About Me

!nversed Poignancy!

...I am an eclectic amalgamation of many seemingly paradoxical things. This can be exemplified in both my seemingly endless persistance on many topics and arguments, as well as my careful cautiousness on other topics and arguments. This is largely due to how astute I am of the topic: more knowledge, more persistant; less knowledge, obviously more cautious. I also have times of obsessive compulsions regarding certain things (mostly just my thoughts, however)...

Life and Death

!nversed Poignancy!

Life

An assembly

Possibly impossible

Perfectly interchangeable..

Death

That lives most upright

Beyond the unspoken

Neither a squiggle nor a quibble..

She and Me

!nversed Poignancy!

She

A daffodil

Tyrannizer of me

Breaking the colors of dusk!..

Me

The rising sun

Infringed with violations

The impurity in the salt..

Love and Poetry!

!nversed Poignancy!

Love

A puerile desire

Buried in the heart

Never leaves..

Poetry

Sentimentally melodramatic

Cursively recursive

My thoughts idiotic!

Looking up,
he saw a plane
approaching, and
wondered who
it could be.
| | edit post

Dreaming..

Scribbled by Bharath C On May 12, 2007 0 Thoughts have been Sprinkled!, Your Take?
We sit together
Talking, Laughing,
Watching the sun shine
Above the serene ocean.
Holding hands, So happy
You are as I am with you,
I never want it to end.
Your eyes sparkle
Like precious diamonds
As you smile sweetly,
Looking at me,
I look back, staring
Into the face of an angel.
Oh no! All is black and
You are gone, I awake
Finding it was all a dream.

-!nversed Poignancy!

We start with zero probability of life after death and then see what evidence for it is before us.

The above illustration shows us that for us to make the conclusion that there is life after death, only one type of evidence for it has to be true. To conclude that there is no life after death, every one of the different types of evidence have to be false (this makes it even more important to evaluate each of the different types of evidence independently of each other and without bias); and yet we still would not be able to absolutely make the conclusion since there may be another type(s) of evidence we do not know about or that evidence does not necessarily have to be revealed to us for there to be life after death.

Taking the illustration, one step further, we can ask statistically, what are the odds that there is life after death (LAD)?

Probability (as a decimal fraction) there is LAD = 1 - (Probability there is no LAD)

= 1 - (a x b x c x d x e,...etc.)

Where a,b,c,d,e,etc. are independent of each other and represent as fractions the likelihood that each of the various types of evidence for LAD are NOT TRUE. And (a x b x c x d x e,...etc.) are the fractional probabilities multiplied by each other. Let us do a calculation using the LAD Top 11 from above:

"1." = a = 1-0.95 = 0.025

"2." = b = 1-0.95 = 0.05

"3." = c = 1-0.95 = 0.05

.

.

.

"11." = k = 1-0.10 = 0.90

Probability of No LAD = 0.025 x 0.05 x 0.05 x 0.10 x 0.15 x 0.50 x 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.80 x 0.90 x 0.90

= 1.9 x 10-7

= 2 in 10 million

= 1 in 5 million

Probability of LAD = 1 - 1.9 x 10-7

= 0.9999998 = 99.99998 %

Note: I have used values that I personally believe to be representative; though liberal, in my opinion, in favour of no LAD (ie. erring on the side of no LAD). Most of the people who would be considered the worlds leading researchers and scholars in any of these areas would, in private and 'off the record' at least, give a higher probability for their (chosen) area being evidence for survival of consciousness than I have. Therefore, if we were to take a representative sample for each of the 11 evidence types from 11 separate groups of these experts and then do the preceding calculation with the values each group would assign, I would expect the probability of life after death would come out higher than 99.99998%. You, the reader may substitute any numbers from 0 to 1 in the calculation based upon your personal evaluations (to try to ensure independence, input parameter values as if have no knowledge of other types of evidence) and any number of evidence types you believe to be relevant. If I had used more than the eleven types of evidence I did in the calculation, then the odds in favour of LAD would be a bit higher (though not so much that they would be increased by an order of magnitude).

We need to be aware that if there is alien or inter-dimensional being manipulation (no matter how improbable this being the case might be) of the evidence (in whole or in part unless it was for only one evidence type manipulated or fabricated) for an afterlife, then these evidence types would no longer be independent of one another and this probability calculation would no longer hold up.

For curiosity (although it does not tell us the probability of life after death), let us estimate the probability that all of the 11 different evidence types mentioned above are all true:

Probability they are all true = 0.975 x 0.95 x 0.95 x 0.90 x 0.85 x 0.50 x 0.20 x 0.20 x 0.20 x 0.10 x 0.10

= 2.7 x 10-5

= 1 in about 40,000

= Which works out to a very low probability even though with the very same inputs the probability of life after death is extremely high - this is because throughout we have treated each evidence type as being independent of one another.

Anyone who inputs "1" above for any of the evidence types (ie. 100% probability that particular evidence type shows there is life after death) is either bringing some faith into it and/or has some special knowledge in the area which some may potentially have. The same applies even more so for someone entering zero (ie. 0% probability that particular evidence type shows there is life after death) - as it cannot be done scientifically and rationally and would require some sort of special knowledge to do so (I do not see how anyone could be in possession of such for most if not all the evidence types). Entering zero might also be improperly done by individuals who even know nothing or virtually nothing about that particular type of evidence.

Not knowing of this analysis, atheists would simply answer zero for all the evidence types but that is where their irrational bias would be clearly exposed for to do so would require a special knowledge and understanding of these evidence types which no one I can see on earth possessing in the negative. Mere mortals, no matter how dismissive they are of the particular evidences, would still have to input numbers greater than zero (such as 0.01, 0.005, 0.02, etc.; though the odd zero could still be rationally inputed). They may end up with say a 5 to 10% chance of life after death but their atheist belief system would be no longer (mathematically and logically at least).

However if they had read this analysis prior and understood how it worked, one would have to get them to answer to each of these evidence types separately to get their honest opinions (though this probably would not still work) otherwise they would probably be clever (but not honest and objective) and input very small numbers close to zero and some zeros to get their probability of life after death estimate as low as possible and yet rationally still plausible - so as to be as close as possible to zero probability of life after death as they can get away with.

The ancient problem was how to model modality, Parmenides' world was necessary through and through, no contingency: if only what existed existed then it necessarily existed, was the intuition. All there is is the set of actual things. Possible worlds modelling, Leibniz, Frege, showed how to formalize necessity, contingency, possibility, impossibility by designating all actual things in all possible worlds. Modal realism of Lewis is thus nominalist strategy (slightly ironic since nominalism aspires to ontological austerity). Alternatively Plantinga claims that we can be actualists (only the actual world exists) and can still have a metaphysics of modality by positing that (or is it having a revelation that?) immaterial, mind- and matter-independent Platonic entities, such as essences, properties, propositions and states of affairs, are taken to exist in addition to matter. The nominalists about universals are typically nominalists as well about the philosophy of time: Particulars have temporal parts (are spread across time) just as they have spatial parts. Thus you never really change: we just experience different time-slices of you. Like all particulars, on this view you are a spacetime worm. That's how the omniscient god sees you, looking down on all of time spread before him like a plane: you're a spaghetti-like thing stretched across it. Notice this parallels the way you are smeared out across possible worlds on the nominalist view. On this view, all points in time are equally real (like all points in space).
The Platonists hold that objects in time are wholly present at each moment in time. They identify the particular with a form ("substance") and thus have no problem about the identity of the particular changing because constituent matter is changing. For the same reason they have no problem with holding that only the present moment exists (Aristotle in a nominalist mood argued that only present moments did not exist, as "moments" are conventional boundaries of divisible amounts of time, and so past times are bounded by past moments, future times are bounded by future moments, and "present" time periods are bounded by one past moment and one future moment.)
The problem of fate is really just a version of the problem of modality. It's really more a problem about the present than the future. Notice that both the Platonist and the nominalist claim to offer solutions to the problem: they both claim they can explain what we mean when we talk about necessity, contingency, and probability. But both schools have to adapt and revise to do it. Nominalists initially insist that only concrete particular things exist, and later develop modal realism to try to avoid the fatalistic implications of their original position. Platonists initially insist that eternal and unchanging Platonic entities shape the material world, and later try to adapt this ontology to account for modality.
So one question is, which feels freer, the nominalist view of time or the Platonist view of time? (Nominalist view is "B-series" re McTaggert, Platonist view "A-series"; that is, B-series refers to the model of time as a dimension, with all points equally real, while A-series sees time as moving through the present). Nominalist says tenses are indexicals. Platonist says tenses are metaphysically significant.
I've got a strange funny feeling inside of me
that you are going to leave me
one of these days
but I don't want you to leave
I don't want you to let me
be here all alone
baby baby don't go away
baby baby don't leave me alone

I love you so
I need you too
don't go don't go

I've got a peculiar funny feeling about you
is it really so that you must go
I don't know what to do
with or without you
we have been together since
we were young
we have been together always
you and me
I want you to stay with me
baby baby you have to understand
baby baby don't let me down
baby baby you know that I am your man

I've got a strange evil funny feeling inside
that is tearing me apart
and ripping deep into my heart and mind
if it is like the way I think
then you have to tell me the truth straight away
and don't behave like everything
is like in the good old times we once had
because it makes me want to drink and drink
to make me forget
I want you to know that I love you
and that there is nobody else
I will do everything for you
baby baby tell me what to do
baby baby show me what you like
baby baby let us have a new life
become my wife
What's the price of living,
What's the price of dying,
Give me the price of the door
to another world...

Rupees three on a log,
to a shake-and-bake
death on a stick,
smoking up your life
with a glass of brandy
in your hands..

Payment in my wallet
back-pay or payback
for a life full of misery
past-time in a bar
killing time, killing mind
with too many drinks.
Bookmark and Share