Inductive Proof of the Afterlife? Maybe… maybe not…

Inductive Proof of the Afterlife? Maybe… maybe not…

If you started thinking about this whole idea, and you ended up getting stuck in a logical loop that you cannot escape, then I have succeeded. Many people cl…

27
Like
Save

Comments

Frank F says:

I mean your sense experience is one thing and that can be imagined. But
that wich your senses are interpretating is something else.. right?

SomethingSeaVlog says:

Ah. Thank you. I have been dealing entirely with just #1 for most of the
time so far. I am ignoring #2 and #3. So, 1 and 2 are the premises, and 3
is the conclusion. Focusing on #1, why does “it can not happen” follow from
“an event [that] is impossible to imagine happening”? Namely, why can’t an
event happen if you can’t imagine it? I know I’ve already asked this, but
perhaps you could humor it again anyway. Do you have transitional supports
for it, or do you assume it to be so?

Stefatropolis says:

pt. III A fish will never be able to comprehend “dryness”, a thing which
will undoubtedly bring about the fish’s demise, if allowed to continue too
long. It is precisely “dryness” which is entirely outside a fish’s
comprehension. The fish will never ponder dryness, never contemplate
dryness, never imagine dryness. By extension, consciousness will never
imagine non-consciousness, because, like the fish, it’s the one thing
consciousness can’t experience.

AndroidDoctorr says:

Wait. Actually, it’s even worse than that. The whole idea of “imagining
your non-existence” doesn’t make any sense because it’s self-contradictory.
What are you trying to imagine? What it would feel like? What your
experience of non-existence would be? By definition your non-existence
would mean there is nothing to experience or feel, so what is there to
imagine? And anyway, I CAN imagine myself not existing. I can imagine
historical events during which I was not yet conscious. Mega fail.

npage85 says:

1. If an event is impossible to imagine happening, then it can not happen.
2. It is impossible to imagine yourself ceasing to exist. 3. Therefore, it
is impossible for you to cease to exist.

haterdesaint says:

The order of my comments is labeled at the beginning of each, (1), (2) and
(3), because you tube post them in order of the time they were posted, so
they seem like 3,2,1 so follow the order to understand my points. Respect!

ghosty1490 says:

u cant go off thing like this because there can be things that exist but we
dont have the sences 2 pick them up like colors if u look at a scientific
color chart not a 1st grade list of colors there are colors we can not see
so when u say if u cant think of it its not possible thats not true because
the other colors are there but u cant see them or imagen them in any way.
but if anything this just helps the proof that there is an afterlife

rbairos1 says:

Are you confusing the ability to currently imagine yourself not existing at
some futre date, with the ability to (at some future date) imagine yourself
currently not existing? Those are two entirely different statements. (A) is
entirely possible. I currently imagine myself not existing in 1784 AD, nor
in 2523 AD. (B) is in fact impossible, for to imagine requires something
that is doing the imagining. No one disputes (B) but your logic rests on
(A) which is false. (cont)

Mike32587 says:

@forsakengamez Obviously it’s still working because you are still alive in
the morning. But you can not perceive anything between the time you fell
asleep and when you wake up. So it is like nothingness because you perceive
the time passing almost instantaneously. Try to remember the exact time you
fall asleep. You can’t.

Bryton Schwartz says:

@Thephilism ceasing to exist is existing and then not existing. not
existing is just… not existing. just because he made a mistake in wording
doesn’t make his argument false

SomethingSeaVlog says:

Cause A (God) makes the effect B (the universe. Cause A is unimaginable;
effect B is imaginable. But this is a reversal of your argument, where A is
unimaginable instead of imaginable. Huh!

Frank F says:

If something happens that we can´t imagine, then we would not know about it
How can u falsify this. Problem is that if you in fact cease to exist, then
that would be something happening that is impossible to imagine, so the
first premise can be false we dont know

SomethingSeaVlog says:

Basically, how the fuck can I get to falsifiability without invalidating
the falsification? By the nature of unimaginability, Intent and Ability to
create an experiment is deemed and made impossible. “It is also possible to
demonstrate that cause A has a necessary effect that is impossible to
imagine(which would make it B).” How is it possible to demonstrate
something that you cannot demonstrate? Cause A (The universe) … oh
wait… I think I might see what you’re getting at.

SomethingSeaVlog says:

“If an event is impossible to imagine happening, then it can not happen.” I
think it might contain a flaw.

SomethingSeaVlog says:

Yes, and I think the whole thing is interesting. The first problem consists
of not being able to give examples of B, essentially leaving us to
semantics to think in, rather than objects to think with. The second
problem is that, in not having something to Look To, as a means of being
able to cause the conditions to make experiments for, you must essentially
wait for such an unimaginable event to happen, thereby making it imaginable
– but as it is not imaginable, it no longer is applicable…

Frank F says:

“No… but if what I mean by “imagine an object” is defined as “imagining
the experience of the object,” then we are really just talking about
semantics, not logic. ” This is your comment and that indicated that it was
your definition of imagining an event A

MysteryGardenProd says:

I would go from the point: Everything you CAN imagine, must exist…you
cannot imagine what you dont know at all….

npage85 says:

Can I imagine what my senses are experiencing? Is that your question?
Yeah… by imagining what I’m experiencing. It’s almost tautological.
There’s no way for you to *not* be able to imagine that which your senses
are experiencing.

TomConger says:

The theory of relativity explains that we are constantly moving through our
four dimensions at light speed… any velocity at which you travel through
space is taken away from the velocity at which you travel through time
(since the four together must equal light speed). Relative to the earth, I
have no velocity, so I am traveling at light speed through time, relative
to the earth. But yeah, we hardly know anything, as a species, yet. Totally
agree with you there.

xx13moons says:

I was interested in this, and right away, fail. Your premise, “if an event
is impossible to imagine happening, then it cannot happen.” False. Quantum
Physics will testify to the contrary right away. Three words; Wave Function
Collapse. Can you imagine that? Can anyone or anything? Also, Quantum
Entanglement. These realities cannot be imagined, and can ONLY be alluded
to through mathematics.

Hyardacil says:

Nope. I disagree with both premises.

BigAtheist says:

The hubris of your assumption is astounding. You have now constrained
reality to human imagination as if the human imagination is infinite and
all encompassing and is fully capable of understanding every thing possible
as well as all the BS we make up that is not possible. admittedly you are
smitten with the novelty of the argument and how you can’t come up with an
example of where it is wrong. BTW visualization of in more than 3D is
beyond our capabilities and is considered possible.

LoggerMcKnocker says:

I know that, it almost appears that you are applying that, due to your
title. I understand your entire premise. That is, what ever you do, your
imagination is inevitable as long as it is in the context of reality.
Nevertheless, it is continuous and practically has no limitations…
Because all of this occurs when you are “A MORTAL.”

npage85 says:

“Your saying imagination alone is a persons soul???” — No.

kitrana says:

i can imagine my own non existence. wanna know how? blank my mind. it wasnt
easy to learn how to do and i dont like doing it because it is a hard
feeling to snap out of. not blackness not whiteness not white noise in my
head but nothing. no thought no anything. if i did this in a sensory
deprivation tank then for that period i may as well have ceased to exist.
and by that logic i can imagine my own non existence.

haterdesaint says:

(1) Let´s see, have you ever been unconscious sir? Have you ever been on a
crash car accident, and woke up 3 days later, without remembering anything?
Can you imagine being unconscious?… NO you CAN´T You can imagine your
body lying in a hospital bed, sure, or your body laying on the street with
people crying around you, BUT, you can´t imagine the feeling of
unconsciousness. Why not? because being unconscious mean being not aware of
your senses!

Nick Alvarez says:

If, for something to be impossible it must be inconceivable from *all*
PsOV, then does the same condition hold for something to be possible? I
think it has to, for consistency’s sake. If so… Can you define the set of
*all* points of view? Does the POV of goldfish count (if so then it seems
nothing is conceivable at all)? Do only humans count and is there a
principled reason for limiting the set to humans? What about babies or
mentally challenged folk (the same issue with the goldfish arises)?

NoCreatorRequired says:

If even the remotest possibility that you cannot exist is allowed for then
1 of your 2 points must be false. If your 2nd point is true then we can use
it to refute your 1st. A thing that is impossible to imagine happening is
for you to not exist and if non-existence is a possibility your 1st point
must be false. The only way your 1st point can be true is to make the
unqualified assumption that it is impossible to not exist and therefore
your conclusion is circular reasoning.

UTo098 says:

Thats all good as well but there is no way to prove String Theory, so this
comment has no point!

npage85 says:

@dashpowers22: “does the same condition hold for something to be possible?”
— No. My premise doesn’t make the claim. My premise is that all events
which are impossible to imagine are impossible to happen. A logically
equivalent statement using the word “possible” would be “All events which
are possible to happen are possible to imagine.” For something to be
“possible to imagine” it is only required to be imaginable from *at least*
one POV.

Th0usandMaster says:

@adirm18 …. totally irrelevant to what i’m saying i never argue that your
point is wrong so repeating your point is kinda useless, are you arguing
with a ghost? i wonder

dootdbc says:

Don’t say proof when you are only making an argument from inductive
reasoning.

UTo098 says:

Good point, but I thought where were talking about the string theory witch
suggested there is something like 14 dimensions or was it 12 anyway +
membranes and link with M theory challenges what we think we know about a
great deal of thing include e=mc2 and the Theory of relativity.

Nick Alvarez says:

Interesting. 1) Can you give a reason why your requirement (that it must be
imaginable from *all* POVs) is not ad hoc? 2) Can you account for these two
scenarios without begging the question? Last Man Alive: He can imagine me
not existing (since it’s actual) and I am not alive to fail to imagine
myself not existing. Simon the Newborn: We can all imagine him not existing
but he is not able to (lacks the cognitive ability to) fail to imagine
himself not existing.

tetsuocloud says:

Descartes thought God could even do what is logically impossible

niinja2 says:

@Mike32587 “then you can have some idea of what nothingness is like” if
your trying to imagine what “nothingness” is like you are imagining
something already

TheUnquestionable0 says:

One can not imagine ones self in a dreamless sleep, its just like trying to
imagine ones self not existing, there is no preseption of experiance.
Therefore, dreamless sleep must be impossible……wait a minute….

mickdornfad says:

according to this argument you will exist forever therefore god can not
stop you from existing, therefore he is not all powerful

Mike32587 says:

This is a poor argument imo. If you’ve ever had a dreamless sleep then you
can have some idea of what nothingness is like. you feel as though you’ve
waken up almost as instantly as you fell asleep yet several hours have
passed.

npage85 says:

“My question: Is not existing an event?” — No… the event is a transition
where the first state is you existing, and the second state is you not
existing. “then since it is impossible for you to imagine yourself not
existing, you must have never not existed.” — No… because like I have
pointed out to other people, an event “being impossible to imagine” is
defined in my argument as the *second* state being impossible to imagine.
So… yeah.

RyuDarragh says:

Point #1 simply shows a failure of imagination. “Believe six impossible
things before breakfast” – L. Carrol. I, personally, have imagined things
as being impossible. Yet, they happen anyway.. more commonly than “MY GOD!”
is the statement “That’s IMPOSSIBLE!” by people witnessing their
“impossibility”. The real refutation is I am telling you, nothing is beyond
imagining. This cannot be disproven, either.

npage85 says:

@dashpowers22: 1) I said that it must be *impossible* to imagine from all
POVs to fit my argument. You are still straw-manning me. The reason it
isn’t Ad Hoc is because it is what my premise says. 2) Sure. The Last Man
Alive can’t possibly imagine your consciousness not existing since it is
subjective. He knows not what it is in the first place, therefore he can’t
possibly imagine it not being there. We can’t imagine Simon not existing
for the same reason. 😉 I’ve handled these all before…

MagicHandedAlex says:

so you are basicly saying, an event we have NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of proving
wrong, because it consists an oxymoron, that the afterlife exists? This is
the same as saying “if all the people in the world closed their eyes, would
the sky disappear?” this is ofcourse while all recording equipment is
turned off. same type of argument

Comments are disabled for this post.