Secular Morality?

[seer]

Try to understand that the "copies" are identical is every respect to the "original" therefore they are all the same. You really don't know what your talking about.

More to the point your argument, such as it is, is the logical fallacy of an Appeal to Ridicule, i.e. it intends to mock rather than examine the evidence...a standard ploy of yours. And your appeal to incredulity (another logical fallacy) at the seeming paradoxes of multiverse theory is utterly irrelevant to it, it certainly doesn't invalidate it.

Please Tass, it was Tegmark who used the term copy and it was him who said that you could not tell if you were the copy or the original. Did you even read the link? And some things Tass are ridiculous on their face and should be rejected by any rational man. And the multi-verse concept with hundreds of copies of us having this same debate is one of those. And that again goes to the point that you willing believe any nonsense, no matter how far fetched, to keep a Divine foot out of the door. As long as "science says" Tass is on board.

[JimL]

Please Tass, it was Tegmark who used the term copy and it was him who said that you could not tell if you were the copy or the original. Did you even read the link? And some things Tass are ridiculous on their face and should be rejected by any rational man. And the multi-verse concept with hundreds of copies of us having this same debate is one of those. And that again goes to the point that you willing believe any nonsense, no matter how far fetched, to keep a Divine foot out of the door. As long as "science says" Tass is on board.

Seer, its a theory, which can be believed or not believed to be correct. The thing is that it is a theory based on scientific evidence. The other thing is that all are copies, including you. Its not that there is one real you and that the rest are all copies of you. Look at it this way, if there are an infinite many universes, then there are an infinite many universes that began with the same or close to the same set up, and so in line with physics they are determined to evolve along the same path as each other. They are virtual copies of one another, but they are all just as real. Within those universes there would also be virtual copies of you, that are all just as real as you. They are not you, but they are you only in the sense that they are an exact copy of you. That is not a belief in the same sense as one has a belief in God, its just a theoretical conclusion which scientists understand to be a possibility. Its quantum physics put to theory. Wave collapse means that just as there are many possibilities for where the particle is, but all the possibilities are just as real as the others. In the same sense there are many possibilities of you existing in the wave, and all the possibilities are just as real as the others, you are the result of only one of those possibilities, your copies, which are just as real, are the result of the other possibilities. Thats a laymans explanation and it is an interpretation of quantum mechanics first brought to light by Everett which is what leads to the many worlds theory which some scientist hold to and others do not. Its a scientific possibillity, not a belief.

[Truthseeker]

no good evidence suggesting this is the case. OTOH we do understand about creating virtual worlds in principle, therefore it is quite feasible that an advanced alien intelligence...they probably exist...has already achieved this end and that possibly we are products of it. I'm not saying we are, but it's hypothetically possible.



Science has nothing to say regarding the existence or non-existence of deities.

I wonder what you would say about evidence for the life of Alexander the Great. Would you not dismiss the evidence as "no good evidence"?

[Jaecp]

More unfounded assertions Jaecp. No you can not know my motivations when it came to my mom. You can assume. But this applies across the board. When I see the color blue, do I see the same shade as you? When my heart is broken does it feel the same for me as it would for you? You can not know. And are you seriously going to tell us that you don't have private thoughts or feelings that you don't share with others? How does science "know" those? What is my favorite color? My favorite food?



Did you even get my point? No. Of course you can map the physical brain. But do you know what the people in the coma are actually thinking about? That is the upshot Homer.

I don't have any data on you, I'm not your stalker. Still, all you've done here is ignore evidence presented to you, drawn a false dichotomy between assumption and knowing (say it with me, inference), and thrown up random, irrelevant questions that you've demonstrated a complete inability to process the neurology of the first dozen example so why the hell would I go into some tangeant on the psychology of sensory perception?

And still you dodge questions.

Tell us seer, what is your educational background? Your refusal to answer this makes you look like a mechanic who want to be an astronaut

[Tassman]

Please Tass, it was Tegmark who used the term copy and it was him who said that you could not tell if you were the copy or the original. Did you even read the link?

all originals, just as every universe in a multiverse is an original universe.

And some things Tass are ridiculous on their face and should be rejected by any rational man. And the multi-verse concept with hundreds of copies of us having this same debate is one of those.

You continue to base your arguments upon an appeal to incredulity:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

And that again goes to the point that you willing believe any nonsense, no matter how far fetched, to keep a Divine foot out of the door. As long as "science says" Tass is on board.

[Tassman]

I wonder what you would say about evidence for the life of Alexander the Great. Would you not dismiss the evidence as "no good evidence"?

[seer]

I don't have any data on you, I'm not your stalker. Still, all you've done here is ignore evidence presented to you, drawn a false dichotomy between assumption and knowing (say it with me, inference), and thrown up random, irrelevant questions that you've demonstrated a complete inability to process the neurology of the first dozen example so why the hell would I go into some tangeant on the psychology of sensory perception?

And still you dodge questions.

Tell us seer, what is your educational background? Your refusal to answer this makes you look like a mechanic who want to be an astronaut

Oh, I don't claim any advanced education. What does that have to do with the fact that in many areas our minds are black boxes to others and science? Unless we self report? How much more so for animals who can not generally self report.

[seer]

You continue to base your arguments upon an appeal to incredulity:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The fact is not only are you will to believe in nonsense you are also willing to believe in a theory that may not be falsifiable:

The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests. First, inflation is driven by a hypothetical scalar field, the inflaton, which has properties that can be adjusted to produce effectively any outcome. Second, inflation does not end with a universe with uniform properties, but almost inevitably leads to a multiverse with an infinite number of bubbles, in which the cosmic and physical properties vary from bubble to bubble. The part of the multiverse that we observe corresponds to a piece of just one such bubble. Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multi*verse, every*thing that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable.

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-...bubble-1.15346

Or

www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

[Truthseeker]

The evidence regarding the life of Alexander is beyond reasonable doubt. There are more than two dozen cities named after him…from Greece to India…coins from his reign that depict his likeness, statues and busts and inscriptions of his name dated to his reign. His generals are well known and many became kings and founded dynasties in their own right, e.g. Ptolemy in Egypt. Greek culture spread throughout the Middle East due to Alexander's conquests leaving a multitude of archaeological evidence (including Alexander’s burning of Persepolis in 330 BCE) as a direct result of his conquests.

Conversely the increasingly common view of Jesus among (non-apologist) New Testament scholars is that historical research can perhaps disclose a core of historical facts about Jesus (although some scholars such as Richard Carrier doubt even this much), but that the figure at this historical core is significantly different from the legendary, miracle-working Jesus as presented by the gospels…the earliest of which, Mark, is commonly dated c 70 CE, i.e. 40 years after Jesus’ death.

I am curious about what you have to say about the facts that Constantine the Great converted to Christianity around 310 and the Edict of Milan was proclaimed in 313.

[Jaecp]

You'll want to be more specific, TS

[shunyadragon]

I am curious about what you have to say about the facts that Constantine the Great converted to Christianity around 310 and the Edict of Milan was proclaimed in 313.

Reasonable historical facts. What's the issue here involving these events?

[Truthseeker]

Reasonable historical facts. What's the issue here involving these events?

Those were surprises, I think. Roman emperors just didn't go around converting to Christianity. Also, the Edict of Milan reversed centuries of Roman policy. Why do we have those facts? How did Christianity became so blessed, if Jesus were just an insignificant person as Tassman suggested?

[Tassman]

The fact is not only are you will to believe in nonsense you are also willing to believe in a theory that may not be falsifiable:

This from someone who believes without any substantive evidence whatsoever, falsifiable or otherwise, in a virgin birth whereby a fleshly woman was impregnated by a spirit, a three-in-one deity, a two-in-one God/Man and that people who have been good will have post mortem joy and those who have been bad will have a terrible time.

And yet you sneer at those who take seriously what science has to say. Come now, seer.

http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-...bubble-1.15346

Or

www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

The physics community continues to fiercely debate the multiverse hypothesis; this is how scientific theories develop. There are eminent proponents on both sides of the debate. Undoubtedly, in due course the issue will be resolved one way or another just as in a previous generation the fierce debate between Steady State theory vs Big Bang theory was finally resolved in the latter's favour.

It is too soon seer for you to rejoice in the abandonment of Multiverse theory as much as you'd like to because it does answer many questions.

[Jaecp]

Those were surprises, I think. Roman emperors just didn't go around converting to Christianity. Also, the Edict of Milan reversed centuries of Roman policy. Why do we have those facts? How did Christianity became so blessed, if Jesus were just an insignificant person as Tassman suggested?

Why do people convert to all those religious you think of as false?

It's not like a religion needs to be true for someone to convert to it.

[Jaecp]

Oh, I don't claim any advanced education. What does that have to do with the fact that in many areas our minds are black boxes to others and science? Unless we self report? How much more so for animals who can not generally self report.

The entire field of Animal Husbandry is obviously impossible then, how could we ever train animals for tasks if are unable to speak with them and get their self report back.

Oh, wait, we've only been doing that for like Eleven Thousand Years

Seer, you've got no idea what you're talking about. You do not understand the science behind the experiments that Jim and Tass linked and described to you. You don't understand the word inference, apparently, with your consistent insistence that these things are assumptions, and its painfully painfully clear that you won't learn yourself some knowledge any time soon.

Only within the domain of a pathetically undereducated Christian apologist would we need to explain that observing animal behavior can give us insight into the animals thought process.