From: nospam@buzz.off
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 02:16:14 -0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Borax Man
:
>["Followup-To:" header set to alt.philosophy.]
>On 2025-04-14, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 09:31:04 -0700, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Ron Hamilton
>>:
>>
>>>On 1/21/2011 10:18 AM, T. Howard Pines, Jr. wrote:
>>>> Coming into existence, or "getting to experience life", is not better
than never
>>>> existing. It can't be, because no such comparison can be made. Nor can
>>>> existence be worse than never existing, for the same reason.
>>>
>>>Correct.
>>>
>> Agreed. While the stated comparison isn't, strictly speaking
>> and AFAIK, a logical fallacy, it *is* an error in logic.
>
>Does it not follow then we could only ever experience the state of
>existing?
>
Obviously; experiencing something while not existing would
seem to be a bit difficult.
>
> If this is the case, then any possible state of the unverse,
>where we can exist, will be what we experience.
>
"...where we can exist"? Nope, only where we *do* exist.
>
> That is to say, we can
>never 'not exist' as long as thier is even the remotest possibility of a
>universe, any universe, where we exist in it.
>
If we exist anywhere then we exist, regardless of the
probability of a particular universe. You seem to strive for
obfuscation; I'd ask if you have a point, but since you set
followups to alt.philosophy, which I don't read (I read the
OP in sci.skeptic, as you can see above) I guess we're
finished.
>
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
