What resurrects, the person or a perfect copy?

by JH 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

frenchbabyface

Sorry here a word can change what I wanted to say read : any way instead of otherwise

Well maybe if I say that God says that he can destroy us forever means that "any way" their is a continuity somewhere somehow of each individual ... (if you believe in the story) and again the re-creation is only related to the body (which would be a copy anyway)
Phantom Stranger

Actually, I've just been informed by the Justice Department that resurrection is being viewed as a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and anyone who is resurrected will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Thanks for the props, Mav.
frenchbabyface

the quantum is related to the energy and the timeline not to the entity (it means what it means) the entity have to exist to get the energy and to be manipulated in the timeline
AlanF

Phantom Stranger said:
: A more precise rendering of the uncertainty principle is: "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa."
Quite right. My rendition was deliberately less technical since it's safe to assume that most readers of this thread don't know what things like "h-bar" are.
: The fundamental question that I haven't read an answer to here is this: If you have two identical items, by definition you can't tell them apart. If one of these items is somehow tagged "original" and one is tagged "copy", then they are not identical.
Well I think you're mixing up internal properties with external properties. Since it's pretty obvious that no two macroscopic objects can occupy the same place at the same time, objects that are internally identical must occupy different spaces. By "internally identical" I mean "identical irrespective of external circumstances", so that a copy examined in identically the same circumstances as the original would be indistinguishable from it. This is in principle, since in practice no one but an infinitely controlling "God" could do such an examination. But remember that most everything we're talking about is "in principle", i.e., a thought experiment. I hope that all this is intuitively clear.
So in terms of my examples, where "God" or whatever creates a bunch of identical copies of an intelligent, thinking human being at some point in time, these copies are by definition "internally identical". Of course, at the moment of creation they will realize that their location has apparently changed instantaneously with respect to that of the original, and so each copy will have an internal record of the fact that it is a copy -- even though it most likely would not realize the fact of copying and would attribute it to the usual "brain glitches" we all experience from time to time. In other words, from an instant beyond the moment of creation, an intelligent copy would contain a bit of information that distinguishes it from the original. The original would have no such glitch. So this is another, and internal way that the original would be tagged "original" and the copy tagged "copy". But not at the instant of creation, since that would violate our assumption of "identical at the instant of creation".
: The problem lies in the wording, perhaps. If you can actually create an identical copy of something, that copy, by nature of its indenticalness, would be indistinguishable from the original.
Exactly.
: If they are truly identical, you have no way of saying that you have one original and one copy.
Not so. The "God" who created them would always know which was which. And if we mere mortals observed the process, we would also know. We would just have to keep an eye on them.
: Instead, you have two originals.
That, by definition, is impossible. It's like saying that 1 = 2, because an original is unique -- one of a kind.
: Which is all so much wanking, except that it illustrates what happens when you try to talk about everyday impossible events using language designed to talk about everyday possible events. This sort of thing is really the realm of higher mathematics, which is to say, it's not for this board:)
I disagree. Most participants are quite capable of following these arguments, and can relate them to their JW experience very well.
Maverick said:
: Alan F's points are all correct, and my trying to simplify quanta was probably not the best illustration to use.
Fair enough.
: But I will say Phantom Stranger put it all together very well.
Well... You'll have to deal with my above comments.
: The only way you could "tag" the orginial from the copy is that it was in existence first.
Precisely the point. And since the "God" who we speculate could create perfectly identical copies in the first place could also perfectly keep track of the original and all copies, there's no problem, even in principle. God would always know which is the original and which are the copies.
: And at this point to sum up this question as I see it, I believe if I am resurrected, I'll keep this to just me...OK Alan, ....I'll be the same person I am now!
Fair enough.
: I like my verson better than Alan's because in mine I get to live again and not some copy that is not really me!
Let me give you a very personal illustration of why I think this is bunk. My parents are dyed-in-the-wool, thoroughly braindead JWs. My step-dad loves my mom dearly and she returns the favor. Nearing their 80s, and in poor health, they know very well that they're going to die before "Armageddon" comes along and saves them from death. They've been hoping for the 35 years they've been together that Armageddon would come before they die, so that they'd stay together forever. But no such luck. They now think that "in the resurrection" they're going to be together and will live a happy life together forever. But they've forgotten a very important point: at best, a copy of my stepdad will live happily forever with a copy of my mom, because the originals will be gone forever. How sad that they've been living for this lie for so many years, and have trashed what could have been good, loving relationships with their sons (or stepsons) who would truly love them if given the opportunity.
: So enjoy this life my friend because if your right, this is all you get!
Truer words were never spoken. And there's a great deal of comfort in this, even if you can't see it. But that's fodder for another thread.
AlanF
Maverick

Alan..Alan...what is this need to have the last word and be absolutely right at all cost? Are you that fragile a person?
First, your whole premise of multiple copies is silly! It was a paradox without foundation in anything but your own mind! And just because you say that I am wrong unless I can disprove it is groundless.
Second, why would God perpetrate such a fraud. How would that serve Him or us? If the person brought back is not the same person, why do it at all?
Third, were you like this as a dud? Were you one of those pain-in-the-ass know it alls that people were afraid to have a conversation with because if they said anything that was not 100% accurate to your exacting standards you would hammer them about it until they cried UNCLE?
Get a life, pal!
And to show you that I'm a reasonable fellow, and care about the mental health and feelings of others who have very delicate egos....To all the readers of this board, Everything Alan F has said is right, and everything I have said is wrong. There Alan... it's on record, are you happy now, my poor to be pitied friend? Maverick
frenchbabyface

Maverick :
you are one of the most "funy" and "smart" and "aware" guy on this boardI've told you already on 2 personnal PM's
I just don't understand why you are reacting like that (but I don't care) I love you anyway
and about that :
Everything Alan F has said is right, and everything I have said is wrong
I just don't know Mav ... Cause in fact you may be right if god does exist and is able to do something that we are not able to understand today ... just no proof that is it ... but still we can talk about the fact that their is no proof ...
Whatever ... I don't want to loose any of potiential INTERESTING FRIENDS because of debates ... And I know how I can be when it's come to debating (Oh la la - sometimes I have to force myself to NOT answer) ... To me it is just interesting and even sometimes helpful to debate : I'm ready to take a slap when I do - cause I know I can be wrong - but wathever It's good for me take slaps and remember every single day who I am, means someone who can fail at any time. But I'll shut up myself JUST FOR YOU for a while if you ask me to ... I NEED YOU !!!
AlanF

Maveriack lamented:
: Alan..Alan...what is this need to have the last word and be absolutely right at all cost? Are you that fragile a person?
Ah, a standard last refuge of someone who knows his cherished beliefs have been proved false. Ad hominem all the way.
Let me clue you in about something: I spend time on this because I care about truth. I don't want to see people who ought to know better going through life hanging onto pipe dreams. It decreases the quality of life immensely and distorts human relationships unnecessarily. I engage in such discussions for the same reason I deal with any other JW issue on which I have solid information.
: First, your whole premise of multiple copies is silly! It was a paradox without foundation in anything but your own mind!
Not so. Whether you have one copy, ten or a million, it makes no difference. JW-style resurrection is impossible in principle, but re-creation of a copy is possible. The point of talking about multiple copies is to eliminate the argument that "it's the original because God says so."
I know about these arguments because some years ago I argued your position, but a very patient person led me through the proper arguments and demonstrated to me what I've just demonstrated to you.
: And just because you say that I am wrong unless I can disprove it is groundless.
Oh? I've given what I think is an unassailable demonstration that you're wrong. Yet you see no need to give (and obviously can't find) any reasonable counterarguments. What does that say about your position? Obviously that it's one of pure faith. But pure faith is worthless. You can believe that spirits reside in trees by pure faith.
: Second, why would God perpetrate such a fraud. How would that serve Him or us? If the person brought back is not the same person, why do it at all?
I suppose you'll have to ask God. Assuming, of course, that he'll answer you.
Actually this thread demonstrates that the JW notion of a resurrection is nonsense. It says nothing about the standard Christian notion, which because of the notion of immortality of the soul doesn't suffer from the continuity problem. It simply shows that yet another JW teaching is pure bunk. But if one insists that this bunk is completely according to the Bible, then one is forced to admit that the Bible is bunk.
: Third, were you like this as a dud? Were you one of those pain-in-the-ass know it alls that people were afraid to have a conversation with because if they said anything that was not 100% accurate to your exacting standards you would hammer them about it until they cried UNCLE?
More pure ad hominem. But I'll bite. The Internet didn't exist when I was a JW, and no discussion forums existed. And normally, unless someone comes on a discussion board -- which is explicitly designed for discussion -- I don't challenge people on their beliefs. But really, Maverick, if you can't stand to see your cherished notions challenged, then why put yourself through this unnecessary pain? Just go away and bask in your certain knowledge based on pure faith.
: And to show you that I'm a reasonable fellow, and care about the mental health and feelings of others who have very delicate egos....To all the readers of this board, Everything Alan F has said is right, and everything I have said is wrong. There Alan... it's on record, are you happy now, my poor to be pitied friend?
I think that you've given readers a good picture of how fragile your faith-based notions are, with these statements. Your misplaced condescension is simply breathtaking. This is why a lot of ex-JWs want nothing to do with religion. I thought you knew better, but it's evident that most believers, when challenged, strike out with the only thing they have left -- personal attacks.
AlanF
plmkrzy

we are all tiny little turds floating in space.
Phantom Stranger

mav, AlanF, you're both being childish. This is a fricking discussion board!
mav, if you take things here personally, you shouldn't.
AlanF, if your only motivation was to serve others, methinks your delivery would be a bit different. Turn the righteousness down a few clicks, please. As if this question could be definitvely answered on a discussion board!
You are both valued on this board, and you are both good people - now go have a beer and ...let...it...go.
AlanF

I have no idea what you're talking about, Phantom Stranger. Perhaps you could explain yourself.
Do keep in mind that I have not engaged in any personal attacks, unlike Maverick.
And unless you can explain yourself, I'll have to consider your remarks a personal attack, since they have no bearing on the topic of this thread.
AlanF

What resurrects, the person or a perfect copy?

Share this