Why we're immortal

[Not The Real JReg]

As for revealing who I am - er, no, not going to do that. But note that unlike you and others, I actually know my stuff.

I don't believe you. There is no evidence that you are a philosopher.

[Red]

Er no, that doesn't prove your point.

Well I wasn't expecting you to see that.

If a very clever man makes an argument, and that clever man is convinced it is a good one, and you are convinced it is total rubbish, then chances are, you're wrong.

Did you even read what I wrote?

I think you've never read Descartes. Which 'discoveries' do you think would force Descartes to change his mind?

Discoveries in quantum mechanics along with biology.

No they don't. Indeed, your comment makes no sense.

And here you show us your complete ignorance of quantum mechanics (and another personal incredulity).

If we knew why they did it, then they would not be 'spontaneously' popping in and out of existence.

Why does that matter? We know why this all works and how (though it's definitely beyond your comprehension).

We know more about this than you may think. They do it without cause even. Teo even explained it. We've known this for years now.

You seem to think you know more about this than actual scientists. That's a good one.

From nothing, nothing comes. If you think otherwise, you believe in magic.

I don't think you understand how insulting this is to physicists.

[Sunflowers]

As for revealing who I am - er, no, not going to do that. But note that unlike you and others, I actually know my stuff.

I don't believe you. There is no evidence that you are a philosopher.

There is, I am just not revealing it to you. You, of course, are a liar. We know that, for you claimed to be a philosopher and yet you don't have access to articles that are behind paywalls do you? Shall we go through this again?

[Not The Real JReg]

There is, I am just not revealing it to you.

Then there is literally no reason why anybody here should believe you when you say that you are a philosopher.

You, of course, are a liar.

Even if that is true, it doesn't change the fact that you haven't presented any evidence that you are a philosopher, and therefore there is no reason for anybody to believe you. Me being a liar would not change that, so bringing it up doesn't prove anything.

We know that, for you claimed to be a philosopher and yet you don't have access to articles that are behind paywalls do you? Shall we go through this again?

Do you have access to those articles?

[Sunflowers]

If a very clever man makes an argument, and that clever man is convinced it is a good one, and you are convinced it is total rubbish, then chances are, you're wrong.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes. You made the banal point that sometimes clever people make mistakes and that it doesn't follow from a clever person saying something that it's true. You seriously think anything I said suggested otherwise? When your doctor tells you you've got cancer do you go away thinking "well, I probably haven't, because experts sometimes make mistakes" (answer: yes, you do, because you're not very bright).

I think you've never read Descartes. Which 'discoveries' do you think would force Descartes to change his mind?

Discoveries in quantum mechanics along with biology.

Oh, 'those'. Which ones? Spell it out.

And here you show us your complete ignorance of quantum mechanics (and another personal incredulity).

Er, I thought recent developments in cheese cake recipes refuted Descartes? If you say otherwise, then you just reveal your ignorance of how to make a cheesecake.

You seem to think you know more about this than actual scientists. That's a good one.

You're quite dim, aren't you? This is a 'philosophy' forum, not a 'science' forum. Descartes' argument is a philosophical argument - that's why we study it in philosophy and why no one studies it in science.

This topic is not a topic in science. And yes, I know considerably more than most scientists do about it. And you. And everyone else on this thread thus far. Sorry about that. Sorry there are people who know more than you do about things.

From nothing, nothing comes. If you think otherwise, you believe in magic.

I don't think you understand how insulting this is to physicists.

No, the claims are philosophical. Physicists would not be insulted by them, for they are metaphysical claims. Don't pretend you're a physicist or know what physicists think. A physicist would be no more insulted by them than a grocer would.

[Red]

I'm gonna respond to this later but lemme just say for the record that you're an idiot. And a total asshole. Or you're trolling.

[Sunflowers]

Then there is literally no reason why anybody here should believe you when you say that you are a philosopher.

yes there is. I am one. You're confusing the fact you don't see reason to believe I am one with there actually not being any reason. The fact I am one gives you reason to believe I am one, even if you're unaware of this.

Even if that is true, it doesn't change the fact that you haven't presented any evidence that you are a philosopher, and therefore there is no reason for anybody to believe you. Me being a liar would not change that, so bringing it up doesn't prove anything.

If someone says they are something, that normally provides others with reason to believe they are that thing. Not in your case, of course, because you're an established liar. But by default, if someone says something, that's reason to believe in the truth of what they say.

I am a philosopher. You think I'm not. But you're not a philosopher, right? And no one else here is. If you were a philosopher, you'd know I was one.

We know that, for you claimed to be a philosopher and yet you don't have access to articles that are behind paywalls do you? Shall we go through this again?

Do you have access to those articles?

Yes, though it depends on which journals my university subscribes to. But yes.

[Sunflowers]

I'm gonna respond to this later but lemme just say for the record that you're an idiot. And a total asshole. Or you're trolling.

No, I'm demonstrably not an idiot. The problem is that you need not to be an idiot to understand the demonstration. And as for being a total asshole - I fail to see how that works, as if I am entirely an asshole then there would be no ass for me to be the hole of. You can't just have a hole. There has to be something it is the hole in. Oh, sorry, 'quantum mechanics' - or perhaps 'biology'- has no doubt refuted me on that. And as for trolling - well, I don't know what that is. But my professional opinion of you is that you're very dim and extraordinarily arrogant and that your asshole makes more valuable contributions to the world than ever your head does.

[Not The Real JReg]

yes there is. I am one. You're confusing the fact you don't see reason to believe I am one with there actually not being any reason. The fact I am one gives you reason to believe I am one, even if you're unaware of this.

I don't believe that there is any reason because you haven't provided any proof that there is a reason.

If someone says they are something, that normally provides others with reason to believe they are that thing.

Prove it.

I am a philosopher. You think I'm not. But you're not a philosopher, right? And no one else here is. If you were a philosopher, you'd know I was one.

Prove it.

[Red]

But my professional opinion of you is that you're very dim and extraordinarily arrogant and that your asshole makes more valuable contributions to the world than ever your head does.

And more than yours too. I feel bad for your waste, as it must be created by an inferior... being.