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

You seemed to have bound it quite well there.

After my first reply, the statement was already starting to trend over into the territory of such theories with your initial statement of

And how many people would be assuming "some" in the first place? A whole lot less than the number of people who would assume "all" for sure. If we go by the "technically correct" rule, yes your theory would be right, however, I have a feeling that you, along with the vast majority of the people who originally read that. From that standpoint, I'd say the quantifier must be clarified.

Aside from all the problems that such a shortcut produces, it logically makes no sense. It would be like asking for penut butter, and wanting both penut butter and jelly, lumping the one into the other because they are often related.

Just because you have taken half a dozen high level courses related to the subject at hand does not mean that the casual onlooker/reader has as well. I've taken a Physics course and am currently taking a second, and I have NEVER heard the word "matter" spoken to mean both physical matter and energy.

Assuming the mirror is breachable.

It doesn't matter if an infinite number of universes are created per person per 1.0x10^99 years or per person per 1.0x10^-99 seconds. Infinite is infinite, saying that the rate of production is a factor for your "ludicrosity" argument is just wrong mathmatically. So you are contradicting yourself by admiting that it doesn't matter while simultanously arguing that it is a helping factor in your overall argument.

That is a subjective measurement, just as you say that, someone else may think that we prooved each other wrong or that I sucessfully defended the multiverse theory against a single universe theory. Likewise, I see myself as holding the ground for the multiverse theory.

Well, for the generic, "one of the masses" athiesist, yes you did. I could go and defend my views on this subject and explain why the majority of your argument doesn't really apply to me personally. However, I know, as you do most likely, that no matter what each of us say, the other will not agree, they will just go and pull out even more reasoning and logic for a defensive and a counter attack, causing yet another endless cycle.

In Conclusion:

I see this debate now at a stalemate, which is why both this and my previous post are shorter than they could have been. You have thrown all the facts at me and I at you and now all we are doing is nitpicking how we said them while running around in a circle, knowing full well neither can really "win".

Rightfully so seeming as that example was given for the situation in which one or more of the parameters were quantified. That quote was an example of the quantified version of my statement, but the original statement itself: "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." contains NO quantifications about which verse the zombie is from.
Of course, you took the quote out of context, failing to see:

where I say "In this case", which makes it obvious that this is a "case example", an example in which the original statement has been modified to have its parameters quantified.

As for your claim that this was on the path to multiverse theory, no, it was not intended to focus on "time and space", but merely meant to use those to define a state of "being dead, but not being alive". Adding that stipulation was my response to getting around you're technicality that "considering that they're already dead..."

Should be? yes, must be? no. If I was replying in casuality I would have gladly presented a quantifier, however since I was replying in utmost technical correctness and, at the same time, wished to keep my statement a function, then I was right to not define a quantifier, as that would destroy the functionality of my statement.
This all goes back to what I was discussing before. Is it common behaviour that one talks in undefined funtional statements? No. But it was necessary to counter your statements of overtechnicality with overtechnicalities. Thus you cannot hold your standpoint from a "commen sense view", since I have made it explicit that that statement was made with utmost technicalities, the only valid standpoint to take on it would be one with the same utmost technicalities. So, as you have said, according to the rule of technicalities, that statement was completely correct. Your assertation that it is however incorrect according to the rules of "common sense assumptions" is inapplicable and fallible because, as I have stated, I did not make the statement in the rules "of common sense assumptions", but rather in the rules of "utmost technicalites".

I wouldn't have expected you to. You are reading textbooks. Textbooks, by nature, must be concise and correct even if it takes 5 pages to explain one term, if they are to remain concise, they must. However seeming as this is a discussion that is on a forum, 5 pages is not a luxury we can afford to explain one term. As for your analogy, it is not apt. One that is more concise is as such:
It is like me making you a ham sandwich. You would not expect a ham sandwich to be two pieces of bread with ham inbetween. I would make you a ham sandwich with mustard, lettuce, ham and tomatoes between two slices of bread, without you having to individually specify each item, but rather just say it as a whole "ham sandwich". But, as I've said, if you are allergic to tomatoes or lettuce, than I will take the time to ask you what you would like seperately. If you are not comfortable with me making that grouping with "matter", then I have no problems using the "textbook" definition of matter and detaling every part individually.

You cannot assume otherwise. If it exists, it is breachable. It is like a wall of super reinforced steel: there may not exist a way for YOU to breach it, but there still exists a way for it to be breached.
(p.s. Although I am hoping you will realize why, please do not try to use my first sentence to try and contradict my assertation that "if you are to be of the utmost technical correctness, one cannot assume anything", because it is obvious that this part of the discussion is not being made "in the utmost technical correctness" (as I've said, apart from the original discussion, I wish to do away with overtechnicalities.)

Quite the contrary, I am NOT arguing the size, but rather the amount of parallel offshoots. Because I thought you would see this, I added "per person per second". But now it is clear I must be specific in addressing the ludicrosity, which is such:
I can see how multiverse theory may apply in the case of that there may be tens of thousands of different verses. But it is complete ludicrosity that there is an INFINITE parallel of universes. That's the core absurdity. If you were to think of this as a 2x2 matrix, the former of the scenario would be as such:
1x10000000 meaning that in every row there exists 10000000 columns. In ratio, that is HUGE, but still believable.
The latter scenerio would be as such:
1xINFINITE meaning that in every row there exists an INFINITE amount of columns. For every "verse" there exists an INFINITE array of similar verses save one difference. That is the core of the ludicrosity. The infinite nature of "space" and the infinite nature of parallel universes are two different concepts of infinite. To illustrate: you can have an infinite amount of "space" and still only have one "you". However in multiverse theory, there are an infinite amount of "you"s regardless of the amount of infinite "space" contained in each verse.

By saying "as much as I've proved" does not mean proved to you and everyone else. On the contrary, it means that I have proved it to the extent of which I can prove its illogicity. Of course that did not mean that I have undoubtedly proved it for you or anyone else (as I said), for making a proof, no matter how legitimate, does not mean that one will inherently just believe it upon reading it.

I am confident that I covered all possible situations, thus it could only lead me to believe that you fall under "Case (2":

In that, no matter how much you will yourself to beleive in anyting else, you hold athiesm as the absolute truth. In which case I agree that, for you, perhaps that is the best solution.

Naturaly, I believe I am systematically proving/disproving theories (which is why my posts are increasingly longer). However I am also present of mind enough to realize that, no matter how systematic my logic, if you do not agree with it, and ultimately deny it, then yes, we are just nitpicking and going around in cirlces.
However, as I knew this would be your eventual conclusion, don't you find it kind of ironic that:

is nothing more than a nitpick of:

?

I never spent more than 20-30 minutes per post. If it started to take longer, I wrapped it up because I had other things to do.

I have only a few things to say in my final defense, as I no longer see this as amusing or worthwhile to continue as the more of yours I rebut, the more you rebut back and the cycle continues. However, short of you saying anything completely irrational in my eyes, this will be my last post in debate, for the reasons I stated before.

Does it matter if it is the former or the latter? No. Proving it wrong outright, or proving the illogicity of the theory, it is still a subjective measurement because there is no possible numerical measurement and others will see the exact same situtation and measure it differently.

If you were to assume that, then you would be incorrect. I do not believe in the "afterlife" (or any other sort of anything happening after death) nor do I have a psycological disorder. So I fall under neither of your two extenuating cases.

Or that you take more time to explain your side in more words. Because with my post I prove mine and disproove yours, thus putting us in yet another cycle, where the person with the last post is often viewed as the winner by the general public.

Not at all, I do not view that as a nitpick because that was never my intention. If I wanted to nitpick, I could of filled a paragraph on that original statement (going back to my abilities to be overtechnical).

It was moreso, "Better cover this angle too" than nitpicking. If you view it as nitpicking, then there is no way for me, or anyone to show otherwise, as we have already established that your perception and interpition of things is different that mine.

It is still unsubjective and still absolute. The fact that I have proved it to "the extent of which I could prove its illogicity" is not subjective, because, since it is "to the extent of which I coud prove..", no one else can say to what extent I can prove something, save myself.

You misunderstood/misread Case#2. Case 2 does not imply you believe in afterlife, on the contrary, it UPHOLDS that you believe in athiesm and that afterlife theory will never work for you because you believe in it so strongly that, even if you were to force yourself, you could never believe otherwise. That is Case #2, in which (as I stated) my theory does not apply.

Be careful that you edit it to read: "believe I prove mine and disprove yours", because, as the ongoing nature of this debate implies, you haven't disproved any of my theories.
As for length... More words? perhaps. More time? hardly. I spent upwards of 35 minutes writing each post.
As for winning... I only deem myself a "winner" if the one who I am debating with concedes or agrees. Because a fan cheers for a contender at a boxing match, does that declare him the winner?

The "if I wanted to nitpick, I could have done so in 3 pages" theory doesn't hold up. For it would make no sense to nitpick a 2 sentence statement with 3 pages. Yes, as the statements got longer, so did the nitpicks, but the reason why you decided to "nitpick" my original statement with only "but they're not dead" is because that's all it called for. Anything more, and it would have been too obvious of a nitpick.

It is obvious we will never agree unless you "admit" that you were not "covering" all angles for the sake of the topic, but rather for the sake of your own self satisfaction in pointing out my trivial error.

I say you were nitpicking. I also say that I am confident that you are aware of it. You say that you were not. A 3+ page, 4000+ word debate ensued around this. Ultimately, the only thing I can agree on with you is that nothing will be agreed opon so long as we maintain these views. No matter how confident I am that you were nitpicking and no matter how confident I am that you are aware of it, only you, to yourself in honesty, will know for certain. For your intention is esoterically yours alone.

This post has been edited by |2enegade on February 26, 2005 07:02 am

Really? Here is your "Case #2"

It seems you imply that people who try to believe in the afterlife theory but are incapable of truely doing so suffer said fate.

As I've said before, neither Case 1 or Case 2 applies to myself nor your overall theory.

It seems you imply that people who try to believe in the afterlife theory but are incapable of truely doing so suffer said fate.

As I've said before, neither Case 1 or Case 2 applies to myself nor your overall theory.

Exactly. I have covered all possible senerios. Case #2 is logically the only one (if you say my theory does not apply to you) that could exempt my theory from applying to you.... unless it is Case #1 (you have a psychological disorder )

Basically, I am saying that in all cases, it is preferencial for the human condition that one believe in afterlife theory. HOWEVER if you are among the 2 cases (#2, in which that afterlife theory is *not* beneficial to you because, no matter how much you force yourself to believe it, you will always wholeheartedly beleive in athiesm) then this theory does not apply to you.

If you feel that I have left out a possible scenerio/case (yours), then, please, detail exactly what your situation is that disallows my theory from applying to you.

Besides, when I die, I'll find out the answer anyways.

Firstly, you may have a relaxed attitutude towards death, but, unless you are biologically unstable or suicidal, you will ceaselessly fear it. Thus it does not change the fact that my theory still applies.

"I am wondering if you COMPLETELY" missed my post!!! If it is the case that you are right, you will never EVER FIND OUT!!!!!
This is what I mean when I say people have a hard time grasping the concept of non existance.
If you die and you are right that there is no afterlife, you will never come to such a conclusion because you NO LONGER EXIST. It's not like there's some sort of reflection period after you die and before you stop existing in which you can reflect and say "Oh, well, looks like I was right all along!"... No! You do not exist anymore, thus you will never have the luxury of knowing whether or not you were right or wrong.




This post has been edited by |2enegade on February 28, 2005 08:51 am

Put a gun to someone's head and you will see that they fear just as much as the next person. By the same token, a person gets struck by a bus when looking the wrong way and die on impact, not a whole lot of fear there.

Yes our brains are hardcoded with the will to live, but that doesn't change the fact that one will be dead some day. And I know that at some point, no matter what I do or say, I will die. I've accepted that, but until that time, I will fight tooth and nail just like any other rational human, religious or not.

Let me clarify, because it seems you are having troubles with the "shortcuts" in my logic. If I am wrong, then I'll find out that I was wrong when I die. So, technically if I never find out, I was right. I just will never consciously know that fact myself.