Here's proof that souls exist. When a person dies time still passes on him or it doesn't. If time doesn't pass for him...

Here's proof that souls exist. When a person dies time still passes on him or it doesn't. If time doesn't pass for him, he's waiting at the other end of infinity and infinity can't end for him to be on the other side, so this isn't the case. This leaves us with the other alternative, that his soul is still susceptible to change, which means it exists, aka is still alive.

I want your weed

OMG, you're so smart, I'm convinced.

I offer scientific proof and that's all you have as a response?

Good meme.

You just believe that the soul is extracausal. It doubles in the inverse manner, yeah. If there is a discrete "frame rate" as time moves forward, the biological vessel "exists" below the gap between frames, but only if the sense that geometry and structure exist external to time like an instanton is to a Planck fluctuation as the big bang is to its spherical-yet-holographic singularity. It all comes down to expansion and the nature of space vs infinitesimals.

what the fuck are you talking about and how is that connected to my proof?

I should put it another way. The Lorentz effect contracts lengths of objects to a flattened surface. If you stand inside or on the event horizon of a black hole, the universe and any object, including a consciousness, is contracted towards infinity with time dilation and technically confines a space of zero volume, relativistically. The mind and body as they are linked behave in the same way that space and time try to coexist, yet can only do so through the weird physics of the quantum discrete world.

Hahaha I love this thread now. Two people struggling to understand eachother's word salad.

I still don't know what you're saying but consider this: if God exists then souls exist, because he'd want us to be eternal since he is good. You can't disprove the existence of God, so you shouldn't be able to disprove that souls are eternal either.

It's proof that the Buddha is separate from dhamma, because the "soul" is what is standing between us acknowledging that what goes on inside a black hole or into eternity doesn't exist, and the fact that reality can't be acknowledged at all from these places. Having knowledge of what exists and doesn't exist isn't itself real. It's epistemology, and kinda is a subtle indication that a soul exists, by necessity. At least consciousness must exist, but the fact that space and time change and confine consciousness in different ways can tell you a lot more.

>pilot wave is proper interpretation of quantum mechanics
>determinism is true
>universe ends in big crunch
>we eternally cycle living the same life over and over

Everyone here is talking shit lmao

here's a proof that souls don't exist:

if a soul exists it has mass

i eagerly await your measurement of how much a soul weighs

7 grams!

It is scientifically proven that we can't find out what the last 0.10~ percent of the human body is made out of, so even if I accepted your game that souls are material I could answer with that.

>stub your toe something fierce
>you will feel the pain of stubbing your toe again an indefinite number of times
I want the cycle to end.

What an utter train wreck of a thread, my sides are in orbit
No that's how much weed you smoked

So the proof that souls exist is that if they exist time still acts upon them so thy must exist.

I come here for intellectual discourse and his is what I get.
>I chose to open this thread and waste time replying

Which, to clarify, is a proof that your proof is wrong or unjustified.

I was referring to that one experiment where a man supposedly weighed a soul to be 7 grams or so, since they died on his scale.

21 grams faggot

>he's waiting at the other end of infinity and infinity can't end for him to be on the other side, so this isn't the case

Why can't this be the case?

>When a person dies time still passes on him or it doesn't

It does, his body will continue to obey the same laws of nature it did during his life. He can no longer appreciate this fact, because his brain has stopped working, due to death.

>if a soul exists it has mass

This doesn't follow, not everything has mass. What a soul requires is a mechanism via which it interacts with our bodies, this mechanism could utilise any interaction or even an interaction not yet discovered. Of course no such mechanism has been proposed, so we can dismiss the existence of souls as being irrelevant.

Hogwash

Photons say hi.

>Mentioning photons because they're the only massless particle you know of

Get good. Get gluon.

you do know what science is right?

Science is a mean to confirm religion

Theres no need to propose souls.

Come on boys, what problem does the soul solve?

>only seeing the negatives
>being a negative person in general

wasting your one cycle to get things right senpai

Not an argument.

And you don't believe in infinitesimals, do you? See Zeno's paradox.

Sorry, that's Buddhism. Only one way off the Wheel.

>Of course no such mechanism has been proposed,
Eh? I proposed a mechanism here last week. Or it might have been in /x/. No matter.

But why. To me we dont need souls.

great contribution 2 science

My mechanism was a suggestion of an interaction between what might loosely be termed 'spirit', a fluctuation in a quantum field, and the ions in nerve transmissions. Not specifically 'soul'; a much over-used and ill-defined concept. He said.

But what is it? What does it explain

kek
poor logical flow. i don't accept it until you've reconstructed it consistently and symbolically. Descartes couldn't do that, doubt you can.

science is an algorithm for attempting to discerned what truth is based on physical observations alone. religions depend on faith, where as the key to science is to have very little faith in your beliefs and constantly try to dispose them by example. a failure of disproof is the same as finding supporting evidence. finding supporting evidence also supports a particular theory. religion does not have these features, hence setting the two belief systems apart

No, that's the point is there isn't anything infinitesimal for immaterial consciousness to exist substrated by, assuming it was something pointlike. Again it's not like we're going to conclusively prove this, but it's got to start somewhere and this would be a good example as a thought experiment leading up to it

I go even further and say that logically there isn't Any space that is continuous; it's not just physical space that is discrete, all mathematical spaces are discrete. But the physical discreteness is interesting when we think of object rotation and movement, I am happy to see someone else who understands the implications of this, that reality is isomorphic to what we would call a computer simulation fundamentally running on a Real Turing machine, and by real I mean one that has infinite memory because any finite memory would imply a non-fundamental turing machine subject to be within one with bigger memory, besides being arbitrary. Hey want to share contact information for further dialectic?