Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Alexander1304, Oct 28, 2015.
Kristoffer,no what?Shouldn't take him seriously,I understood you correctly?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It shouldn't be taken seriously.
May I ask You why You think so?Just asking
What does 'quantum' have to do with 'immortality'? What does the phrase 'personal proof' mean? For that matter, what does this thread have to do with philosophy? It probably belongs in one of the alternative fora, perhaps 'Paranormal'.
Who is the 'you' he is addressing? Himself or other people? If he's just addressing himself, he's effectively asking what it would take to give himself the subjective feeling that he's older than he really is. If he's addressing others, then those others will need more objective reasons to think that he's extraordinarily long-lived.
Hasn't he had any friends, family and associates who kept getting a year older every year, while he never aged? After a while, that would become very noticeable.
And if he never ages, why isn't he still a newborn infant or just a fertilized egg? How did he become an adult and why did his aging stop there?
His reference to 'personal experience' suggests that he's basically talking to himself. Of course, what might convince him is very different than what would convince me. People convince themselves of all kinds of strange things.
Except that he hasn't named a standard of proof, apart from writing the words 'personal experience'.
Or the unfortunate combination of an overactive imagination and the inability to distinguish imagination from reality.
Sorry, the original post turned out to be April Fools Joke.From the website of the author:
"So apparently, after years of sitting inert, one of my old April Fool’s Day posts is suddenly getting heavy traffic because a commentator on a skeptical website is apparently citing it as serious evidence in favour of quantum immortality. This being the post, need I remind you, in which I claim to be secretly four hundred and twenty-seven years old, incapable of dying, and Virginia Woolf’s inspiration for Orlando: A Biography.
Well, let me clear the air for any new visitors: this post was an April Fool’s Day joke, and I’m afraid, only particularly funny to people who actually know me in person. I am a legitimate theoretical physicist, with a Master’s Degree and everything, but I don’t really believe in quantum immortality beyond the extent to which I believe that it could be a good plot device in a science fiction story. My genuine opinions on quantum theory can be found here and here.
So no; I am, to the best of my knowledge, not 400 years old because of a quirk of one interpretation of quantum mechanics; and you should be glad that I’m not, because it would mean that the universe would be my personal solipsistic fantasy and you would all be the supporting characters."
Sorry for the confusing thread
Don't believe you: reported as a timewasting troll.
That was obvious or clearly indicated by the author from the start. Post in a psychology forum the next time you want to explore whether or not a specific person's outward cognitive disposition about something matches with their actual internal judgement or belief.
This place is for examining how well concepts and ideational organizations [including templates for proper thinking] hang together within themselves, or whether they are truly compatible with already recognized formal systems which they claim to append or belong to. Similar to pure mathematics, there is no inventory of the universe's empirical furniture transpiring here, or an inventory of the psychological contents affiliated with a particular individual's skull.
In philosophy, intellectual objects and "games" and disciplines are studied for their own sake, and also invented: Principles, definitions, schemes, arguments, ideologies, methods, doctrines, etc. Some of those may find practical employment in worldly affairs just as some floating, quantitative abstractions of pure mathematics occasionally find a slot with the latter's applied cousin. Existing formal constructs that HAVE become active in the regulation of human society or professional practices and skills are also critiqued by philosophy.
This is not a science subforum, and it is not a psychotherapy subforum. You can present somebody's outline or fully systematic idea (or even a threadbare notion) for evaluation of its internal consistency, but this isn't the place for testing if that person is "crazy" or a liar. Especially when he/she blatantly indicates in the very paper, article, blog, etc that they are being facetious with their comments or their superficially espoused belief in a proposal.
I believe the only way such immortality could be achieved would be if you were already dead.
"What would you like me to do, kill him again?"
"Tried it once. It wasn't funny."
Since you had already learned that this was an April Fools Day joke on the other forum you linked to, why did you feel the need to re-post it here?
Separate names with a comma.