which wants lead to dissipation and which to flourishing — Janus

perfect!

Since we are social beings — Janus

appears obvious but if allowed just a bit of skepticism, one could ask "what if from deep down we are not?"
Anyway we can't deny that but I am still proposing the most important "what" you can ever perceive is your own self, more than any relationships or connections to the surroundings. Having said that I am aware there is yet a satisfactory definition of "self".

We don't need science to tell us that we want to survive, and more, we want to live and even more still, that we want to flourish. — Janus

Well said. Do we know all our wanted or all we would and should want? And for what?

1) Soul is irreducible — bahman

you can think so but it's still a bold statement - nothing can prove that. There is a school of thought about reductionism in modern physics as I heard from a lecture video of Leonard Susskind. And that they think we are reaching the end of it. Basically it means everything (physical) is reducible but we are facing phenomena like monopole and electron not following that concept ...etc.
I am not saying the soul is physical (though I strongly believe so) but even in the simpler matter world, reductionism is still a question. Putting it as a postulate seems to be over the head.

I don't regard any of them as conclusive but they are suggestive. — Wayfarer

They are more than suggestive. Why not conclusive? what's the sufficiency criteria to be?
One single undeniable evidence should be enough to be counted. When a society stubbornly try hard to be "color blind" then roses are not red.
There is the Heap paradox that tells you the irony of trying to be absolute in everything: if you apply maths way (sort of) to it, it would lead to funny conclusions. It's up to you to go scientificofunny or unapplaudedly sane.

Does prima facie evidence differ from 'evidence at first glance' or apparent evidence? — Janus

I would concur it's not called evidence which should be readily available to be examined formally.
Rather it's just facts that you accept or deny based on your own subjective judgement. Say, you can still deny a rose is red if you were color blind.

But there are also those who think they understand metaphysics, who, from my inexpert opinion, really don't. It's like the thousands of people who line up for talent shows who think they can sing or play piano — Wayfarer

sounds like an offense though untargeted. Do you think any where else especially forums there aren't pros and cons?

I ask because many people I know are ranting and raving about them but I remain skeptical. — JJJJS

Better place this question in a trading forum, wouldn't you think more professional advises or lures there?

Let's get it straight. Are you interested in Bitcoin or in Blockchain? they are related but not the same thing.
Blockchain is merely a new technology as any other new things, it should be and has been praised.

Bitcoin went from $580.00 US to $3000 US last year — Cavacava

now this may be the interest down at the bottom of the heart - Bitcoin B? We are having more data about its fever just now so we don't need to search for more phenomenal symbols. The philosophy of something can only emerge after a good time of experience. We are at times of it taking off with a lot of big figures (like Bill Gates) applauding it so a few sharp declines are just making people more greedy just like on a roller coaster. We are yet to face its drama, or at least the other side of the coin. No philosophy is reliable as of yet. Nevertheless,
At first before discussing anything, we need to agree what it is. Ignoring the plain facts that everyone knows and virtually no questions about it, we can look at some more disputable aspects:
1. Its name - Bitcoin: well a farther can give any name to his son, just as in this case. However, legitimate coins are only valid by national banks or certain authorities. It's certainly yet to be a coin in this sense. This is regardless of its factual crypto-currency status. Historians may help recall the age where no governments were and people used barter exchange systems. However still unverifiable whether nobody influenced such a system. Nowadays if it's not governed by a legitimate body, then by a black society for sure. "Black" here means invisible, untraceable or even unimaginable.
2. Implications of the name: freedom of any censorship, modern social currency in much the same hails you gave to Facebook, saviors for the poor as hinted by Bill Gates when he talked about its low costs.
3. Its behaviors: you need to be a researcher to document about this sufficiently. While I am not, I will just focus on its price chart and it looks exactly like any other speculative assets in the large scale. Interests on this aspect need more than common knowledge therefore I don't go further unless there's more discussions around it.
Another vague aspect is on its social merit, I am still wondering where's the equality for women and the poor, according to this demographics https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-user-demographics-european-males-age-25-34/
Now is it enough to call it what it is?

thanks it will take me a good time to read the article as I am not good at time management. I meant including maths are empirical because if the plain arithmetic cannot prove itself consistency then on which ground do we put trust in it other than on empirical belief?

it's worth a read — Wayfarer

I have just read some of its reviews, there are pro and against. Have you read both sides? And your opinion for the against (e.g http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html)? I think they are much to my side.

I'd agree quantum theory is not simple to me and I don't like it much. But while we have no strong weapons against it and its conclusions, there are ones we need to perceive that quantum collapse is one. Ignoring other interpretations, I like the idea that the world without you and the world having you in are much different. "You" stand in here as the observer. It appears you have quite an impact to the world not in anyway small.
Further, it hints me that if you have such a great impact then probably the word is your own, akin to but not identified with the others' worlds.

90% agreed. The rest 10% is what "absolute" is about. So if you disregarded that 10% we would have total agreement. I.e maths is predictive and useful and cherished ..etc but just to a certain extent... like any other sciences - empirical ultimately, no more. It's just the best among any lame tools. Hence its predictability's trustworthy is also risky to be used as priori against subjectivism.

whether information, generally speaking, is physical — Wayfarer

that depends on your understanding of "physical", whether it's matter and energy as it now stands or just part of existence or the whole existence.
The first case gives an absolute NO.
The middle, also a No: found no good definition of information but for the sake of the argument, information is a sequence of data. The sequence can be 1-length or above (not sure any meaning with zero length). Data itself, overall, is existence, including any possible forms, discovered or undiscovered. If physical is just a subset, then information should not be within that. Can intersect probably but I haven't thought of a good example. Finally still a No.
The last assumption, a big YES. As physical identifies with existence then nothing is outside.

The problem with that, is that maths is predictive — Wayfarer

No, maths should not be an absolute candidate to stand up because it cannot prove itself to be consistent. Please refer Hilbert's second problem on arithmetic. Without proved consistency, anything is merely empirical regardless of how many successful cases it has dealt.

the universe does not depend on our simulations — Pollywalls

have you thought about phenomena like quantum collapse and its philosophy aspect?

A measure of healthy skepticism is warranted. — jorndoe

OK, again you need a ground to stand on. Sounds like usual empirical or "scientific fashion" view, right? Can be anything else? That's main stream I don't doubt. I am just wondering who out their are willing to step out of it?
An easier question while we are on philosophy: have you ever wondered who is better to your taste: Plato or his famous follower Aristotle? and why if Plato? Don't need to tell if the other case.

Fair point if you wanted only arguments. But what I referred to like Wikipedia researches already contained too many anti-arguments, why would I need to? My opinion found yours alike on some aspect and wanted to suggest a better way out but it's up to yours to move or stand still.

Totally agreed especially on this point

by its nature is beyond the purview of natural science. — Wayfarer

Few discuss limits of science and what can be alternatives.

since other people have seen similar things within the NDE framework or experience, I believe it shows an objective reality apart from ours. — Sam26

Your belief is always respected but when it comes to proving its objectivity, it's a dead end. The wikipedia summary put NDE to a suspension and I doubt with less formal approach one would get beyond that.

I'm actually most interested in why people choose to believe one or the other, — Janus

Do you think most have a chance to choose what to believe in? I know you didn't intend to say so.

So, it may be that we often say things are not physical ( when we really mean 'material') simply because they are not immediate objects of the senses. — Janus

I think this has roots in an open question: what is matter? hasn't been resolved completely because Quantum and string theories and so on ...have not merged.

To me now - in a multiverse belief - any imaginable is matter. Furthermore, that may be just a trivial subset of what matters constitute. I will explain if any aspect has a question.

Sam, we are closer. I haven't fully read the article myself and the only thing emerged from it to me is the weakness of testimonials. Nevertheless we don't need them, strong or weak. Yes I am subjective because I have recently found it's more important than being objective. Finally what's the most important on earth anyway? Isn't that yourself, or your - self? I referred to proofs or strongest testimonials just to let them down.
People are in the mainstream of science and tend to assume that being objective is better, or at least fashionably modern. I have been quite objective being educated in the same way until this very moment that I am still but trying to get rid of it.
Being subjective doesn't mean blindly stick to your prejudices. To me it's the only way to supernatural worlds where the NDE we are about is about. I am bit surprised you support it while trying to be objective. Maybe that's the reason why you still have suspects. Let's get it straight I have not seen or felt anything supernatural - I believe you neither hence your hesitation. But for a good reason I have been connecting all what I know and heard, seen...etc and found my doubts are fading day by day.
Just a side note: I used to love Feynman's videos too, and his friend's Susskind's who is still a top figure in science. Plus Sir Penrose's. Of whom I think Penrose is the most Platonist and he has expressed doubts in a subtle way by saying we don't know much about connections between the 3 worlds: physical, maths and mind. For Susskind, even more subtle when he denied his belief in God while strongly believes this world being a reflection of some remote truth - in connection with his famous Holographic Principle works.
Once Feynman said if science needs to be like a multi-layered onion then so be it. But that also means being objective or scientific is no more than being fashionable. And fashion changes fast, what stays then? Isn't it your-self?

We are still far away at two ends while I have asserted agreement with your NDE belief: I dissuade any proofs and you defend your testimonial evidence (TE). Well, have you thought about strongest possible TEs and what's the use of them finally? I can claim I personally don't believe any known truths as ultimate, say Newtonian findings are still good nowadays but they don't keep the highest position any more compare to quantum and general relativity which in turn - although survived a century - will be relegated sooner or later.

Kindly share with me what points don't you agree with in this article?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/testimony-episprob/

I joined lately and bypassed almost all previous comments, don't really know where to start with. But I am inline with your thoughts. One thing is that I don't believe science will help resolve your issue.
Someone from the right beginning of this thread has introduced a Wikipedia article about NDEs that I am sure you have read.
"Neuroscience research suggests that an NDE is a subjective phenomenon resulting from "disturbed bodily multisensory integration" that occurs during life-threatening events." - Wikipedia

Your five points can't stand up with such a research.I don't need to argue about flaws here and there. It appears in your elaboration there is a mix-up between social science and natural science while the two are yet to merge.
For example, "Testimonial evidence" should be replaced by a scientific evidence I believe. At least because it comes from legislative meanings. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/differences-between-testimonial-documentary-real-evidence-barbour

Back to the researches that Wikipedia referenced. Under "Afterlife claims and skeptical responses", it's said many prominent researchers supported your ideas but they still need to prove such phenomena can not be obtained using "conventional means". Now this is a dead end, always to any scientific research about supernatural phenomena, let it be NDEs, UFOs, ...etc.
How can one prove an earthly phenomenon cannot be from another earthly cause? I mean you are grabbing a cat's tail and prove it's not from a cat. Anything - super or trivial - that reflects to us must be via earthly objects, name it air, light, particles and forces ... the challenge is bound to fail right from setup.
In other words, proofs should be considered as unnecessary or even silly to get involved. You don't need proofs to know that you must breath to live, despite extremists would say something like without evidence of suffocation then we'd never know if that is fatal at all.
The point here is when saying about supernatural things, you need something beyond any proofs or pure earthly - your belief and innate sense.
Further, why would one need agreements on super phenomenon? You see yours, I see mine - we rarely agree except for certain shallow, trivial aspects. This belongs to a very profound topic we can talk further if there's enough interests.