Hot answers tagged

8

The scientific perspective I observe from other answers here that arguments invoking current science are acceptable. So from a scientific perspective, here are some questions: In your model, the universe is periodic instead of cyclic. Even in cosmologies admitting cyclic big-bangs, to my knowledge, events in the past of the singularity can't affect events ...


5

Identity There is a subtlety that several folks touched on which I would like to spell out: what does it mean for you to be the same as another person who seems like you. You seem to imply that identity is defined by parentage, but that begs the question of how we decide that two people in different spacetime locations are both your parent. It just kicks ...


5

Contemporary philosopher Derek Parfit discussed such a Earth-to-Mars teleportation in his book Reasons and Persons according to reference here: At time 1, there is a person. At a later time 2, there is a person. These people seem to be the same person. Indeed, these people share memories and personality traits. But there are no further facts in the world ...


3

No, reincarnation is not inevitable From a mathematical perspective regarding infinity, the flaw in your reasoning is here: Because the spacetime is infinite there will someday appear a big bang resulting in a universe with the same father and mother I have in this universe (though the circumstance might be different) and they will have a daughter or son. ...


3

What's the flaw in my reasoning, if there is any? You are assuming that the feeling that we are ourselves is entirely a function of the physical state of our body, including our brain. This is a very reasonable assumption but we don't know that it is true. One could argue for example that we are not at one moment the set of impressions we have at that ...


2

Assuming your assumptions, and from a systemic perspective, you might be the product of your organized parts, like a pyramid is the product of an organized set of stones. In such case, for you to reincarnate into you again, the same molecules should be present in the same space at the same time again and again. That would be possible only if nature works in ...


2

My own view is that your argument is probably deductively valid -- or at least it could be made deductively valid without making substantial changes to your apparent meaning -- but unsound. (That is, the conclusion follows from the premises, but one or more of the premises is not true.) Perhaps more importantly, my own opinion aside, I think that all of the ...


2

You might like to consider Samuel Johnson's retort to Berkeley's subjective idealism: "I refute it thus!" * kicks stone *. This has been called the logical fallacy 'appeal to the stone'. But I think calling it a fallacy misses the point, which is that if there are regularities to the physical world which are unaffected by minds, they are ...


1

Recommended reading: Lou Marinoff, Plato, not Prozac. This answer is loosely based on such text. Following your question, you imply that emotions determine what we want. But this is not always so. A great deal of our acts depend on the capability to determine our acts by means of reason, and not due to emotions. Imagine that you feel depressed. In your ...


1

In the commentary to proposition IX of part 3 in Ethics, Spinoza argues that we decide if things or situations are good based on our desire for them. It is to say, the feeling we have that we want something to happen, or to belong to us, is the hint we use to label them good. It is to say, desire comes first and is not the fruit of a conscious decision ...


1

The self in Eastern philosophy is not the same as the western world. It doesn't just refer to personal identity but also a suprasensible reality that is more akin to mind than to matter. In Greek philosophy, it is referred to as nous or the Intellect. Hegel also called it the world soul and soul was often the way the word self was translated into the west. ...


1

This entire argument is problematic. The most obvious problem is that your point 1 presumes that things which are not experience can exist, but then point three, without appropriate justification, rejects the presumption. This is a self-contradiction in your argument, plus unsupported claims. Point 1 ties selfhood to perception/experience, but Hume's own ...


1

Firstly a modern science take on this. Your question suggests an infinite time universe. Which inevitably implies a recurrence of the physical structure that is "you" right now. Just change the assumption to infinite space. What happens then is that your concern about recurrence "billions of years later" becomes RIGHT NOW. Just as for pi: ...


1

What we consider "the same person" is purely conventional. That's Parfit's point about there being nothing in the world that makes either answer to the question true or false. We often say things like this in everyday life: "He wasn't the same person after his traumatic brain injury." Another acquaintance of the person might protest that ...


1

The ONE TRUE ANSWER is: "Nobody really knows for sure!" Nor can they know. That is one aspect of the human situation at this early stage of its evolution. Your task, as an evolving human is to discover REALITY, whatever that may be. You will then probably, since you are human, try to communicate your discoveries to other humans. You will then make ...


1

An Abridged Version of your Original Question is: Is reincarnation inevitable? The Short Answer If reincarnation is inevitable, it is not for the reasons you provided. In your description, you assume that your future physical self would be the same as your current self. However, reincarnation necessitates a different body. Maybe you would be reincarnated ...


1

This doesn't necessarily require a long answer. Based on the following 2 assumptions reincarnation is inevitable. You are nothing more than the matter in your brain and body. The universe lasts for eternity. How reincarnation would manifest itself in that type of universe is at this time untestable and unknowable. However your reasoning is sound.


1

You are making many assumptions about the nature of the Universe and about the nature of human identity, some explicit, some only implied. You say "given" all those Universal assumptions, sure you can build them around your demand for reincarnation. But the likelihood of them all being valid is minuscule. Then, you assume that a carbon-copy of some ...


1

This won't matter if "souls" exist If we assume people have an existence distinct from their bodies (like a "soul"), then your reasoning is irrelevant as reincarnation would depend entirely on what happens to that existence (e.g. where their soul goes). Reincarnation isn't possible if "souls" don't exist If we assume people have ...


1

While your basic concept isn't new (philosophers such as Nietzsche wrote essentially the same) it is not identical with the concept of reincarnation. In your version, the 2nd "you" is an identical copy of the current you. In fact, similar to the Many Worlds theory, there would also be millions of near-identical versions of "you", with a ...


1

There is more than one flaw in your reasoning. There are assumptions there with no evidence that they are true nor even any indication that they are probable: Is space time infinite? Are big bangs cyclical? Is it an exact loop? (Which it has to be for your mother and father to be the same, this also sounds strangely finite) If "circumstances might be ...


1

Plato believes that there is this ideal plane where all the ideas exist and then reality is simply derivation of these ideas. In contemporary English, we use the word "idea" as a synonym for "thought. However, in the Socratic period, the Greek word which we translate as "idea" did not have that meaning. Instead, it had the meaning ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible