X-Message-Number: 17328 Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:45:12 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: Replies to Louis Epstein #17317 > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Message #17290 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:35:57 -0700 > > From: Mike Perry <> > > > >... > > I think in fact that our existences form a very important part of > > reality as a whole, ... > > which is not subsumed or rendered insignificant by some other vast > > mentality. > >Relative to the infinite,anything finite >is insignificant. I doubt if there is any infinite mentality. > > >Bodily existence has to be continuous and non-migratory! > > > > I feel so much relief at not being bound to that principle! And sorry for those that are! >Is Gale still with Alcor? >I know the Chamberlains and Mondragon >and Bridge are and Darwin is not. I'll have to check before commenting--confidentiality and all that. >... > > I am sure that, with euthanasia legalized, there will be cases of > > people being pressured, subtly or maybe more openly, to avail > > themselves of it and rid the world of their presence. But anybody > > so pressured could stand firm on his/her legal rights and not submit. > >But typically those who are >pressured to drop dead are >fading physically and mentally. >If the presumption can be made >that "if he were of sound mind >he'd want to die rather than go >on living in his condition" becomes >respectable,staying alive is not >much of a legal right any more. I'm sure that difficult cases will come up, but there will surely be much concern to make sure the patient wanted the choice that was made. > > >What is comforting about realizing that one is completely helpless? > > >To me it robs existence of meaning. > > > > It doesn't do that for me because again I can't sense the "restraint", if > > you call it that. > >But if you are intellectually certain >that the higher truth is that you >are only imagining yourself to have >any choices...how can you attach >importance to illusory choice? It simply doesn't bother me if on a certain level I don't have choices. For instance, if I have to choose, say, between buying a book or seeing a movie, I will try to anticipate the advantages and disadvantages of each course of action. And I will arrive at a conclusion based on this thinking. An advanced computer modeling my brain might indeed arrive at the same conclusion I would, and it might be an entirely predictable device. So what? My choice is free in the sense that I would be able to make it (that is either buy the book or see the movie, depending on what I'd decided). For me that's enough. It causes no worry whatever that the choice might be perfectly explainable or even predictable if you knew enough about my brain beforehand. Why should it? > > >As long as there's a God,there's a cause for all effects. > > > > But invoking this, basically an animistic position, is contrary to the > > scientific viewpoint on cause and effect. To me the multiverse is the cause > > for all effects, but this is entirely consistent with a scientific > > worldview, an advantage, as I see it, over the God hypothesis. > >To me,"the multiverse" is something that >by nature must have a cause,and God must >necessarily be that cause. To me the multiverse itself could just as well be uncaused. If not, how do you know "God" is uncaused? Only because by definition God (you say) is the infinitely first cause. To me there's no good evidence that there's anything beyond or outside the multiverse (indeed, many would doubt there is anything outside our own universe), and there I rest my case. >... >(Are you referring to a series of >universal oscillations,a Many-Worlds >collection,or what?) The multiverse is just all that exists, which would certainly include our own, observable universe, together with (I think) other universes besides our own. So basically, like you say, a many-worlds collection. The Everett many-worlds theory would provide this, but there could be other universes even without it. >... >You look at the "multiverse" and ask >"Why?",and "God" is a sufficient answer; >"Because!" is a nonsensical answer. If that's how you feel, let's take the argument one step further and ask of "God," why? All you can answer is "because." It seems to me that the multiverse is at least a viable candidate for an infinitely first cause. Yet it's mindless as far as we can tell. It thus constitutes a major impediment to the theory that there is a God with traditional attributes such as consciousness. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17328