WHAT COUNTER ARGUMENTS?

This is getting very frustrating. The people who don't agree with me on this site use this strategy of claiming that my arguments have been countered but will not provide evidence. The only natural conclusion is that there is no such evidence.

It would be better to actually try engaging with my arguments.

We have been through this before. You claim my points have been rebutted but you never give counter arguments or links to counter arguments. That is not a productive exercise from my perspective. Try to stay on topic.

If past-real eternalism is true, we are all, in a sense, eternal beings. That is not a long step from life after death.

He screams cognitive bias. Perhaps more than any other member of this forum I have encountered. — S

There is an element of devil's advocate. I do not have 100% conviction in the correctness of any of my ideas. Yet I need to argue in support of those ideas to find out if they are true or not.

You haven't, you refer back to your original statements or other arguments you've made which are flawed, as per all the counter-arguments you've received in them.

Just because you say you've countered the counter-arguments, doesn't mean that you have.
It's like me saying that my conclusion is that I'm right, so you can't say I'm wrong. That's delusional. — Christoffer

Yet you cannot provide any evidence of these alleged unaddressed counter-arguments.

This doesn't adress the counter-arguments I gave — Christoffer

Why?

Why do you keep spamming the same answers over and over? People all over the forum keep countering your logic and you keep ignoring all of them and start new threads referring back to your own previous threads with a conclusion that they are correct, ignoring every counter-argument you got in those threads. — Christoffer

No-one can provide me a link to these mysterious counter arguments.

I'm sorry, but you are not able to participate in a philosophical dialectic since you do not even try and falsify your own arguments. — Christoffer

What I am trying to do with these posts is to falsify my own arguments. I have not succeeded so far.

You've received countless of counters to your arguments without actually addressing them fully. — Christoffer

I do address all counter arguments fully. If you disagree, provide a link to such an unaddressed counter argument.

Yes, because you have the coin (data) and you have two sides (data) and you have physical conditions like air density, spin, force, energy (data) to conclude with a probability of a certain event. — Christoffer

Ok, so say someone gave you 100 boolean propositions. You don't know what the propositions are but you have to guess how many are true. What would be your guess?

- 0 true
- 50 true
- 100 true

You would guess 50. So when you truly have no data about a proposition, it is correct to assume 50% likelihood of truth.

Life after death has no support in science, so it's a belief. — Christoffer

Eternalism is support for the life after death proposition. Eternalism is supported by science, see for example the Quantum Eraser experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment).

cannot conclude anything without falsifying my own ideas, before that, they are just ideas, maybe interesting, maybe flawed, but I would never conclude them deductively just because I want them to be true. — Christoffer

I have not concluded anything to be deductively true; my ideas remain ideas, they have had a limited amount of cross examination and survived. So for the basis of the probability analysis, I went with 50% likelihood eternalism is true.

I do not believe it should be so controversial. Most physicists think eternalism is correct. Most ordinary people believe in presentism. Why not split the difference at 50%?

You essentially choose parts of math that conclude your logic to be true because you deem other parts of math to be beliefs and therefore ignore actual math logic in favor of your own personal math logic. — Christoffer

Hardly, there is logic behind it, I look at the axioms and say 'do I think that axiom applies to real life?' - if yes then the parts of maths depending upon that axiom become part of my belief set.

An excert from a paper I'm working on:

Vapourware: The Axiom Of Infinity

The treatment of actual infinity in mathematics is purely axiomatic. Actual infinity (hereon after referred to just as infinity) is merely declared to exist; it is not proved that infinity exists.

The axiom of infinity merely asserts the existence of an infinite set I.

Traditionally, axioms are chosen because they are inductively very likely to be true. We have strong reasons for believing in our axioms. The problem with axiomatically defining infinity to exist is that it is not clear that infinity exists:

- We have no examples from nature of infinity
- Constructing anything infinity large is impossible; not enough time
- Constructing something infinity small is impossible; one would never finish chopping
- Infinity is clearly not a number. If it were, it would be a number X greater than all other numbers. But X+1>X

Bearing in mind the above doubts, is the assumption of the existence of infinity a good axiom? A house rests upon its foundations. Set theory rests upon the decidedly shaky foundation of the axiom of infinity.


A Polymorphic Discord In Set Theory

The definition of a set is polymorphic:

- A finite set may be specified as a list of items
- A infinite set maybe specified by selection criteria such as ‘all real numbers’

However, this is not a valid polymorphism. An infinite set is not a-kind-of finite set and vice-versa. The two object types have very different properties:

- An infinite set clearly does not have a cardinality property. Cardinality or size implies the ability to measure something. Infinity is by definition unmeasurable so it has no size.

- A finite set has a completely defined list of members. An infinite set does not.

These are very different types of objects; to try to treat them the same is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. An infinite set is just a partial description of a set - it is the selection criteria for the set: ‘all natural numbers’ does not completely define a set, it just describes what type of objects go in the set. Contrast that to a finite set, which is fully described and defined.

It is never possible to fully define an infinite set - there is not enough paper in the world - so when working with infinite sets we are always working with a partly defined IE UNDEFINED objects. This is why so many paradoxes occur with infinite sets - they are not fully defined logical entities.

What has been done in set theory is an abomination to the principles of sound design; instead of treating finite and infinite sets as different objects each having different operations and properties, Cantor simply made up fictitious numbers (the transfinite) to represent the nonexistent cardinality property of infinite sets.

There Is No Basis In Logic For Transfinite Arithmetic

- aleph-naught - is defined as the cardinality of set of natural numbers.

The rules of transfinite arithmetic assert that:

∞+1=∞

on the basis that the set {1} is already a member of the natural numbers so the cardinality of is unchanged.

This assertion is a contradiction. In english, it says:

’There exists something that when changed, does not change’

This is deeply illogical - there is no sound basis in logic for transfinite arithmetic.

I think it's self-explanatory. — Christoffer

It is not, please explain.

Read that sentence again. You only believe completely in logic? With probability attached but the some of the maths are not part of logic and probability so you don't believe completely in some of the rest of the math? — Christoffer

Some of the axioms of math I do not believe, so there are parts of maths that I do not class as belief. Why is that strange?

You also have a set of beliefs which you have such a high conviction in that your psychology prevents you from being conscious of the logical faults with your rationalisations. — S

I don't believe in very much as explained above. Eternalism for example, I hold a 50% conviction that it is true. That is not the same as a belief.

That's not a deductive argument, so no. Read the answers in that thread given to you. You ignore them and start new threads in which you conclude your previous arguments to be final and concluded without ever addressing the problems people raise. You end up just having personal beliefs proposed as truths with flawed math. — Christoffer

I read all responses. No-one came up with any valid counter arguments. I assigned a 50% probability that eternalism is true so no I am not concluding I'm correct.

Do you think I'm stupid enough to keep posting about it if it has been rebutted?

Would you like to offer a valid counter argument?

"But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution
— Devans99

No we don't, you do. And you make conclusions based on the value you like. It's pure belief dressed in flawed logic. — Christoffer

Take a coin toss. You can assume it comes up heads, tails, or heads half the time. Which is the most correct assumption? Half the time is. So when doing a probability analysis, if you have no data for a particular sub-proposition, all you can do is assign a 50% probability.

Life after death is just as much of a belief fantasy as the existence of God — Christoffer

That is a very high level statement with no justification. See the OP for an example of how to argue an inductive proposition.

Explain yourself...

I do not hold a "belief" in either direction. — Frank Apisa

It's good not to hold too many beliefs. I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths and what is deduced from 'I think therefore I am'.

Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution).

Then there are all the other propositions, all of which I assign probabilities as to whether they are correct or not.

I think everyone does something similar, consciously or sub-consciously, we assign probabilities to inductive propositions.

That calculation does not have any valid foundation other than your own invention. There's a 50% chance I own a car. That is a calculation I just made, is that probability correct? No, since it refers to nothing more than a probability of my own invention. — Christoffer

In the absence of any data about the frequency of car ownership, it is correct to assign a 50% probability that you own a car; it is a boolean proposition with a boolean sample space.

You haven't given any deductive reasoning behind any of the calculations which indisputably solidifies the probabilities you proposed. — Christoffer

The deductive reasoning for eternalism was given here (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). It is a provisional argument, so I have assigned a 50% probability it is correct.

The rest of the calculation is inductive, for example, the chances of circular time:
(chance of eternalism) * (chance future real) * (chance time dimension circular)
50%*50%*50%=12.5%

- chance of eternalism. My senses say no, but logic says yes. So I left it at a default 50%.
- chance future real. Only some flavours of eternalism are future real. Physics favours future real. Future real does not agree with our intuitive feel for time. So again I went with 50%
- chance time dimension circular. It is either a line or a circle. So 50%. Actually its more likely to be a circle (then every moment has a moment preceding it) so this is an underestimate

Do you not see how breaking the problem down in this manner is a superior approach to taking a blind guess?

No, you can't, since you don't have any data to attach that probability to — Christoffer

But in the absence of data, we assume a boolean distribution. We make that assumption because it is statistically the most likely distribution.

1%, 12.5%, how do you even reach those specific numbers? You're just inventing them out of thin air. — Christoffer

The 1% estimates have sufficiently small impact of the overall analysis that guessing them does not matter too much. I have given you the calculations for the two that matter. Those calculations are a step removed from a blind guess, which is what most people do.

You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind — Frank Apisa

Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP.

I subscribe to no conventional religion. Deism is probably the best description (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

You could try grouping you ideas together into larger, less frequent, posts?

How can you even measure probability as you do here? What methodology are you using to end up with those numbers? And how can you attach a higher number to theories that you are arguing for? Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions? — Christoffer

The first three are guesses. The fourth is calculated here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/269149

The fifth is:
(chance of eternalism) * (chance future real) * (chance time dimension circular)
50%*50%*50%=12.5%

As far as I see it, there is no probability until there is actual support for a hypothetical truth. All of these have no real foundation and is both highly speculative and fantasy. So probability cannot be applied to such a low degree of support — Christoffer

The foundations for eternalism are Relativity and the 'now' independent nature of the physical laws in general (also my argument here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1)

I agree the foundation for some of the others is shaky or non-existent, hence assigning a 1% probability (rounded up) for each of them.

So far, we have no data what-so-ever that support any kind of life after death — Christoffer

We will never have any data supporting life after death. People are still interested though; our primary directive is survival and this directive extends beyond the grave. But despite not having data, there are still possibilities and where there are possibilities there are probabilities.

It's like me asking you to guess the probability of my car's color. Red 10%, Blue 16,48%, Green 7,4%. Without any knowledge of whether or not I even own a car. — Christoffer

I can still assign a probability that you own a green car without knowing whether you own a car or not; I just assign a lower probability to account for the fact you may not even own a car.

Interesting point. I think that statement (a) is not clear. It could be interpreted as a belief that no gods exist at all. I've tried to rephrase it below to make the distinction clearer:

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist
a1) I do not have any beliefs in the existence of any particular gods.

b) I "believe no gods exist."
b1) I hold a belief that no gods exist.

So (a1) leaves room for some sort of agnosticism; there is no explicit belief that God does not exist, just a lack of belief that any particular god exists?

Whereas (b1) is an active believe that no gods exist at all.

and we have the makings for man to become gods — Fooloso4

Interesting. Important to understand the prevailing cultural influences when reading Descartes (and other historical sources too). I'm not a Descartes expert, but I found this quote:

"When you talk of a corporeal being of the highest perfection, if you take the term “of the highest perfection” absolutely, meaning that the corporeal thing is one in which all perfections are found, you utter a contradiction. For its very bodily nature involves many imperfections, as that a body is divisible into parts, that each of its parts is not the other, and other similar defects. For it is self-evident that it is a greater perfection not to be divided than to be divided, etc."

https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/passmore-the-perfectibility-of-man

So he seems to think the body part of man cannot reach perfection. So it could be he saw the body as inperfectable and the mind as perfectible?

There is an argument that there are infinitely many things to discover, but only ever a finite number of discoveries:

finite number / ∞ = always infinitesimal result

So by this argument mankind can never reach perfection.

Either there are two versions of logic or you are pigheaded, it might be the 2nd.

I give up on this conversation :(

No, you can call it a form of pleasure as many times as you like, but that won't make it true. People value things because they see them as being of worth or benefit. Whether that gives them pleasure is beside the point. — S

'People value things because they see them as being of worth or benefit' - IE they get some form of pleasure from them.

How come you get everything wrong? It's especially galling as you always assume you have everything right :(

No it isn't. And even if it was, that would be irrelevant. — S

It is a form of pleasure else people would not be inclined towards doing it; we do things that are pleasurable to us (in the widest possible sense).

And the pleasure machine needs to replicate this form of pleasure else its not doing its job.

Then everyone excepting the very stupid would get in.

Lots of people wouldn't want to be strapped into a pleasure machine, because they value reality over maximum pleasure. — S

Valuing reality is a form of pleasure. If the pleasure machine cannot give that then the pleasure machine is not working according to specification.

On the comical side, and you may have heard of it already, but there is the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

That's astoundingly ignorant. You've asked everyone in the world about this, and they all answered in the affirmative? — S

If it was going to give someone everything you could possibly want then we can say only stupid people making the wrong decision would get not get in.

So pleasure/pain (in all its emotional/physical guises) really is all there is to happiness for right thinking people.

The empirical evidence is that all the galaxies are moving apart, space is inflating, which suggests everything was colocated once. Everything has a common, singular, ancestry it seems. In addition there is the CMB residue as predicted by the BB theory. So it after the fact empirical evidence for a first cause IMO.

No, the pleasure machine isn't contradictory. Once again, the pleasure machine is machine which gives maximum pleasure. If you're talking about a machine which doesn't do this, then you're talking about something else. — S

If anyone refuses to get it, then it cannot be maximising their pleasure. For example, the machine would have to give the occupant the illusion that they are a successful member of society, rather than strapped into a pleasure machine. Then everyone would get in and the objections raised by the thought experiment are not applicable.

My conclusion from what you have said here is that there is no certainty, in practice, in real life. — Pattern-chaser

Very little certainty. Most of everyday life is based on induction. We cross the road because we were not run down the last time. We eat healthy food because it might statistically help. We do X because someone said Y and we trust them. Etc... Everyone should strictly speaking be agnostic... there is no certainty.

Yours seems to be that we must assume that some arbitrarily-close approach to truth is actually true. Is that correct? — Pattern-chaser

That is what I think we do, consciously and subconsciously, in everyday decision making. I think thats what we've had to do to make progress. Both evolution and the theory of gravity remain theories only, yet we (nearly) all assume that they hold. This is the strength of the scientific method: the combination of empirical evidence with theoretical support can increases our confidence in a finding greatly.

There are logical arguments for a first cause, including some that do not use cause and effect. So the theoretical side is covered. I believe that the Big Bang is empirical evidence to support the logical arguments for a first cause. It is sort of hard to derive much more than that in the way of direct empirical evidence for a first cause.

One counter argument I can think of against a first cause is two or more simultaneous equal-first causes. The fact that time is a singleton seems to rule it out; two separate entities could not conspire to create time (unless they were working together in which case that would count as a single entity).

How would you class 'philosophically rigorous'? Is inductive knowledge classified as philosophically rigorous? Maybe it is classed as philosophically rigorous when the certainty level reaches a certain threshold?

It's not possible to know everything deductively. Even with deduction, we rely on axioms that are themselves inductive. Science often uses the five-nines (99.999% certainty of a finding) as a standard for judging inductive knowledge for example.

The pleasure machine is a machine which gives maximum pleasure — S

But the pleasure machine cannot maximise pleasure because it cannot give me a role in society which I value above all.

So the thought experiment is contradictory.

Well it doesn't. The pleasure machine thought experiment refutes that. — S

Interesting.

"Nozick provides us with three reasons not to plug into the machine.

1. We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them - "It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them." (Nozick, 43)

2. We want to be a certain sort of person - "Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob." (Nozick, 43)

3. Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make). "There is no actual contact with any deeper reality, though the experience of it can be simulated.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

I would argue that if any of the above 3 hold, then it is more pleasurable for us to be outside the pleasure machine. Pleasure comes in many ways; for example, it could be our role in society that we take pleasure from and that pleasure would be lost by plugging in.

First I'm not asking for what is right or wrong, rather were do our sense of right and wrong come from
— hachit

Long term > Short term

So Right is what is optimal for the long term (exercise, healthy diet, helping others)

Wrong is what is optimal for the short term (sweets, laziness, harming others)
— Devans99

Is this a joke? Did you not read what he just said? — S

I believe our sense of right and wrong come from the need to maximise pleasure and minimise pain both as individuals but more importantly, across a group/community.

Long term > Short term, so our sense of right and wrong come from an appreciation of what is right and wrong in the long term.

Have you read the moral theories I posted before? It's basically based on this value calculus :wink: — Christoffer

I don't think I encountered them. You have a link?

But if we think long term, how do we know that the one person killed isn't the causal start of something that leads to a cure for cancer? That person's child or they themselves might solve such a cure in the future, meaning that if you kill 5 to save 1, you save more in the long term. This is why the trolley problem becomes problematic. — Christoffer

I guess to make a perfect moral judgement, you must first be in possession of all the facts. So you would know precisely who is likely or not likely to cure cancer and at what probability.

Then with all the facts, you'd proceed to make a right decision by maximising pleasure and minimising pain over the long term (even if that means pain in the short term) for the group (the human race in the case of cancer). So if the 1 guy is going to cure cancer, your calculation would lead you to kill 5.

Agreed, but within this group, how do you solve the trolley problem? As an example? Moral dilemmas need a method that includes the complexity of many different situations. — Christoffer

I think its based on pain and pleasure:

- Completely right is maximum pleasure and minimum pain for the individual and group.
- Completely wrong is minimum pleasure and maximum pain for the individual and group.

So we look for MAX(Pleasure-Pain) as a solution for any moral problem. So in the trolley problem, we kill 1 person rather than 5.

Where there are conflicts of interest between individuals and the group, peer pressure within the group should ensure the group wins out over the individual.

Willpower is irrelevant if a deep understanding of human psychology and biology as roots for moral values are ignored. Deep understanding of ethics is required before willpower to act upon such balanced moral values. — Christoffer

Doing the right thing takes willpower because the right thing is often painful in the short term. Exercise, eating healthy, helping others are examples. Contrast with eating sweets - the wrong thing to - is attractive to people of low willpower - because it is short term pleasure in exchange for long term pain.

This is why it's complicated as thinking "too big" locks any morals into unknowns. — Christoffer

I think perfecting your morals includes adopting a definition of group as 'all sentient life' - leading to respect for all sentient life.

Then explain how some people develop new moral on there own, because if you are correct morals set and no new ones can be created. — hachit

I think morality could evolve as your community or sense of community evolves. I already mentioned the example of vegetarianism - including animals in your definition of community changes your morality.

Developing morals on their own... people learn with time. Specifically, they learn that long term > short term so what right is what is right in the long term (not short term). So typically it takes willpower to make a right decision because you sacrifice the short term for the long term. So willpower is another variable that could change causing someones morality to change.

The morals that we sense to be basic, like "don't kill each other" basically stem from the emotional care of the group — Christoffer

Many problems in society seem to stem from an inappropriate definition of the group/community. For example, regarding the group as 'your country' rather than 'the human race' tends to lead to conflicts of interest and war. Leaving animals out of the group, leads to ill-treatment of animals. Etc...

Inductively, everyday experience says cause and effect hold. In the macroscopic world, we know of no other way than causality, so it seems a sound enough macroscopic axiom. In the microscopic world, things are not so clear, but according to my (admittedly high level) understanding of physics:

- Quantum fluctuations are temporary only - they respect the conservation of energy - so they do not cause persistent matter to appear. So they should have minimal impact on the macroscopic world.

- Quantum fluctuations can anyway be thought of as obeying causality in the sense they are caused by excitations of a field, which is caused by 'empty' space, which was caused by the Big Bang.

I'd argue as far as origins of the universe type questions are concerned, these are macroscopic not microscopic questions - the Big Bang involved at least 10^53 kg of matter - the answer is not some poxy quantum fluctuation IMO.

So I think cause an effect applying to things in time is a sound assumption for reasoning about origins of the universe. Cause an effect does not apply to the first cause - it is timeless and beyond causality.

The universe cannot have existed for ever and I cannot see any other way for the universe to get started apart from a timeless first cause?

I think our moral compass is set by what we regard as our community - we do things that are acceptable (=moral) as defined by our community.

The most usual definition of 'our community' might be the human race - we do things that are morally acceptable to the human race.

Vegetarians might define there community to include animals as well as humans - they do things that are acceptable to animals and humans.

I don't want to start a whole debate about religion, but you brought it up. — Purple Pond

Agreed. There are other threads for that. I was just speculating on which is more natural.

t was also natural to believe that the earth was flat, and that things in motion want to rest. It's also important to realize that often times the "obvious" answer is not always correct. — Purple Pond

Many times the obvious explanations for reality have proved wrong, but that does not deny that the obvious explanations are the natural ones. So I'd maintain Theism is more natural than Atheism. Agnosticism was debatably where the smart money should have been but seems to have been an even later development than the other two.

"There have been some studies of how religion relates to happiness. Causal relationships remain unclear, but more religion is seen in happier people. Consistent with PERMA, religion may provide a sense of meaning and connection to something bigger, beyond the self. Religion may also provide community membership and hence relationships. Another component may have to do with ritual."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-being_contributing_factors#Religion_and_spirituality

Is it just the 'community membership' or is there something in religion that that makes theists happier that atheists are not getting? Dealing with death? Finding meaning in life?

I also agree with @SethRy that a person can live a fulfilling life without religion — Purple Pond

I think that is the case. Atheists get what religion provides from other sources (like science).

How would a human would react to the world with no preconceptions? By no preconceptions I mean no education, upbringing or influences from others; what would a 'raw' human make of the world?

'Who made this place?' is a natural question for a raw human to ask. So I think religion surfaces naturally and quickly.

'No-one' is not such an obvious answer to that question, so atheist beliefs should trail religious beliefs in development, which seems to broadly agree with our history.

God gave religion the second he created us, so there was never a time where we were without religion.

I'm just kidding, I don't believe any of that. — Purple Pond

Burials with grave goods date back a long way - even the Neanderthals did it. So its probably safe to say religion was a very early development. I believe that proto-religious ideas would predate the full development of language and that religion proper would develop rapidly soon after the development of language.

You just turned my whole question around: Is it natural to live with religion? — Purple Pond

Death, morality, and the nature of the world are all inescapable subjects that religion addresses. I think holding beliefs in all three areas is natural and religion is an expression of those beliefs. So I think religion is natural (but its role in understanding the world has been supplanted by science nowadays).