Big Bang didn't happen

what are the religious implications of this revelation?

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There aren't any?

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Plasma universe theory being true means there was no creation event and thus no God as portrayed in abrahamic religions.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Plasma universe theory being true means there was no creation event and thus no God as portrayed in abrahamic religions.

      Whew! That's a relief. I kind of disliked how dishonest I had to be when arguing with Christcucks about the theistic implications of the Big Bang.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The universe is even more of a great mystery than many thought.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Could it be the Universe is looping on itself, so we don't see the early Universe, but our current age one?

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    debunked

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      "May".

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Doesn't this just mean that the nature of the expansion is wrong, which might just refute dark energy? This would be very convenient for my cosmological ideas.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >this revelation?
    it's obvious, that israelite raised by a cuck was the son of god and he created everything

    the stepfather, the stepson, the holy cuckerino. Amen

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw the universe is infinite and eternal
    >given an infinite timescale it will eventually reconfigure back into the exact state it's in currently
    >existence is just an endless cycle
    >long after we've all died we will eventually be back again living the same lives without any prior memory of it as our consciousness is reassembled
    >this will just keep happening forever, the same existence over and over

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Make it stop

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >>Even if there were exceedingly few things in a finite space in an infinite time, they would not have to repeat in the same configurations. Suppose there were three wheels of equal size, rotating on the same axis, one point marked on the circumference of each wheel, and these three points lined up in one straight line. If the second wheel rotated twice as fast as the first, and if the speed of the third wheel was 1/π of the speed of the first, the initial line-up would never recur.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >in a finite space
        He tried.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Infinite space would only make it even easier not to recur you moron.
          Making it finite is a generous self-imposed handicap that works to the advantage of the opposing argument in favor of eternal return.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Infinite space would only make it even easier not to recur you moron.
        Making it finite is a generous self-imposed handicap that works to the advantage of the opposing argument in favor of eternal return.

        Every attempt at refuting that we're going to die and be gone forever is just moron cope from Black person-tier IQ, don't even bother responding to it

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Good point, thanks.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >cope
          But the eternal cycle is far scarier, if anything sweet release is far more comforting

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Well, not really scary, as you wouldn't know it.

            Though it'd be hella frustrating horror if you found a way to prove it, and couldn't do anything about it.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The counterargument to this is on the same Wikipedia page I assume you took it from:
        >the example presupposes the possibility of perfect continuity: for instance, if the universe proves to have a quantum foam nature, then the exact quantity of an irrational number cannot be expressed by any physical object.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Something something demon - Nietzsche.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Checked, this concept is called the "eternal return", here's a quick Wiki link:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

      Enjoy going down the rabbit hole. Whether there's something to it or not, I'd say work on improving your life so that you're content with it. That way, should eternal return be real, at least at some point you'll find yourself happy again. Dunno how much time you've got left, but might start thinking about it, just in case.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I like to think there's some sort of quantum indeterminacy that prevents it from being exactly the same, which can result in cascade events, like whatever wiped most of the anti-matter in the early universe.

      Though most scientists agree we live in a flat universe with accelerating expansion, so this is one cycle that isn't going to repeat anyways, for better or worse.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >our consciousness is reassembled
      It's not you. It's just someone identical to you. This life will NOT repeat for you.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        If I died and one day all the "stuff" that makes up me reassembles one day why would that not be me?

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          If someone magically made a copy of you, he would be another person despite being identical to you.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What makes the copy uniquely different from me and at what point do "I" become impossible to recreate.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        If I died and one day all the "stuff" that makes up me reassembles one day why would that not be me?

        All of the "it would just be a copy" issue stems from the way "self" isn't a coherent concept to begin with.
        "You" from any given moment isn't really sharing in a real / physical identity with "you" from any given subsequent moment.
        They're just temporally near one another, so it has the same level of identity sharing that pebbles arranged next to each other in a line would have with one another. You can treat objects with nearness to other objects as part of the same super-object, but it isn't a real identity beyond the convenience of naming and referring to them that way.
        So when you create some hypothetical copy of "yourself," it would be as lacking in identity with "you" as "you" from five minutes ago would be with "you."
        There's no "self" module that can be carried over or not carried over to begin with. Two "selves" lined up in time have similar memory content and similar behavioral tendencies so that makes the convenience of calling them both a single unified "self" work pretty well for most every day situations.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          You should go play Soma.

          If you created a copy of yourself, your consciousness does not magically move to the new copy, even if you kill the original.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            This is not the correct conclusion, and Soma has mislead many people about this. From the point of view of the copy, the consciousness did move; both perspectives will simply inevitably exist. There is no "soul" that is subject to moving or not moving. What happens to "you" when you are copied, from your current perspective, is impossible to meaningfully answer, as you will both move and not move, and both instances will remember your current perspective.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Your perspective remains in the original body, as that's where the continuity lies, unless you somehow have both bodies in the exact same place and time and thus violate Heisenberg in a nice explosion.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Your "perspective" has no independent existence. Both bodies perceive continuity to the pre-copy perspective.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            One is your perspective, the other isn't. The copy of the cup is not the original cup, no matter how accurate the copy is.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Try reading the post again. It never once claims "your consciousness" would move anywhere. The entire point is that there's no real "self" to move or not move anywhere to begin with.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Both copies retain a perspective, only the copy is going be confused as to how it got to where it is, which alone creates a difference between the two copies. Perspective remains consistent only in the original, where as the new body has a separate perspective.

            Also, to clarify the misunderstanding of Soma, the game itself clearly demonstrates my point: The Simon you play for the first stretch of the game simply suddenly appears in Pathos after having his brain scanned. The game very much portrays this perspective jump, and it is not illegitimate. There was a Simon who simply lived his life normally in the past and died, and the copy that was loaded up later, etc. All of them have continuity of perspective, as much as you do when you wake up every day.
            To a degree, I can actually agree with your assessment that these are separate people: Insofar as the version of you 10 years ago, or yesterday, is a separate person. The copy made from you 1 second ago is so much more alike than your child self - the identification is arbitrary and made for purely pragmatic reasons. "Your" "perspective" is illusory.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Insofar as the version of you 10 years ago, or yesterday, is a separate person.
            It's not, because you can trace the cause and effect of its existence backwards, you are the causes of your current effect, regardless of how many cells you've replaced over the decade, or how your consciousness was interrupted by full anesthesia. It's an entirely physical property that delineates you from your copy.

            Soma did violate it's own rules at one point or another though, tis true. Just thought the whole "flipping the coin" thing might make you think some on what you are talking about.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >you are the causes of your current effect
            What does this mean? What independent existence do you have aside from the neural specifications that create consciousness?
            >Just thought the whole "flipping the coin" thing might make you think some on what you are talking about.
            The flipping the coin idea is misguided for the reason that Simon assumes he has an independent existence, that he has some concrete "perspective" that could be inherited by either copy. He does not; no coin flip takes place because both instances of himself will exist, one will be on the Ark and the other will regret that he isn't, this was always inevitable. The Simon instance that was at the bottom of the ocean before this occurred did not transfer or split. What happened to his perspective? It is an incoherent question, because no sustained perspective exists.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >What independent existence do you have aside from the neural specifications that create consciousness?
            A tracible timeline of cause and effect.

            >The flipping the coin idea is misguided
            Well, it's more that it violated its own narrative rules when the point of view does indeed jump from himself to a copy of his body. More realistically, the line of perspective should have remained with the original, which would either be murdered or trapped at the bottom of the ocean, depending on which decision the player made. (Granted, if the perspective hadn't jumped, then the player wouldn't have the option of making the decision, which would make for a rather unsatisfying ending.)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >A tracible timeline of cause and effect.
            While this whole notion of yours is "intuitive," because the illusion of self is useful for us to navigate our lives, I do not think it can be rationally established. It's simply the preconceived notion of self-continuity, yet it has no material basis. "Timelines" aren't physical properties, and you have no self or otherwise identifiable ego that is not subject to reconfiguration.
            >Well, it's more that it violated its own narrative rules when the point of view does indeed jump from himself to a copy of his body.
            It doesn't violate any rules if you don't hold to the idea of some superior "self" that takes precedence to the other instances for some arbitrary reason. At the ending, it even shows the perspectives of both those instances, with one on the Ark and the other in the ocean, once again demonstrating the shared illusion of continuity of both.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It doesn't violate any rules if you don't hold to the idea of some superior "self"
            It's a continuity you can trace through spacetime all objects have. It's not that the original body has a superior self, it's that the original body is the original body - its perspective will always be tied to that object, and any copy has its own perspective. Thus moving the player's perspective was a cheat (though one required for quality of narrative).

            I do not understand why there must be a timeline consistency. With the nanite/Archimedes ship problem I don't see why it makes a difference whether the process of replacement occurs slowly or instantaneously.

            If it (magically) happens instantaneously there's no participation between the cause and effect of the object through time, so it should be considered a new object. Though it can happen nearly instantaneously and still be a legit cause and effect.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >its perspective will always be tied to that object, and any copy has its own perspective.
            "Its perspective" once again implies something that doesn't exist, because the other copies do remember being the pre-copy instance, for them the perspective did jump. The original instance will continue to exist and have experienced no jump, but the copies very much do continue as well. None of them have any special connection to the pre-copy perspective because there is no property or principle that gives them such a thing, the idea of "self" is a tool, not an actually existent object. But to avoid sounding like I'm just repeating myself, I'll ask this: Do you consider a country do be the same country after all its inhabitants have died and been succeeded? A picture being moved from one hard drive to another is a copy, and yet do you not consider it the same picture, because in that case it is more convenient to do so? The standards applied to self are informed chiefly by your biases, and cannot be logically established or defended.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The line of perspective is only dependent on the object having the ability to perceive. The object retains ownership of that perspective, regardless of how many copies are made of it, that will each continue to have their own, separate, perspective mechanic from the point of their creation on. It doesn't matter that the copies have all the same memories as the original, their perspective began at the point in time when they were created.

            >Do you consider a country do be the same country after all its inhabitants have died and been succeeded?
            Countries are an artificial construct, so that'd be a matter of law. The land the country occupies, however, retains a consistent existence through time - though the land may get tectonically shifted to a new location that doesn't fit the legal definition of the original borders, the matter involved retains a consistency of existence.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Our perspective is continuously created instantaneously through infinitely discrete portions of time it does not exist continuously through time.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It exists continuously through time just as our the bodies who create the mechanic do. Unless you want to go into "souls" or some similar magic, it's simply the definition and delineation of the object.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The only thing that exists to the perspective is a single instant in time. After that instant the perspective becomes a memory and a new perspective is created in the next smallest discrete portion of time, which we are assuming is infinitely small.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Relativity and block universe would deny that. The past exists and so does the future. Even if you have some solution of quantum gravity that denies that, it's still the case that objects are defined by the consistency of their existence through time, which can be physically traced.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            How do you "physically" trace an objects existence through time.
            I don't know what you mean by the first part of your post but when I say your perspective only exists for an instant. I mean to say there is a single point where your perspective exists on a line in time and time itself may be infinitely discrete, meaning no finite blocks of planck time.

            >Do you doubt that a copy of yourself would disagree with you? Would you tell him that he isn't himself?
            The copy would no doubt insist that it's the original, or, even were it proved otherwise (which again, it could easily be), would insist on the right to the identity. Doesn't change the reality that the original object existed before the copy, and never stopped being the original object, and the new object is not the original, for all its pleading.

            Perspective is a mechanic common to all living things complex enough to perceive their environs. That ability to perceive is contingent on the object that is their body. If you create a new body, it has its own ability to perceive that is separate from the original's.

            To put it another way, if you create a robot with an arm that can perceive a cup and pick it up, then create another robot that can do the same, exactly the same in every way, the new robot has a separate perspective mechanic from the original.

            >As I've said many times already, continuity of consciousness and perspective are blatantly violated every day when we sleep
            Continuity of consciousness doesn't enter into it. It's continuity of the object (the body). If your consciousness is interrupted by full anesthesia (because sleeping doesn't actually cut it), it's still the same body generating the consciousness. It's merely a state change where the body was temporarily unconscious.

            Are you implying that the meat is the self?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you "physically" trace an objects existence through time.
            Objects leave traces of cause and effect. Without any sort of sci-fi device, it's quite simple to trace footprints, and other interactions with the environment. With sci-fi devices, there's the consistency of quantum states that could, theoretically, be measured. (Well, maybe not so theoretically, but doing it for an entire body ain't yet possible.)

            >Are you implying that the meat is the self?
            Yes, otherwise I have to go into magical stuff which could make the whole argument moot.

            >That your copy would uphold its identity obviously concludes the matter, since self is only a convenience of perception, and there is nothing to dispute at that point.
            There's nothing to dispute as there is an objectively original object, that is, in fact, the original object. The new object has its own, separate, existence.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >>Are you implying that the meat is the self?
            >Yes
            So none of this has been about perspective or experience, in your words? You have nothing to dispute the statements that have been made about self and perspective, and just stick to semantics about physical objects?
            >There's nothing to dispute as there is an objectively original object, that is, in fact, the original object. The new object has its own, separate, existence.
            The exact same applies to yourself across different points in time, which is being continuously generated from DNA and copying of memories. You, yourself, are a copy of yourself from the past, and the physical object of your body is distinct. The existence of a line of "cause and effect" here is no different from a copy being made, which is also a line of "cause and effect." In effect, it is identical to if your body underwent mitosis, which humans as such cannot do, but for the sake of the argument you can imagine if this were the case.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >So none of this has been about perspective or experience, in your words? You have nothing to dispute the statements that have been made about self and perspective, and just stick to semantics about physical objects?
            That's all you can talk about objectively. Original objects are original objects, copies are copies.

            Now, we could go on about "DNA antennas" and the universe being a collective consciousness that perceives itself through specific biological configurations. Then you might actually have a problem where the copy and the original share a consciousness. But, from an entirely materialistic standpoint, again, object does not equal copy of object in new location and new part of the timeline. The two are separate objects with separate perspectives and separate histories.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You, yourself, are a copy of yourself from the past
            No, you're not. You're the result of your past. The atoms in your body took a journey through time of cause and effects that, collectively, are the object that is you. The universe is not recreated from second to second, near as we can tell. The matter that is you exists throughout space and time.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The object retains ownership of that perspective, regardless of how many copies are made of it
            What you miss is that this doesn't mean anything at all. For the copies, they also inherit memory of the prior perspective, they are not manifested from scratch. The continued existence of the original does not deny them the memory of having occupied that body before. Do you doubt that a copy of yourself would disagree with you? Would you tell him that he isn't himself?
            >their perspective began at the point in time when they were created.
            Their perspective is not an actually existing object, it is a linguistic convenience.
            >Countries are an artificial construct,
            Their existence is equal to your self. The state is a being with the same qualification of existence as a human consciousness, and is subject to the same principles of identity.

            >making your future copy the same as your current instance in all measurable respects.
            In all but the consistency of its existence, which would be readily demonstrable by its unawareness as to how it spawned at the new location. A copy of a thing, regardless of how complete, is not that thing.

            >which would be readily demonstrable by its unawareness as to how it spawned at the new location
            This is probably the weirdest statement yet, I could drug you and kidnap you right now and the same thing would happen. As I've said many times already, continuity of consciousness and perspective are blatantly violated every day when we sleep, and in truth at all points in time we are discrete existences from the prior point.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you doubt that a copy of yourself would disagree with you? Would you tell him that he isn't himself?
            The copy would no doubt insist that it's the original, or, even were it proved otherwise (which again, it could easily be), would insist on the right to the identity. Doesn't change the reality that the original object existed before the copy, and never stopped being the original object, and the new object is not the original, for all its pleading.

            Perspective is a mechanic common to all living things complex enough to perceive their environs. That ability to perceive is contingent on the object that is their body. If you create a new body, it has its own ability to perceive that is separate from the original's.

            To put it another way, if you create a robot with an arm that can perceive a cup and pick it up, then create another robot that can do the same, exactly the same in every way, the new robot has a separate perspective mechanic from the original.

            >As I've said many times already, continuity of consciousness and perspective are blatantly violated every day when we sleep
            Continuity of consciousness doesn't enter into it. It's continuity of the object (the body). If your consciousness is interrupted by full anesthesia (because sleeping doesn't actually cut it), it's still the same body generating the consciousness. It's merely a state change where the body was temporarily unconscious.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Doesn't change the reality that the original object existed before the copy, and never stopped being the original object, and the new object is not the original, for all its pleading.
            That is already quite removed from the original point however, which is that the experience of self is not specially connected to either instance. Yes, both instances exist now, but neither has a special relation to the pre-copy template, not even the original body, as it has no neural or other properties that distinguish it. That your copy would uphold its identity obviously concludes the matter, since self is only a convenience of perception, and there is nothing to dispute at that point.
            >That ability to perceive is contingent on the object that is their body.
            This implied metaphysical link between perspective and body is unsubstantiated. My hand being attached or not, for example, obviously has no relevance to determining whether my consciousness is valid or anything. The only relevant factor is the immediate configuration creating your conscious experience, which when identical, creates an indistinguishable and continuous self-perspective. You would presumably consider a brain transplant to still be the valid line of perspective, these lines are arbitrarily drawn. The body isn't even a continuous object due to cell replacement - this position is riddled with so many holes it's laughable.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >This implied metaphysical link between perspective and body is unsubstantiated.
            There's no metaphysics involved. Perception is a mechanic belonging to specific objects (be it animal or robot). Each object that has this mechanic has its own point of perception. If you make a copy, even if it has all the original's data in memory, you have a new point of perception with no other ties to the original.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Do you not see the similarities between "the mechanic of perspective" belonging to a specific object and the soul.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I can't speak of souls, but again, relatively simple robots can be made that have perspective. If you make a copy of a machine on an assembly line, the copy has its own perspective, separate from the original. It'll encounter different stimulus due to its different location and will have a log that will continue to diverge from the original.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >So none of this has been about perspective or experience, in your words? You have nothing to dispute the statements that have been made about self and perspective, and just stick to semantics about physical objects?
            That's all you can talk about objectively. Original objects are original objects, copies are copies.

            Now, we could go on about "DNA antennas" and the universe being a collective consciousness that perceives itself through specific biological configurations. Then you might actually have a problem where the copy and the original share a consciousness. But, from an entirely materialistic standpoint, again, object does not equal copy of object in new location and new part of the timeline. The two are separate objects with separate perspectives and separate histories.

            I'm not even entirely sure what we are disputing at this point, because I am also a materialist and have not at any point rejected the physical distinction between copied instances, but am only saying that the experience and notion of self associated with them does not physically exist and is a contrivance used for navigation of the world; we seem to agree on all of this on paper, and yet something is apparently off. Your body has a concrete existence in spacetime, yes, but your identity and perceived experience are in fact distinct from it, because your body itself changes and becomes different defined objects at all times. Simon's experience throughout the game is continuous, and his illusory "self" throughout is equally invalid to your own throughout a week.

            >You, yourself, are a copy of yourself from the past
            No, you're not. You're the result of your past. The atoms in your body took a journey through time of cause and effects that, collectively, are the object that is you. The universe is not recreated from second to second, near as we can tell. The matter that is you exists throughout space and time.

            Wtf? You are not the same matter that you were 10 years ago, that's a big part of the reason you eat food.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Wtf? You are not the same matter that you were 10 years ago, that's a big part of the reason you eat food.
            Which has a line of cause an effect. You ingested the matter that became you. A copy did not do that, does not follow that timeline, thus is not you. Simple object permeance.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The copy received all your neural information that was sent into its robot body, why is this distinguished from neurons being regenerated and memories copied onto them?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Because it did not exist until the copy was made. There's no consistency of existence to make it the same object. Thus it has its own line of existence, separate from the original.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Where is this consistency of existence located in your body exactly? All of these things just constantly seem to rely on some non-physical principle that does not demonstrably materially exist. This is the logic we use to rationalise our existence, but it's not really a thing in the world.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Where is this consistency of existence located in your body exactly?
            In the cause and effect of your timeline. That materially exists and is easily demonstrable, as again, you can trace an object's passage through time.

            A ceramic cup radioactively decays, and thus is not in the same state, moment to moment, but still remains the same object through time.

            The problem here is we believe in the idea of the self being an emergent phenomenon resulting from interactions in the body while [...] believes that the body is literally the self.
            Both are grounded in materialism but we come to different conclusions about what the "I" is.

            Different bodies have separate emergent phenomena.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If I erased all your memories would you still be you?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, I'd just be me with a lot of brain damage.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            How does that differ from your current self?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            (ok sorry it was just too easy)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Quite a bit, I imagine. Still the same object, just with a (rather tragic) state change.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So you are just meat. You would rather experience brain trauma causing a complete shift of memories and personality than say replace your brain with nanites.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >So you are just meat. You would rather experience brain trauma causing a complete shift of memories and personality than say replace your brain with nanites.
            Again, replacing the brain with nanites over time does at least create a consistency of existence between the old and new body. So I'd probably take that chance over the memory wipe.

            But I wouldn't make a copy of myself with the intent to kill the original. Think I'd rather take the memory wipe. Though I might make a copy of myself without axing the original just for shiggles.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So imagine I slowly over the course of 1 minute replace your brain with nanites according to you there is still consistency. So logically I should be able to do this faster and you still maintain consistency. Eventually I should be able to instantly replace your brain with nanites by replacing it over the course of an infinitely small span of time but this somehow creates an inconsistency?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            (As I said before) Well, if you do it magically instantly, there's no connection between the two objects. But nearly instantly, then yes you're good, in theory.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Okay and also you have said you are not your memories, correct? So imagine your perception exist in a single instant before becoming a memory. How can you say you even exist?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The mechanics that perceived the event then stored the memory are tracible via cause and effect on the timeline. They are both part of the timeline that makes up the object that is me.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            3 types of continuity
            1. Bodily continuity
            2. Psychological continuity
            3. Soul (we don't use this one)
            I believe that you only "die" if you break 1 and 2 at the same time. I'ma go bed now.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            2. Is more important though

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Well, I'd argue that bodily continuity gives rise to psychological continuity as an emergent phenomenon, though again, I insist different objects with different timelines each give rise to their own emergent phenomena.

            I'd talk about 3, if I was on /x/, but to be honest, I've no real fixed beliefs in that department, where I just accept I don't and can't know, but I appreciate the fanfiction.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I wonder if any of us talked before, it felt sort of familiar.

            Honestly, a sort of pluralism that just axiomatically accepts the existence of possibly infinite amount selves (souls, neural networks, whatever) as the only tenable position for any sane discussion of reality to launch from.

            No, this calls for meds.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            1. and 2. are unrelated, insofar as 1. means anything other than neural structure and process
            Anyway, I think we're done here, and I maintain that the self is illusory and that in the event of a replication of your neural configuration, there is no main stream of consciousness or identity that any instance holds over another, and all pronouncements we make on this matter are based on practical concerns. It's a shame that anon is gone forever and will be replaced by a different entity impersonating him when he wakes up tomorrow, but I suppose such is life.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >1. and 2. are unrelated, insofar as 1. means anything other than neural structure and process
            Oh trust me, if someone takes a hammer to your gray matter, 1 will definitely frick with 2, assuming you survive. Lightning strike survivors are always interesting psychological mind/body duality case studies.

            And again, object permanence is a thing, objectively. You don't stop being you just because you went unconscious temporarily, you only temporarily stopped creating the emergent phenomenon of consciousness. The object that is your body is still the generator of that consciousness. Thus why no one tries to take your house after a visit to the dentist.

            Unless you believe your soul temporarily disconnected or something, but again, I'm not going there.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The object that is your body is still the generator of that consciousness.
            But the body is constantly changing, and the consciousness is also constantly changing. Object permanence is irrelevant because the subjective perception is clearly decoupled from it.
            >Unless you believe your soul temporarily disconnected or something, but again, I'm not going there.
            Your position here has been much more soul-like, with this idea of the casual chain essentially being a quasi-soul.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Objects aren't definable if you don't include the timeline of their existence. It's the "cup I used for breakfast yesterday", not "instance of cup at this moment". You can't feasibly talk about individual objects without also referencing their permanence at least indirectly. Objects objectively exist and evolve through time.

            There's no evidence that the universe recreates itself moment to moment, and even if there were, there certainly seems to be some evolving consistency.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            But copies are not disconnected from this line of logic, because they also clearly derive from you and are ontologically connected to you, and you yourself can be said to be in a constant process of self-copying. There's no logical line to draw here.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You aren't a process of self-copying, you are an individual evolving system. A copy of you is another individual evolving system.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If we could cut a brain in half and artificially sustain the two halves separately from each other, what would you say happened to the person?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            We can do that, it's a treatment for epilepsy.

            The only odd result is that certain object to concept combinations become impossible when one eye is covered, but the non-dominant hand can write out the concept the eye is failing to grasp, without the person being conscious of it until he looks down, which is spooky as frick.

            But yeah, basically you wind up with a split and compartmentalized consciousness. Doesn't mean they aren't part of the same system, and thus aren't both part of you.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'm aware of that but wasn't what I was thinking of because you consider irrelevant parts of the body relevant to the matter of identity and this would therefore not mean much to you. What I'm proposing is that the halves are in separate bodies, and for you to decide what is now original or derivative in this situation.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Well, you can consider the two halves of the brain as giving rise to separate consciousnesses (which CGP kinda teases at there), but the two halves interact with each other so much as it's basically the same as having an inner monologue and arguing with yourself. Both halves of your brain are part of the object that is you, along with the rest of your body, which has a heavy influence on your brain.

            You can remove bits of the body, and even brain, without breaking the system irreparably, but the consistency of the rest of that system remains the same, and the fact that the removed bit was part of that system remains unchanged, even as it designates to mulch. It may no longer be part of you, but the fact that it once was is objective.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Again, I do not care about simply severing the connection within the body: I ask what happens when the halves are completely detached and hypothetically implanted in separate bodies. What happened to the self-perspective of the previously integrated brain?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So the recipient body still has half of their own brain, and the other replaced with half of yours? Jeeze... We get into a gray area there, as I've no idea how that would work or what the result would be, but, technically, you're still living on in another body? I mean we can trace back to where your brain came from. If we replace half of your brain with the half we took out from the new body, same could be said of them. I suspect the psychological impact would be rather extreme though.

            Which of them is you would be up for debate, though it could be argued the one with the most original bits, either that or you've just bi-located, and both bodies are at least in part you. I don't envy the judge of the pending court case when it comes to property rights.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Well, I never postulated other brain parts being involved, but that's surely an interesting venue for debate all on its own. Nevertheless, I find this situation conceptually equal to the act of copying, and it avoids this distraction of unrelated parts of the body interfering with a neutral judgement of the two consciousnesses that proceeded from the same source.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Well, it's not quite the same as a copy, as one of the two resulting bodies wouldn't be able to speak as you - just give the other half of the brain that could speak a hell of a time. You also would be able to trace the cause and effect, unlike a copy.

            Also unlike a copy, as both halves of the brain are capable of perception, your POV should carry over to at least some degree. From the time of the transplant forward, however, they'd have separate POV's and thus technically be separate consciousnesses as they could no longer communicate as a unified consciousness.

            It's just weird though, as you're generating two separate consciousnesses from a single instance.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You also would be able to trace the cause and effect, unlike a copy.
            A copy is clearly tied to the template by cause and effect, we're not even talking about a BB.
            >your POV should carry over to at least some degree.
            It also does for a copy.
            >It's just weird though, as you're generating two separate consciousnesses from a single instance.
            This is what copying is

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            There's no objective consistency with a copy. With a transplant we can say your consciousness moved, you can't with a copy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Literally why

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Because a copy is an entirely new object.

            If I take a CPU out of a computer and put it in another computer, it's the same CPU. If I have another copy of the CPU and replace it, it's not the same CPU, even though it functions the same.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Again all this means is that the physical instances are distinct, but the perceived experience is consistent even for the copy

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Perception is dependent on the object generating that function. A new copy of the object has its own perception generation system, separate from the original object. Again, easily demonstrable by the difference between them, in that the copy won't know how it got to where it is.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            But the copy might very well know how it got where it is since it might remember pressing the button to copy itself, and while it is a separate entity, it is neither inferior or superior to the template in claiming the identity of the pre-existing personality

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Well, the fact that it can't remember how it got to where it is, might lead it to conclude it is the copy, if it has the mental fortitude to accept that.

            Still leaves the original as the superior instance when it comes to claiming property rights, for instance. It's existed and owned those things for longer, while the copy is brand new. The original has a pretty good argument to have dibs on the wife, which will no doubt lead to the copy trying to kill the original, and the usual sci-fi tomfoolery.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The copy is literally you, it's just so obvious that once you find out you yourself are a copy and I uploaded you into an artificial body before this debate that you will completely change your entire position on this

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not if the original comes to take my wife and house. Hope for my sake you killed them.

            Meh, speaking of, running out of time for circular arguments.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            As far as I'm concerned we've said all we can on the matter a couple hours ago, good luck on the dispute

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Oi, it's been fun.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Best thread on IQfy in a long time imo, hope the lurkers enjoyed it too

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It was just morons wasting time arguing about the eternal return concept which was debunked much earlier in the thread, if this thread was quality by IQfy standards then this board must really be fricking shit

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            We were not talking about eternal return at all for most lf it

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It's just weird though, as you're generating two separate consciousnesses from a single instance.
            Technically do that every time someone gives birth.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The problem here is we believe in the idea of the self being an emergent phenomenon resulting from interactions in the body while

            >Wtf? You are not the same matter that you were 10 years ago, that's a big part of the reason you eat food.
            Which has a line of cause an effect. You ingested the matter that became you. A copy did not do that, does not follow that timeline, thus is not you. Simple object permeance.

            believes that the body is literally the self.
            Both are grounded in materialism but we come to different conclusions about what the "I" is.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            But even if he affirms that, he would logically have to conclude that the self is continually replaced by other different selves, but only relies on some "consistency of existence" concept that doesn't really mean anything from what I can tell.

            >Where is this consistency of existence located in your body exactly?
            In the cause and effect of your timeline. That materially exists and is easily demonstrable, as again, you can trace an object's passage through time.

            A ceramic cup radioactively decays, and thus is not in the same state, moment to moment, but still remains the same object through time.

            [...]
            Different bodies have separate emergent phenomena.

            How is the cause and effect of a body regenerating different from the relevant information in it being reconstructed elsewhere? What makes the atoms produced in the cellular process different from the ones in the external copy?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes the atoms produced in the cellular process different from the ones in the external copy?
            They share a timeline with the original that they do not share with the copy. New cells are the result of the actions of the body, so the body is the result of its past actions. A copy does not share objective identity with the original, only psychological identity (minus the bit where it can't remember how it got to where it is).

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >so the body is the result of its past actions.
            So would you consider it to count if you press the button yourself?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You'd still be generating a separate object. The connection is tangential rather than integrated.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            People don't have a terribly good intuition for this argument. Its best to ask why an identical copy existing right now doesn't share their personal POV, and why killing them would change anything.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Its best to ask why an identical copy existing right now doesn't share their personal POV, and why killing them would change anything.
            It's a separate object with its own point of view. Killing a copy of me wouldn't change anything for me - though it might make me feel a bit guilty. Lest, maybe like Soma, the alternative is to leave it to live a life of pain and misery. Even then, debatable.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >It's a separate object with its own point of view.
            Yes, I agree. But a lot of people think just because atoms arrange in a (You)-like arrangement sometime, somewhere after their death in a completely causally disconnected event, that their POV is going to warg into said copy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, I agree. But a lot of people think just because atoms arrange in a (You)-like arrangement sometime, somewhere after their death in a completely causally disconnected event, that their POV is going to warg into said copy.
            Yeah, I don't see any reason to assume that. You are literally separate objects, there's no reason you should share POV.

            Much like I dismiss Rocco's Basilisk. A simulated copy of you isn't you - torturing it is just a waste of a lot of processing power on the part of the AI.

            Not that I don't welcome our AI overlords, just in case.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            For what it's worth, we agree on this. When it comes down to it, we probably agree on almost everything relating to copying/eternal recurrence and how to treat the matter practically, there's just this semantic dispute about whether any instance after the multiplication event has subjective primacy, or something.

            You'd still be generating a separate object. The connection is tangential rather than integrated.

            I am a separate object from my body 10 years ago by all considerations except for a metaphysical property of identity that cannot be proven to exist.

            >It's a separate object with its own point of view.
            Yes, I agree. But a lot of people think just because atoms arrange in a (You)-like arrangement sometime, somewhere after their death in a completely causally disconnected event, that their POV is going to warg into said copy.

            From the perspective of a (You)-esque Boltzmann brain or whatever, the POV-warg does happen.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >the POV-warg does happen
            How? That makes no sense as the BB is completely disconnected with the chain of causality that I'm experiencing right now. As I experience it, I'm only one me, but if something like eternal inflation is correct, there are already identical me-like structures, maybe an infinity of them, yet I share nothing with them.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If the BB is generated with all the memories of your current life, it is what it experiences. There's no other standard to judge that by, the causal chain does not transmit memory or sensory perception as such. We cannot even disprove that we are BBs with false sensory data right now, though it's a pointless thing to consider anyway. I also cannot be 100% sure that I will not spontaneously warg to the end of the universe and experience some insane cosmic fireworks before collapsing into a black hole at any moment now, but I don't particularly worry about it.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          But why do I feel like I am me even after I go to sleep or in 10 years when I have new cells and neural connections. Is it possible to feel like yourself again after being destroyed.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You've entangled nutrients from external sources to replace old cells. Your ship of thesis problem is null, as you still have a continuously conjoined timeline back to the original. Unlike a copy, made up from energy with no connection to your original form.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Do you have any logical reason to think this "conjoined timeline" has any relevance to the matter? Is there a spiritual substance involved that slips out into the ether if the timeline is broken?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The continuity of your energy in space and time is the only thing that makes you, you.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            This continuity has no physical property except for the arrangement of matter from which you proceed, which is indistinguishable if recreated, and therefore legitimately equal.

            One is your perspective, the other isn't. The copy of the cup is not the original cup, no matter how accurate the copy is.

            What is your perspective? It has no reality of its own, it is simply a phenomenon emerging from the memories and neural processes in your particular constitution. Your copy will perceive that the perspective has jumped to another body, and it is entirely true to it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Both copies retain a perspective, only the copy is going be confused as to how it got to where it is, which alone creates a difference between the two copies. Perspective remains consistent only in the original, where as the new body has a separate perspective.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            How is the copy appearing in its new body different from waking up after sleeping or blacking out? Continuity of perspective is already violated in the many times we temporarily lose consciousness.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            So hypothetically if I separate every atom in you body and rebuild you exactly as you were like a Lego set "you" no longer exist because of the break in continuity?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If you use the same energy, then it's a state change, not a copy. If, on the other hand, you make a copy from other source energy, then you've got a separate being. Gene Roddenberry thought of this, and made his transporters work on matter-energy conversion beam, instead of a digital copy basis, for this reason. (Though some episodes violate the mandate.)

            Try reading the post again. It never once claims "your consciousness" would move anywhere. The entire point is that there's no real "self" to move or not move anywhere to begin with.

            The continuity of space and time makes for a very real self, easily demonstrable. Granted, this isn't the "space and time don't exist" thread.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Same energy
            By energy I am assuming you mean matter as the two are interchangeable. Now how much of this energy can I replace before someone becomes a "copy"

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The continuity of space and time makes for a very real self, easily demonstrable.
            They allow for the convenience of "self" as a way of referring to people and things.
            They don't provide some magical "self" module that is or isn't present in different possible future assemblies of materials that make up what was called "yourself" in the past.
            That's why these "it would just be a copy" debates come up in the first place. "Self" as a concept breaks down when taken too literally as some real thing that somehow does or doesn't get carried over. All it amounts to is the decision to group similar objects located near each other in space and time to refer to as one collective thing. The decision to name those things as all part of a grouped "self" doesn't confer an extra piece of "self" material that is or isn't present depending on how "self-like" a given collection of objects is.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Every object has a timeline of existence. Consciousness doesn't have to be involved. A copy of a cup, is not the original cup, the timeline of cause and effect is broken.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            A series of similar objects along the temporal axis isn't any more a "self" than series of similar objects near each other in space are.
            In both cases it's a convenience of reference. Cause and effect don't confer identity in any way more substantial than as a convenience of reference. Lighting a candle doesn't make the candle share in a "self" with the lighter.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Cause and effect don't confer identity in any way more substantial than as a convenience of reference.
            Cause and effect is the only way to define an object over time. It's not a matter of convenience, beyond the ability to define any object. Unless you want to go so far as to eliminate the idea of separate objects and consider the whole of reality a continuous plenum - which I suppose can be legit, but then the whole conversation is moot, as there is no this and that, only everything.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Cause and effect is the only way to define an object over time.
            This line of logic only asserts that, when a person is copied, there are indeed two instances existing, without saying anything about their self-experience. And indeed, the eternal recurrence originally postulated would reset the scale of spacetime anyway, making your future copy the same as your current instance in all measurable respects.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >making your future copy the same as your current instance in all measurable respects.
            In all but the consistency of its existence, which would be readily demonstrable by its unawareness as to how it spawned at the new location. A copy of a thing, regardless of how complete, is not that thing.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        If someone magically made a copy of you, he would be another person despite being identical to you.

        This is already happening, your body is gradually replaced in substance and continuity of self is just an illusion. If this arrangement is repeated, a temporally displaced copy of you is actually more authentic than yourself 10 years later after whatever alterations have taken place.
        Either way, this is the wrong way to think of it. Even if you recur in the future, this also means you have recurred in the past, and does this appear relevant to you now? If not, then it will not in the future either, and you have no reason to view it as more than one life.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Can't wait to be shitposting with you guys in our next quantum timeline. See you then.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Buddhism is the answer

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >>tfw the universe is infinite and eternal

      That's what Einstein wanted. That's why he introduced the cosmological constant -- to avoid an expanding universe -- with the implications of that expansion making him very uncomfortable, making him feel as though the despised Jesuits of his youthful education were breathing down his neck.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      This is the only real conclusion to draw. Redditors postulate about multiverses but that never made sense for me really, and I think it comes down to a misconception about the word 'Universe'; Pop-science readers think the word universe means 'wherever the edge of the current 'place' we are in ends, a place we cannot into via topologically connected space, whereas I and I think many others understand the Universe as 'all that time and space is'- a whole hell of a lot more than simple topology.

      Think about it, can you topologically connect to your door? Okay, but that is not the same place it was just a second ago, as the Earth, the Sun and the Galaxy have shifted some since you got there- both in terms of space and time. Relativism allows us the notion that this is the same place, but it isn't zooming back far enough. A single point in space is never stable, and always fluid. Fluidity means it can take on any form, including the one it was in just a second ago. If the Universe is infinite and eternal, then we are destined to return to that place eventually, with the exact same atoms and molecules and hairs on our head. Rinse and repeat however many 'cycles' you wish to believe. Right now, you have no idea if you've read this for the first time, the thousandth time, or the quintillionth time. It's still just as fresh to your eyes now. Welcome to eternity, enjoy your stay.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I need more hindu/samsara memes

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Nietzsche was right
      >That means I'm going to meet with my best friends over and over again
      >I'm going to relieve the worst parts of my life and the best parts of my life over and over again
      Anon, you are a God and I have never heard anything more divine!

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There are no religious implications because science is fake and has nothing to do with God. The Bible as well as the books of Enoch clearly state the earth is flat and 7000 years old, which no scientist would agree with.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Same energy
    By energy I am assuming you mean matter as the two are interchangeable. Now how much of this energy can I replace before someone becomes a "copy"

    That would be more a matter for a debate... The old, "have nanites slowly convert your body to machinery over time" causes a similar conundrum. Technically, as long as any of the original energy is used, you have a path of consistency between the two objects, though only tangentially. Similarly, with the nanites, you have a tracible timeline between the two.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I do not understand why there must be a timeline consistency. With the nanite/Archimedes ship problem I don't see why it makes a difference whether the process of replacement occurs slowly or instantaneously.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    This thread is proof that humanities is a useless field that does nothing but produce idealistic morons. IQfy is laughing at you all.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      I'm pretty sure we are all non-idealists here.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Meh, I'm just practicing typing while I try to stay awake.

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, a sort of pluralism that just axiomatically accepts the existence of possibly infinite amount selves (souls, neural networks, whatever) as the only tenable position for any sane discussion of reality to launch from.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Well, if we're going into magic land, I prefer the idea that we're all indeed the same single consciousness, filtering itself through all these material connectors we call bodies, looking at ourselves from different isolated perspectives, like some chthonic ethereal beast with a countless puppeteering eye stalks.

      Though that's basically just Spinoza - we're all imperfect mirrors of the light of God, or some shit.

      Otherwise, yeah, meds.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Oh no it did, God started the world and now you exist

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The wheel is a straight line

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *