TheDivineFool

All of the 'different' definitions seem to be effects of herd immunity. Where's the problem? Herd immunity, as I understand it, is the proportion of immune individuals in a population. This has beneficial consequences mentioned in the OP.

Hi Strange I read your post. I thought it didn't answer the OP's question. Sorry. Does current physics support the claim that matter was "created" during the Big Bang? I thought the Big Bang just says that the entire universe (matter & energy) was crunched up in a singularity at one point in time. Was matter "created" or was it always there, only in a very very very small point in space? I agree with the rest of the post about the heavier elements.

Your assumption: Consciousness is determined by physical conditions e.g. the position, motion, charge etc. of atoms and the connections and activity state of the neurons in your brain. Is this justified? I'm inclined to agree with you. Yet, this may be more an indication of ignorance rather than knowledge. I mean our current materialistic conceptualization of the universe prefers such a hypothesis. It sits pretty with current science. I'm only concerned that there is a possibilty that this could be wrong. One thing that suggests such an error is the enormous difference between a stone and a bacteria. We can dissect apart a bacteria and study its parts in great detail. However, together, as a whole, it comes to life. We can look at another example from life. See the huge gap in cognitive function between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. This gap is equivalent to, even more, than the gap between living and non-living. These observations lead me to believe that "the whole can be more than its parts". As matter organizes at various levels and in different configurations, novel and strange phenomena occur. Could the human mind be one such thing? It develops from one such particular permutation of matter but lives in a different level of existence. Could it involve something a bit more than just placing atoms in position x, y, z? This is pure speculation on my part and also it disagrees with scientific materialism and science has a proven track record. All I can say is if science is right on the money, it would suck as hell! Let us assume that your assumption is true. What then do we make of the next part of your question? It would appear that you would be exactly duplicated at another point. You would remember getting into the machine and then suddenly waking up in the new location, as if from a short nap. Now that I think of it, it would be very much like going to sleep/becoming unconscious at your home, then being taken to another location while you were asleep/unconscious and then waking up. In a sense, your thought experiment happens in real life. In case, you don't get "atomized" and now there are two of you, it gets complicated (for me). Intuition tells me that now there would be two of you. However, the moment the two of you experience a different reality, your memories would be different from that point of time. I guess we're now discussing what it means for you to be "you". Is there anything physically or mentally that defines you as "you" in a sort of unalterable way? Since memory is alterable, it hardly seems to qualify as a distinctive feature of identity. You stayed at home one day and you now have memories of a day at home. But, you could have easily gone to the park and developed a different memory. Does that mean, every time we have a choice between experiences, we're making choices about who we are? It doesn't seem right. If you agree, then it implies there is a different set of properties that define your identity, that remains unchanged as you proceed through different experiences. What that is, I have no idea?

What's the source of matter of the universe? Where does it come from? I don't think anyone can answer that question. Perhaps available data does not allow us to form a coherent theory. Is it self-created or not? My high school physics knowledge tells me "matter can neither be created nor destroyed" and E = mc^2. So either matter always existed or it was created from pure energy. Which answer is more irrational? Since, no hypothesis exists, we cannot judge which is more "irrational". Possibly, it would be very "irrational" to construct a hypothesis of any kind at the moment.

First, the thread topic sounds like it's written specifically for people like me. A lot of interesting stuff written. Thanks posters. Let me offer an evolutionary perspective to the matter of idiots, morons, numskulls, fools, etc, etc. You will surely agree to the maxim associated with evolution, "survival of the fittest". Of course "fittest" here is determined by contingency. I mean the dinsoaurs were physically very fit. Unfortunately, the comet or whatever that caused the extinction defined "fit" in a different way. If what I said is true, the existence of idiots in our world indicates that nature gives them the pink slip of good health. Idiocy is not a survival disadvantage. In fact, if we go by numbers, they seem to be winning the evolutionary game. What does that say about "logic" and "idiots"?

Death is truly the mother of all spoilsports. It makes everything absolute zero.

How does space and time being infinite entail cyclical phenomena? I don't wish to clip your wings though. Keep imagining. It's a great way to spend your free time.