Hi Maverick,
: The point here was, if you are brought back to life by God are you the same you, or are you a copy. Alan F, a great and very smart fellow, used the reasoning that you would be a copy. And if multiple copies would be set side by side they all would think they were you.
I agree that they would.
: I used quantum theory to show that there is no need to have a continuation of timeline for a person to be the same person.
Not at all. I briefly commented that you had misused quantum theory, but you haven't addressed anything. I suspect that your understanding of quantum theory is what you've gotten from popular works, which is not necessarily representative of physicists' understanding. Se here we go.
: In quantum mechantics a particle is in one place and then it is in another place. There is no path between, no line that can be traced from point A to point B. It simply is at A, then at B.
That's incorrect. A particle doesn't simply disappear from one place and then appear in another. Indeed, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is a foundation of quantum mechanics, you can never say, "A particle is in this place." There's always a certain amount of fuzz in measuring both the position and velocity of a particle. Quantum mechanics doesn't even say where a particular particle actually is. What quantum mechanics gives you is a means to find the probability that, when you measure a particle's position, you'll find it in a particular place. What the particle actually does between measurements is not described by quantum mechanics, which simply shows -- as any physicist will tell you -- that the theory is incomplete. Quantum mechanics is not a theory about what things actually are, but about how certain kinds of things behave in terms of practical measurements.
Furthermore, the Uncertainty Principle applies in practice only to extremely tiny particles or assemblages of particles. It applies to dimensions on the order of the size of atoms, and to time scales on the order of the time it takes light to travel across an atom. By the time you get to an assemblage the size of say, a protein molecule, the uncertainty of measurement is so small as to be practically nil. So applying the principle to large objects such as a human being simply shows ignorance of its applicability. While an electron has no problem "tunneling" through a potential barrier, and seems to just disappear from one place and 'magically' reappear in another, macroscopic objects never do that.
: This illustration was used to show that God does work outside the "normal" intuitive realm we occupy.
You used that illustration, but applied quantum mechanics totally wrongly, so you haven't shown anything.
: Alan F gets "stuck" on his multiple copy illustration. And I ask "Why would God do that?" He wouldn't...no reason to. It's a fun paradox but does not answer the question of "are you that resurrected person?"
It certainly does answer the question. If even in principle God could create multiple copies -- and we can hardly limit God in this way -- then it proves that resurrection cannot occur because copies are not originals. One copy is not an original, nor are two, nor three, and so on. God cannot force 2 = 3, nor can he force a copy to be an original. The only way to keep an original around is to keep it around -- which is the definition of continuity.
: I pointed out that we "live" in our brains. All the information we get is transmitted to our brain via nerves. Alan F said I was getting into the metaphysical, not so..nero-science.
I assume you mean "neuro-science".
: We do live inside not outside. All your sense give you data and your brain processes it and there is where you truly exist.
That's true, but it still doesn't answer any of the objections I've raised to your claims. Let's see if you can answer some questions via another illustration.
Suppose we live in an era when medical science can remove a person's brain from the body and plop it into a tank of nutrient material and hook up all kinds of sensors so that the person gets full sensory input. I'm sure we'll agree that the brain in the tank really is the original person, since the brain contains the personality, memories and so forth -- everything that makes the person who he or she is. Then we get God to create ten identical copies of the brain-tank-sensor arrangement -- identical down to the last atom. Then we take a bomb and blow up the original tank and make sure nothing identifiable is left. Are any of the copies the original? Of course not.
With this scenario in mind, suppose a person dies and then God creates ten copies a million years from now, perfectly identical to the original person. Are any of these copies the original person? Of course not.
But suppose God creates just one perfect copy a million years from now. Is this copy the original? Of course not.
: The body you occupy is not all that relevant. So, I feel you could and most likely would be you, if resurrected.
Feeling and showing are rather different things. You can't show that your feeling is right until you show why my above scenario is wrong. Can you do that? I don't think so.
AlanF
