Water Head Zombies?, sometimes zombies isnt so smart....

Zombies are not smart enough to equate rotating scythe blades with immanent and detrimental reprocussions to the continuation of their entity as a functional vessel as it exists in the physicalities of time and space.

-fixed for Immoral-

Zombies are not smart enough to equate rotating scythe blades with immanent and detrimental reprocussions to the continuation of their entity as a functional vessel as it exists in the physicalities of all time and space, both parallel and co-incidental.

-once again, fixed for Immoral-

Valiant effort, but you must read very carefully into exactly what I am saying....

It is important to note the following stipulation: "entity as a functional vessel as it exists in the physicalities of all time and space, both parallel and co-incidental."
For this stipulation is NOT binding to all zombies from all universes, but is rather bound to "Zombies" from *any* universe (since I did not specify which, it can be any of my choosing).
You may have read my original statement incorrectly as such:
"All Zombies from all parallel universes are not smart enough to equate rotating scythe blades with immanent and detrimental reprocussions to the continuation of their entity as a functional vessel as it exists in the physicalities of all time and space, both parallel and co-incidental." BUT becareful, for I did not stipulate that this rule applies to *all* zombies, but rather it applies to "Zombies" (yet to be bound to any universe). And if one of these "Zombies"'s body is mangled in one universe (a universe in which they are not smart and have walked into the scythe), then it holds true that the scythe did indeed have "detrimental reprocussions to the continuation of their entity as a functional vessel as it exists in the physicalities of all time and space, both parallel and co-incidental." (basically this means that a zombie injured in one universe remains injured regardless of what universe he travels too)

Thus, as I've said, if a zombie from "a universe where zombies are not smart" happened upon a scythe blade and his entity's vessel lost its functionality, it would not only lose this functionality in HIS universe, but in EVERY universe too!! For not only is his body disfunctional in his universe, but if he were to travel to another, it would still remain disfunctional. Much like if, in this universe, you were to walk into a meat grinder which promptly dices your body, not only would your body be diced in this world, but if you were to some how "hop" or "slide" into another parallel universe, it would also be useless in any other universe too!!!!
This is not to say that another universe, according to the multiverse theory, would not be created containing a "you" which had instead avoided the grinder. Indeed, another universe would be created with another "you", a you who was still intact. However, it still does not change the fact that if the "you" from the universe in which you were diced were to somehow transport to that other (or any other) universe you would still remain "diced", regardless of the state of your "parallel counter-part".

This can be illustrated best if you have ever seen "Sliders" (this show is premised around the multiverse theory).
Basically, if a "slider" is hurt/mangled in one dimension, although there exists many different versions of him in many different worlds, he (in the static body that is now hurt) still remains hurt/mangled no matter what dimension he travels to.
I.E.: a Slider is amputated. He slides to another dimension. In this dimension there is another mirror duplicate of him where he's not hurt, but it does not change the fact that he, himself, is still amputated.

As it applies to this scenario:
A zombie gets mangled in a dimension in which said zombie is too "stupid" to know otherwise. Thus this zombie's body is now "useless" not only in his dimension, but in every dimension he were to travel to if he could do so. THUS, my statement:
"Zombies are not smart enough to equate rotating scythe blades with immanent and detrimental reprocussions to the continuation of their entity as a functional vessel as it exists in the physicalities of all time and space, both parallel and co-incidental." holds true because his entity as a functional vessel (mangled and destroyed) is now useless as it exists in the physicalities of all time and space, both parallel and co-incidental (all other parallel universes aswell).


This post has been edited by |2enegade on February 21, 2005 04:32 am

Which can be interpeted as, "(All) zombies are not..." So, unless you specifically quantify it as "Some zombies are not..." than that 'all' is implied. And within that implied 'all' lies every zombie from every universe within the mutliverse, which I reiterate, proves that statement false unless properly quantified. If you prefix the word 'Some' before that entire statement, than it is completely true and can not be proven false.

Also, you say "a universe where zombies are not smart" in your rebuttle of my rebuttle when in fact it I was saying that the lack of such a quantification (note that such a phrase does not currently reside anywhere within the aforementioned theory) is the reason I say it is false.

I am not disputing that a zombie of the quantified type has been rendered useless regardless of where he goes, you are correct in that point, which is why I did not disbute that.

Also, you can not bind your definition to a single universe within the multiverse, as a universe is simply an instant in time. It is the path we are shunted through in the multiverse that gives us the fourth dimension as we know it. Even if you were to bind it to such a path, if that path later on splits in certain directions, than all of a sudden lots of things once false are true and visa versa, which includes your theory.

Basically, what I am getting at is that if you simply prefix the word "Some" before the entire theory, than you are correct, as unless you do, you imply "All" and not "Some" (which is indeed false).

Which can be interpeted as, "(All) zombies are not..." So, unless you specifically quantify it as "Some zombies are not..." than that 'all' is implied. And within that implied 'all' lies every zombie from every universe within the mutliverse, which I reiterate, proves that statement false unless properly quantified. If you prefix the word 'Some' before that entire statement, than it is completely true and can not be proven false.

Likewise, I am in agreement with your assertation that, in accordance with the multiverse theory, a zombie, somewhere, is indeed smart enough to realize that danger. But overcomplication was necessary because you did not fully comply with the technicalities imposed by my statement. As both you and I have made it evident, you have misread my rebuttal to read "(All) zombies (from all parallel universes)" I believe you understand now:

the "functional" quality of my statement. It indeed takes on the role of a logical function. If X, then Y. In this case: If (zombie from a universe in which they are not smart) then (statement is true). Thus since you cannot prove a function wrong, (in and of itself, without defined parameters) you will find, as I have previously said, that my statement is neither true nor false, but can be made either-or by the simple addition of a prefix, which was not initially specified, but none-the-less cannot be merely "assumed"; that is if one is to remain technically correct (and, from your previous posts, I gathered that technical correctness was of the utmost importance).

Now, to the root of the matter, which I find deliciously ironic, is the implication which you imposed upon my yet-to-be-fully defined axiom. Yes, I will agree with you that, in all intents and purposes, such an "all" is implied, but, the ironic part is my comment was not made in all intents and purposes (it was specifically designed to be taken with the utmost technicalities). Why I find this delicisouly ironic is because you are accusing me of being overtechnical, but, ironically, overtechnicalites is what caused all of this to insue....
recall:

and

now, if we are to be honest here, would you not agree that you were being just slightly overtechnical? That, in my original statement, was it not to be *assumed* that multiverse theory was non-applicable? The multiverse theory, as I will later explain, is highly unbelievable and is subsequently NOT common place in everyday theory. Thus, much like you feel that the "all" was implied, is how I felt that it was implied that the "multiverse theory" did not apply. Upon making any statement, is it necessary that one continually affirm that one's preceding statement is made in the confines of the "single-unverse theory and not multiverse theory"? I hardly hope not!
In summation: I coated on a lacquer of overtechnicality as a rebuttal to your overtechnicality.

The fourth dimension is time. I do not seek to bind any specific universe or subsequent zombie to a moment in time, rather I seek to define from which verse said zombie has originated from. Thus, if there exists a zombie that is not smart, then it is from a universe in which zombies are not smart.
Also, be wary of the use of the word "shunted" as it "implies" that the multiverses are already in existence and we are selectively conducted through one of their many prefabricated paths, when infact, the multiverses are not in existence until a "choice" arises and instantiates it. Thus if one "chooses" to think of x or y, the subsequent verses are created upon the instant that choice arises rather than them being prefabricated before said choice.

I fully understand this. But, in rebuttal, basically what I'm getting at is this: if you want to be of the utmost technical correctness (which, as your previous posts indicated, is apparent), you cannot "assume" all, none or some, but rather must assume it is an unprovable function until sufficient parameters are provided.
--------------------------


As for the multiverse theory:

A probable resultant from the previous discussion, is that it may sound as if the multiverse theory is plausible, but quite the contrary, it's improbability makes it hardly believable. I will detail why. Firstly, there are some axioms/facts/truths we must establish first:

1) The universe is infinite.
If you disagree, it doesn't matter much as long as you agree with #2. But because it will help, here is why:
If the universe is *not* infinite (finite) then there must exist a "boundary" or "limit" of some sort. Accordingly, the only plausible substance beyond this "limit" is infact the lack of substance, virtual "nothingness", non-existence. It is hard for the mind to cope with non-existence as it is something we will never experience. Nothing can exist in nothingness, No substance, molecule, atom, lightwave etc can exist in nothingness. Thus to believe the universe is finite is to believe that "nothingness" surrounds it, and to believe this is to believe there is some sort of physical boundary/wall that prevents matter from interacting with the nothingness. This would have to include a viable explanation as to what exactly will happen to a person/thing venturing beyond this point. Clearly, they cannot venture into nothingness because something cannot exist in nothing. And clearly they cannot simply vanish because matter cannot be created or destroyed. And clearly there cannot be a mere "wall"; for with every boundary, there exists something on the other side, and a subsequent possiblity to get to it, so if this boundary were breached, the cycle of illogicity would continue ("matter cannot exist in nothingness" - "matter cannot be destroyed" - "if there exists a boundary, there exists a way to get past it, but matter cannot exist in nothingness"... et infinitum). Thus to believe the universe is finite presents serious logical problems, leading one to come to the conclusion that it must be infinite.


2) There exists an infinite number of numbers.


3) Each conscious entity (humans) has a "soul" which outlives death and continues on into the "afterlife".
Don't worry, this is just a supplementary proof, if you are an athiest etc, it will not affect the outcome much.
-------------

Now, according to multiverse theory, every time a "choice" presents itself, an array of parallel universes are instantiated, each fullfilling every possible outcome derivable from that choice. Thus if I ask you to say something you will now be faced with a choice as to what to say. Upon the presentation of this choice, multiple universes are created, one in which you say "hello", one in which you say "whats up", one in which you say "hi", etc.

To display the absurdity of this theory, I will incorporate axiom #2. This time, I ask you to think of a number. Since (as axiom #2 states) there are an infinite amount of numbers, there are an infinte amount of choices you can make here. You can choose to think of the number 1, 3, 23, 10000, 123213123, 213123132, 23x^23, et infinitum. Thus a infinite number of multiverses are created representing each possible choice of an infinite amount. Are you finding it hard to believe, that, in this instant, you've just created an infinite number of universes?!?!

The absurdity doesn't end there. Our brains allow us the ability to think freely. Thus you can choose what to think of, when, how many, and for how long. Therefore it is possible that, from now to the time you die, you will choose to think of nothing else but numbers every available opportunity you get to think! Now, if the average human thought takes approximately 0.15 seconds to form, that means every 0.15 seconds you are creating an INFINITE number of universes!!!!!!

And theres more still!! Using axiom #1 and probability theory you can declare that there are an infinite amount of solar systems, and thus an infinite amount of planets, and thus an infinite amount of sentient life-forms capable of free thought. How do I come about this conclusion? Well, random probabilty states that the chances of finding a planet in the universe is (and I'll use any arbitrarily high number becase, in a second, you'll see it won't matter what number I use) 1 in 99999^999999 lightyears cubed, meaning that for every 999999^999999 lightyears cubed you will find a planet. Thus to find out how many planets there are in the universe, you divide the lightyears cubed size of the universe by the area size of probabilty of finding a planet, which works out as such:
universe size (infinity) / 9999999 ^999999 and because infinity divided by anything but zero is still infinity, you will find that there are literally an infinite number of planets in the universe. As for the lifeform probability, it is the same math: The probability of finding sentient lifeforms is (some arbitrarily high number) something like 1 in 9999999^999999 planets, meaning that for every 999999^9999999 planets there exists 1 with sentient lifeform(s). So to find how many sentient lifeforms there are in the universe you divide the total number of planets by how many planets are chanced to contain sentient lifeforms:
total planets (infinity) / 999999^99999 = infinity. Thus there are an infinite number of sentient lifeforms (even if there were only 1 sentient lifeform on each planet, there would still be an infinite amount).
So now, take what we know about how thought choices affect the multiverse and multiply it. Thus since we know ONE human being through the vehicle of thought is able to create an INFINITE amount of universes every 0.15 seconds, imagine how many universes an INFINTE amount of beings are able to create every 0.15 seconds. The math is pretty simple, yet astounding:

INFINITE(thought choices) x INFINITE(sentient beings) = INFINITY^2(universes) created every second !!

and the fact that each single universe in this infinite serious of multiverses is infinite in its individual size is even more mind blowing!!
Thus you have:

INFINITY^2 x INFINITY = INFINITY^3 lightyears cubed amount of total universal space!!!
*infinity squared is still infinity, but the power of 3 is included for illustration.

The above proof is an attestament to the undeniable ludicrosity of the multiverse theory, however, if you are spiritual/religious it gets worse!!!!! read on:

In just about every spirituality/religion there is a God and an afterlife, and every sentient being (humans) has a unique and undying soul. A soul is defined by who we are which is defined by what choices we make throughout life. Though you may have a sibling, twin, or best friend who has made similar choices, there is no one who has made exactly the same choices as you and mirrors your being exactly. You are unique.

However multiverse theory seeks to rob you of your uniqueness. Since everytime a choice is presented a parallel universe is created containing all exact elements as the previous except for the element directly affected by the choice in question. Thus if today you have chosen to eat pizza, there are many different versions of you, "mirror replicas" of you, all who have made the exact same life choices as you, up until now that is, when they chose to have chicken instead of pizza. This mirror version of you must, of course, contain a soul as well, since he cannot merely be an empty "shell". So then what happens when you (and he, and all of your mirror replicas) die? There will be millions, if not an infinite amount, of "you"s who are EXACTLY the same, save for their choice in food that day!!! Though one may argue that choosing a pizza now may drastically change who you are come 20 years from now, granted, okay. But what if this choice was made on your deathbed? What if the exact second before you die you choose to put your hand on your chest? Then there will be millions, if not an infinite, amount of "you"s created where one dies with his hand on his stomach, head, leg, hip, etc. Then how can you maintain uniqueness of soul when, in the afterlife, there are millions of souls EXACTLY like you in every way except that they died in different hand positions!!!! It becomes clear that the multiverse theory and religion/spirituality cannot logically coincide.


Thus, from the proofs above, it is clear that, though fun and thought provoking to speculate of its existance, the multiverse theory is so improbable it is borderline impossible. I'd sooner expect to see my "zombies" roaming the earth tomorrow rather than someone proving the existence of multiverse theory.




This post has been edited by |2enegade on February 22, 2005 05:56 am

It was never declared as a function, it was never stated "If zombies are from..., then they are..." It was a simple absolute, "Zombies can not...". So, if you rewrote as such, then, yes, you would be correct here, so you now have two ways of changing it to be correct in my eyes.

The phrase "technically speaking" does not automatically make it over complicating the issue. I could have just as easily said, "If we look closely" or a mirad of other phrases. Simply to mean examine closer then we currently are.

Keep in mind that the most recent one being rebutted was AFTER I pulled out the multiverse theory.

Not quite. Just because the universe works in some fashion in our percieved version does not mean it works in the same fashion or continues to work in the same fashion over time. A drastic change of the like that manages not to destroy that instance of the universe could cause a hieghtening/creation of awareness and conciousness. Within the multiverse theory I see the impossble as quite plausible.

Shunted, shoved, moved, take your pick. We have no consious choice over what instance we are moved into, thusly I picked a word that had some 'force' behind it.

Think about rolling a six sided die. In an infinite number of universes you roll a one; the same goes for the values two through six, in addition, there are an infinite number of universes were you never ended up rolling the die. Mathmatically you are correct in saying we can not detirmine how many of each result occured (alone in with ratios as we are dealing with infinity), however, somewhere, each of those results did occur somewhere. Thusly a non definate quantity (some) would be the proper answer as none and all can not occur.

In our instance of the multiverse, yes.

One would like to think that, wouldn't they? It is fundamentally possible to spontaniously create and destroy matter, assuming you abide by E = mcsquared. Not to mention that anti-matter - matter reactions leave nothing except energy behind.

As for the rest, in the end, all you say is an infinate number of universes are created per every smallest unit of time. However, the size required to house a multiverse is not important at all. If the size multiverse if infinate, then there is no problem at all, especially considering there are an infinite number of universes being destroyed at the same time.

Bah, I could go on, but tiredness has finally gotten the better of me.

On the contrary, a function loses its functionality when you add "if" and instead becomes a statement. "If" serves as a parameter. If I have a function 4x = y it is a function. However if I add "If x = 2" the function no longer is a general function and turns into a specific equation for y ( 4(2) = y). Thus, on the contrary, by adding "if" you lose the "functionality" quality of the statement and it instead becomes an equation. Since it was my intention that this statement remain a general function without defined parameters (and thus unprovable as is), it would be an error on my part to add the word "if", for "if" is a parameter and would consiquently turn my function into an equation.

precisely. Either of the miriad of addages (I am not focusing on the word "technical" itself, but found it convenient that you chose to use that word) would still refer to the fact that you were using more specific and tenacious scrutiny when examining that statement. And, in recognizing this, I too, decided to use superlative scrutiny when disecting my statement and your rebuttel to it.

yes, but I was focusing on my statement which preceded your statement about multiverse theory. Meaning that, unless you were being overtechnical, there was no need for you to "throw in multiverse theory" when you knew full well that my statement was made in the context of a single universe and not in multiverse theory.
It would be similar to you saying, in response to me asking how tall you are:
"I am 6 feet tall." and then me saying:
"well, not if you throw in Descartes' 'Evil Genious' theory, according to which you may not even have a physical body at all!".
And although, according to that theory, my statement would be true, you must surely realise how irrelevant and overtechnical it would be to just "throw that in" out of the blue.

once again, I think you know exactly what I am trying to say here... I did not mean by saying "a universe in which zombies are not smart" that that universe will forever contain zombies that are not smart. I thought it was obvious, but what that statement means is that that zombie came from a universe "in which, at the time he was concieved as a zombie, zombies were not smart". Now of course you could continue on into many branches of overtechnicallities on this statement:
- "Oh, but what if zombies were smart in that universe, but it was just him that, by fluke of nature, happened to be concieved as not smart?"
- "Oh, but you said 'at the time he was concieved' so that means you are trying to bind a particular zombie to a moment in time!"
All of which you are within your right to say, but would just lead me to rebut with equally overtechnical explanations to your overtechnical explanations and thus we start the cycle all over again.

I understand, I am not desputing the fact that a word that represented transportation through verses was necessary, I was just saying it conveyed the meaning that the verses were pre-fabricated rather than instantiated upon the moment (and, as it was probably obvious to you, I was making a dileberate attempt to over scrutinize that statement, but since I want to do away with the overtechnicalities now I am willing to admit it.)

I don't know if you did not realize this, or if it is due to your illness, but you have just contradicted yourself and have aided my argument. Two posts ago, you say that you should assume "all" as a prefix due to the multiverse theory. Whereas here you say you should assume "some" as a prefix:

So your previous assertation of the assumption of "all", is now discredited by your current assertation that "all" is not a plausible solution and one must assume "some", and thus, by assuming "some", you have validated my function in my favour.

1) I was defining an axiom to disprove the multiverse theory, thus the multiverse theory is not applicable to that axiom. If you are proving that x=y is not true, then you cannot use x=y to define an axiom, it is an illegitimate proof.
2) and even if I were to use multiverse thoery in that axiom, I would be correct, because in ALL instances of multiverses, each multiverse is infinite. Since each multiverse is created in the exact same likeness as the previous except for its deviation, then, unless if the very first universe was finite, then all subsequent universes MUST be infinite because you cannot present a choice to make a universe finite/infinite after it is already created. Thus if the first universe was infinite so is every following multiverse created from it and if it wasn't than neither is any of the following multiverses created from it. Thus you can have ALL multiverses infinite or ALL finite, but you cannot say that one is and one is not.

though I thought I was being obvious, it is clear I must detail again. When I said matter, I did not mean soley things that have a mass and volume. With that I also meant light as it exists as waves, particles, and photons. And because E=MCsqaured may condone the destruction/creation of "matter" it still proves that matter cannot be created/destroyed but merely converted to "non-matter" such as light/energy. Thus since light/energy cannot exist in "nothingness" no more than "matter", it still stands that anything, be it matter light or energy, entering nothingness poses a HUGE logical problem in that it cannot be allowed to exist in nothingness, but nor can it be allowed to not exist.

I referred to the size just for illustration. Ultimately whether you have 1 universe that is infinite or whether you have an infinite amount of unvierses that are infinite you still have an infinite amount of size. I did not try to hide that fact either, since I clearly noted by the asterik. So yes, you are right in that, when dealing with infinity, size and quantity is of no matter, but I still felt it necessary to illustrate the extent of this. (not so much for you, but other readers too).
As for the destruction of universes, I am not quite sure what you mean by this, since, given that the universe is infinite, it cannot be destroyed unless by an outside force, and the only "forces" outside of "the universe" is nothingness and God... (and nothing cannot destroy something)

Also, I've spent quite a bit of time (and you're right, at this moment, I do have a lot of time on my hands ) disproving the multiverse theory. I made it pretty clear how absurd it is that, according to said theory, an infinite amount of beings instantiate an infinite amount of universes every second. But, yet you still seem to hold onto it... it would be interesting to see what points you could present to prove the existence of this theory....

This is probably the better place to say this.

The post before that one:

Contradiction? Yes. You add the if before but now you say you can not add it.

Trust me, you haven't seen me be overtechnical yet, there is a difference between overtechnicality and me screwing around with the logic of someone else's theory.

There is a bit of difference, since I already had questioned the theory before and I think that I mentioned the multiverse theory before, somewhere else (though I may be mistaken), so it is not quite completely "out of the blue". Also, in the begining I was actually, in a way, further developing your theory as you patched it up from my remarks.

I fail to see the contradiction. I shall try and clarify my statement.

I indeed said all should be the assumed prefix for your, or any (unless it implies none instead of all, but I digress), statement which had no quantifier(s) in it whatsoever.

With my more recent statement, I show why a statement should be prefixed with the quantifier "some" and why the assumed quantifiers of "all" and "none" are incorrect.

I hope this explains what I was saying and the the underlining clarifies the point I was making.

Barring any unimangiable devices/freak acts of nature that could cause such a thing to occur. Though I have a feeling that just about everyone here is going to say "No f*ck*ng way." to any of the ways I can think of such an happening could come about, doubly so when you are against the theory that would allow for it to possibly come about in the first place. So I will have to say that we will have to "agree to disagree" on this matter.

Well, then that is your own personal definition of the word matter. The dictionary says differently.

Energy is not matter. So I must say you were not obvious when using the word matter to also mean energy.

Who says it has to be a big logical problem, for all we know, that nothingness that surrounds the finite universe could act as a mirror (far fetched, I know, but it is still a possibility). Or the universe could function on a different type of geometry, leading to a finite universe without the need for a wall of nothingness to create the finiteness.

Though you denoted that infinity ^x is still infinity and that you still have an infinite amount of size, you were still using those facts in your proof to disprove the multiverse theory through the means of "ludicrosity". Which is why I felt the need to address the issue.

Just as others hold on to certain intangible things. I think you understand what I am getting at with that.

That aside, very little of your disproval has gotten through in my opinion, and that which has was usually due to a mistake of some sort on my part. For lack of a better word or explanation, the multiverse theory is one of the few things I can "believe" in, don't think that you are going to be able to strip such a thing away simply with posts and no hard evidence (which no one has, but that is beside the point).

Don't mistake the multverse theory for my faith or anything of the sort, but I can see it as plausible and I'll defend it until someone can prove it absolutely false. Though I have a feeling I'll die and find that answer out myself before that happens.

... Actually no: If "X than Y" is not contradictory to my initial statement that "if" is a parameter. In my initial statement I said "IF x = 2", not merely just "IF x". Thus because here I have said "if x" without defining "x" it still remains that "x" is an unquantified parameter, thus still leaving the function unresolvable and thus unprovable. "If x than y" is called a general term because I have not bound anything to X using the "if" statement. If I had said "if x = 2" then I have bound x to 2 and the statement loses its functionality and becomes an equation (as I have explained here:

)
However, in restrospect, I should have fully detailed that the function loses its functionality if you use "if" to quantify a general term (rather than just using "if" alone). Thus, since "if x than y" is NOT quantifiying x or y, but "If x =2" is, you can see how "if" acts as a parameter only in the case that it is a quantifier.

Indeed, I do trust that this is not the limits of your ability to overscrutinize, however, as I mentioned with the odd conversation in which one "throws in" Descartes' theory, one must realize when "screwing around with the logic of someone else's theory" is appropriate and when it is not. If the thread had been about something to do with theorizing on the universe etc, I could understand how that could be a joke, but since the thread theory was far, far, removed from anything to do with multiverse theory, I viewed that the same way someone would view the conversation I posed with someone "throwing in" Descartes' theory.

As with what I previously said, multiverse theory or anything related to it was not even slightly hinted upon in that topic (why zombies can't recognize danger), so really, the analogy is quite apt in mirroring the situation. Granted, I could see how you're patch ("but they're already dead") to me saying "...equate with death" as being playful humour and slightly constructive, but to then go from patching my "equate with the continuation..." with your "not if we throw in the multiverse theory" was very tangential.

In which case I reiterate my original assertation in that "you should not assume all, none, or some if one is to be technically correct". Undeniably, utmost technical correctness dictates that, even if there are no other possible logical assumptions other than one (in your case, "all"), you must not assume that one option, no matter how obvious or inevitable it is, until it is confirmed to you by the same source that has presented you with the option.

As I've detailed, it is impossible to destroy the universe. We have both agreed it is infinite, thus nothing within its confines can destroy it. We have both agreed that nothing exists outside of it. If nothing within its confines can destroy it and "nothing" cannot destroy something, than what is left to destroy it... God?. So, without knowing it, the only way to believe the universe can be destroyed is to believe there is a God. Any attempt to prove something within the universe can destroy the universe itself is futile, since, by nature of logic, something that is infinite cannot be destroyed by something that is finite. Likewise, any attempt to prove something beyond the univese can destroy the universe itself is also futile, since, by nature of logic, "nothing" cannot destroy "something". So, if you have an alternative method of destruction, I challenge you to prove it.

... this most definately deserves a "duh" . I have gone through first year electrical engineering, including 2 advanced physics courses, believe me, I know what the literal definition of matter is. Rather than continually say "matter, light, energy, light waves and photons", for readability, I condensed it into one term as matter. However, if you are uncomfortable with me cutting corners for easy readability and condensation, I will revert back to listing all parts seperately.

1) for every mirror, the endless effect is merely visual, a "other side" still exists. If the nothingness acted as a mirror, there would still be "the other side", still leaving the problem of "well what happens if we breach that other side?"

2) As I've said before, nothing can be proven without a doubt, only proven to be more logical than other things. To me, it seems more logical that the universe is infinite rather than the universe contains random regions of irregular phsyics behaviour. By saying that the universe changes "geometry" you are suggesting that the rules of physics, time and space drasticaly change so that the very sructure of the way they interact are unrecognizable. Highly unlikely. Though physics anomolies do exist (black holes, light speed, etc), the basis of the single, undividable unit still exists (atom, subatomic particles, quirks, quirks, etc). Thus to suggest the lack of existence of a wall is to suggest the lack of existence of the need to seperate physical matter from nothingness. Because even if the tiniest and smallest indivisible unit of space were to be used as a "wall", it would still have 2 sides. Thus to suggest a finite universe without some sort of barrier that consists of the fundamental indivisible unit of space is to deny the very existence of such a unit itself.
Also, it is important to note that the wall is not comprised of nothingness, on the contrary, the barrier must be comprised of the fundamental unit of space to prevent other fundamental units of space venturing into the nothingness.

Even granted all of the above, you still run into the most fundamental problem that, with a finite universe, there will always exist a side in which there is "something" and a side where there is "nothing", and the fact that the two are able to coincide presents irreconcilable logical errors. Granted, even if your "geometry" theory is right on some remote level, it still does not remove from the fact that there will be something, and there will be nothing, and they will exist with some "barrier" in between, and the nature of this "barrier" is impossible, because how can you have something that can exist in both something and nothing? (after all the "barrier" will need to exist in both something and nothing, much like how a wall dividing air and water must be able to exist in both air and water.)

To clarify, the displays of infinite space were a mere catalyst to the core "ludicrosity", which was rooted in the premise that an infinite amount of universes are created by one person every 0.15 seconds. So yes, the size was not so much the ludicris factor, but rather the rate and number of how many of these verses are created per person per second.

"The only thing one can know for certain is that one know's nothing for certain" - SomeGuy (can't remember who now)
Meaning that I can only hope to prove one theory's superior logic over another, but cannot prove the existence of that theory itself in total certainty (due to the limits of our existance). So, as much as I have proved multiverses illogicity over single verse's theory, no, I cannot force you to undeniably believe my proof over what you believe.
-----------------

As for the "intangability" (of God I assume) I will scratch an itch which has been pestering me for some time now:
I will attempt to prove why athiesm is detrimental to the human condition and less superior to "faith in an afterlife".
Once again, the axioms:

1) Our brains are biologically hardcoded to fear death, it's the "will to live". All sentient life fears death because it is the termination of this life, and because we know of no other existence, we are immeasurably afraid of death, and thus non-existance.
(*not applicable to people with phsycological disorders)

2) Anxiety and fear build in anticipation of death.

Here we go:
Athieism upholds that there is no God, no soul, no afterlife. They believe death is the termination of life and thus non-existance. Given axiom #1, we know this is an event to be feared by all humans, especially athiests. However this fear can be greatly reduced if one asserts that, after death, he will continue to live in the aferlife (the more tenacious the belief in this, the less the fear).
An athiest, regardless of his knowledge of this, will thus lead a life containing much more anxiety and stress related to the issue of death. This additional anxiety and stress is heightened if he/she is approaching an aforeseen death. Thus if an athiest is diagnosed with terminal cancer and told he has 3 hours to live, those 3 hours will be the most tormenting, anxiety stricken hours of his life because, according to his faith, at the end of 3 hours, he will cease to exist. Five words doesn't even begin to describe the fear associated with this: Imagine being dead, and then imagine that you can't even imagine being dead... that's not existing. It's a very scary notion, and for one to deny that it isn't is either masquerading or has a phsycological disorder. Our brains are biologically hardcoded to fear death, it's called the "will to live", and if you google that term, no doubt you will find courageous stories of the lengths that people will go to to sustain life and keep themselves from non-existance (the best fighter is the one who is fighting for his life).
Now, given the same cancer situation as above, except the cancer patient instead has faith in an afterlife, though undeniably those 3 hours will still be unbelievably fear filled, they will be considerably less fearful than the athiest scenerio (in direct correletion to how strong the man's faith is).

Being religious/spiritual is like being given the "nice" truth to save you from anguish, pain and additional suffering, being an athiest is being told the hard crule truth along with the anguish it brings. To analogize with axiom #2:

Faith of afterlife:
A man knocks on your door. He then handcuffs you and tells you he is taking you down to the police station to be questioned as a witness to a crime. He walks you down the hallway, down the stairs, and through a dark room. In the room he pulls out a gun, and shoots you in the back of the head. The room was dark, you did not hear anything, see anything, or feel anything, you are dead. Aside from the minimal puzzlement or fear you may have had as to what crime you witnessed, you did not experience any anguish, pain, or suffering.

Athiesm:
A man knocks on your door. He then handcuffs you and tells you he is taking you to a dark room where he will shoot you in the back of the head. He walks you down the hallway, down the stairs, and through a dark room. You realize this is the room and wait, a gutwrenching-fear-filled-agonizing wait that seems forever, for him to pull the trigger. He shoots you in the back of the head, and you die.
From the minute he told you he was going to shoot and kill you, you have experience pain, anguish, and agony. The walk down the hallway and stairs, knowing it would be your last, was unimaginably angst and fearful. That fear was infinitely multiplied when you reached the room you know you are to die in. The wait for the shot is undescribably wraught with agony.

As with the analogy, faith promises you an afterlife and in doing so, hides the (possible) cold reality of what is to really come, and thus deminishes your fear of dying (depending on how strong your faith is). With athiesm, you know exactly what to expect, you know there will be no cozy afterlife, but the grim reality of death and non existance. This is an unsettling fear, and brings about anxiety and undue angst especially in the moments leading up to your death. One of the best examples I can think of off hand is that scene in Black Hawk Down where they lost the soldiers femural vein and knew his death was immanent, yet they told him "ya, we got it, your gonna be alright". This is a perfect example that, regardless of truth, in death, the only comfort is the notion that your life will continue. Athiesm robs you of this comfort.

Of course, you may be upholding that you rather die with a truth, than live with a lie. Naturally, I believe afterlife is the truth, but what about if you don't. What about if you firmly believe there is no afterlife, only death and non-existance? It is irregardless, for either way, believing in afterlife is always beneficial, observe:
Here are all possible outcomes for such a belief:
1) you believe in athiesm, you are right, you die in fear and angst of the prospect of non-existance
2) you believe in athiesm, you are wrong, you die in fear and angst of the prospect of non-existance (but then realize your error and continue to live in afterlife)
3) you believe in afterlife, you are wrong, you die in relative comfort
4) you beleive in afterlife, you are right, you die in relative comfort (and realize you were right in the afterlife)

Either way you see how a belief in the afterlife will allow for a more comfortable life/death. In both cases of belief in athiesm, you suffer a tormenting death due to your belief that your life will end and you will cease to exist, regardless of the validity of your belief. Whereas in both cases of belief in afterlife, you suffer less due to your belief that your life will continue elsewhere, regardless of the validity of your belief. Ultimately, believing in the afterlife promotes a death with less anguish and anxiety than believing in athiesm.

But what if you were an athiest and forced yourself to believe in afterlife your whole life, only to find out you were wrong?
Here's the beauty of that: you never do!! You die peacefully believing in afterlife, and you never realize you were wrong. Because if you cease to exist after death, you'll never know if you were right or wrong in the first place!! (you no longer exist, hence there is no longer a "you" to observe the validity of non-existence)

Cases in which my proof may not apply:
1) people who have phsycological disorders and do not have "the fear of death" or "the will to live" as much or at all.

2) people who are converted athiests to afterlife theory, but still, deep down inside, believe in athiesm. Ultimately, you cannot fool yourself. If you say you believe in afterlife theory, but in your core actually believe in athiesm, this belief will eventually rear itself and lead to the same amount of anguish and anxiety in the moments leading up to your death as if you had believed in it your whole life.


Given all arguments above and following the careful consideration I have detailed of every possible scenerio in death, I have thus hoped to prove why believing in afterlife theory allows for a preferable and more comforting death over belief in athiesm, and therefore making it the more superior faith for the human condition.



This post has been edited by |2enegade on February 24, 2005 09:11 am