and yet still I label them as having a 50% of existing. This simply does not work - just because two opposite thoughts exist does not give them equal probability. I can back up their non-existence with a substantial amount of evidence, but I can't do the same for them existing.

Yep. Statistics exist in a world of observable possibilities. If I flip a coin, I know there are two possibilities because I observe those possibilities. Doing statistical math, we come up with a 50/50 chance of the coin flipping heads or tails. Same thing with dice, though that is a little more complicated.

With the afterlife, there is absolutely no observable state, or observable soul to be placed into a state. There is absolutely no basis for any statistical rendering of whether there is an afterlife. This could be due to limitations on our perceptions, but it still demonstrates that currently there is no information about the survival of the self post-mortem that can be used in any effective manner.

So statistically, no argument for (and ironically, against) the afterlife can be made.

[Use Of Weapons]

Well, we could argue that, given the retreat of the mind/body duality paradigm in the face of advances in neuroscience, the capacity for there to be something that exists which could enter into any given afterlife is commensurately eroded. We could then assign a qualitative probability to the existence of that something, and show that, relatively, through human history, that probability has been seen to reduce markedly, such that any argument about the existence of an afterlife would need to account for the low probability of existence of any substrate which would take residence in it.

And if that isn't the most tortured sentence I've ever written, I'll eat my flying purple hat.