religion vs. science

**One Classy Bloke** · February 26th, 2004, 10:03 PM

...genius! But i was talking more of a new whole number.

The reason i can't let it go is that there's a deeper side to it. It's a difficult concept, which has your easy answer, and a much harder one, which might suggest a real possiblity of an afterlife. It's why i can't shake the idea of an afterlife as well as you guys.

**Xellos** · February 26th, 2004, 10:28 PM

[Message deleted. Reason: 1.3.6 Flaming]

[ February 26, 2004 08:51 PM: Message edited by: -Wiseman- ]

**mrwiseman** · February 27th, 2004, 12:49 AM

This concerns the confirmation of existance, which needs memory.

1. You don't need confirmation of existence once it ends
2. You have memory while it lasts

There's not a problem

I doubt any of us remember being a baby, so how do we know that we were ever babies in the first place?

Pictures? Anyways, that doesn't mean we weren't.

When we are dead, we can't, all we have to rely on is our memory.

When we are dead, we don't rely on anything because we are dead. We aren't "we" anymore, our existence ended, end of the story, game over, kthxbai, and our memory ended with it.

Since we can't use that when we are dead, we can't confirm we ever existed.

We can't confirm we ever existed because we just don't exist. It's not about what we can or can't, we ended.

Therefore, the question is, why can we even remember our lives now, if we can't later?

We can't later because there's no later. We end when we die. You are using afterlife to prove afterlife, no wonder why you run into a paradox trying to understand this other theory. The real paradox lies in this reasoning: how can you use X to prove X?

Another hard concept is trying to add a new number to the scale of 1 to 10, and not using 0 or 11.

Huh? What do you mean? You mean this?

x ε Z; x < 10; x > 0
y = z + 1

z < y; z > x

This is not possible in the Z (integer) realm. So if z ε Z this problem has no solution. But if z ε Q, R, or other ordered supersets of Z, you can just pick x + ? and solve the problem.

Another possibility would be to create a new numeric set which is a superset of Z but contains an extra element which is above 5 and below 6, for example.

And yet another possibility would be to work in base 11, adding a new symbol to the alphabet, like ж after 9, for example (normally, A is used), so numbers will go like 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ж, 10, 11, 12, ... 18, 19, 1ж, 20, ... 99, ж0, ж1, ж2, ... ж9, жж, 100, etc., and there you have it. We don't need to be fixed to base 10. Computers, for example, work in base 2, and also represent information in base 16 (hexadecimal, using letters from A to F after 9).

**One Classy Bloke** · February 27th, 2004, 08:27 PM

I'm not trying to prove that an afterlife exists, it's just something weird i've noticed over the years. Maybe we see the world differently.

Also, the whole number thing, I'm talking more of the value of ж, and what is it called. Although, i understand how easy it is to add a new number now. ^_^;; So much for a hard concept...

(Oops, thats a mundo typo)

[ February 27, 2004 05:05 PM: Message edited by: One Classy Bloke ]

**Cataferal** · February 27th, 2004, 08:49 PM

You know, this is 20 times more philosophical than when this post started.

My take on this subject...is correct, as is the theory of an afterlife, as is the theory that we just cease to be once we die, and there is no more. This is one of those frustrating cases of something being right until its proven wrong.
My theory? It alters from time to time, as i imagine everyone elses does, but right now im on reincarnation. Despite subconsciously not believing it, it is something to ponder on for a few years until moving on to the next approach.

As for the explanation of deja vu, Wiseman explained the psychological theory of it perfectly, although, it is extremely hard to prove it(correct me if im wrong though, there may be some case studies which support it that ive overlooked).

**Xellos** · February 27th, 2004, 08:53 PM

Miguel's been arguing with the idea that there is no afterlife, which is why you aren't amking sense. If we were thinking that there is an afterlife, then you make perfect sense. But when arguing from the side of no afterlife, then it sounds like loony thouughts [img]tongue.gif[/img]

**One Classy Bloke** · February 27th, 2004, 09:14 PM

Just need to point out, i made a typo in my last post. I've corrected it, so check it again.

Also, i'm not on the afterlife side. I could go either way. I've seen evidence both ways. For afterlife, this memory concept i tried to explain. I understand it, so it's evidence that an afterlife could exist. Against afterlife, logic and common sense, which can be proven wrong e.g. heavier things fell faster than light things.

Also, to Wiseman, i don't consider be accused of being high as flaming. Maybe (psychology) i pointed out a truth which Xellos understands but refuses to admit it, e.g. Halo multiplayer is better than UT2k4 multiplayer. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

**Cataferal** · February 27th, 2004, 09:31 PM

OCB's got confused - just like the rest of the world regarding this matter, lol.
To be honest, if there were anything that we could use to solve the question, its science. If we ever revive someone, will they remember everything they did before they died?

I personally would assume so, but the longer you leave it, the more they will have forgotten things due to the deterioration of brain cells.
Ah, guess what? The explanation for the loss of memory is scientific anyway.
Generally speaking, science embodies truth, religion and the theories of afterlife and reincarnation are just an alternative for those who cant cope living with faith in science.
Lets face it, the afterlife is a figment of our imagination...but if we can harness science, we can make it a reality.

Shout, shriek and scream your objections if you have any - whilst flailing your arms, of course - i would prefer to lose this conversation. Why? Science is a long way off from doing what im suggesting. If i die now, and there really isnt an afterlife, im gone, and that would be it.

(Oh, it seems my rambling is continuing) But do we really not want to die? Through nature, we're living to defy death wherever possible. But is nature our friend or our enemy? Now that we've ascended in intelligence, and moved further away from nature, having a large enough mental capacity to defy our instincts, we seem to be butting heads with it.

But then again, science is nature, and vice versa. So we're back at the beginning of this post; confused.

(Thats what happens when you direct your philosophical thoughts straight into a post - remember to flail those arms.)

[ February 27, 2004 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Cataferal ]

**Cataferal** · February 27th, 2004, 09:35 PM

Oh yeah. And you know that little headache and the voice of denial in the back of your head you get after reading long philosophical posts? Maybe thats a defence mechanism to hide the truth. Who knows, i may have been close, lol.