I explain the argument that, given infinite time, you are certain to be reincarnated, infinitely many times. Recorded for my class on Philosophy of Science, Spring 2020.
Dr Huemer, I have to say that you are really good at arguing clearly. Your books are a blast to read, and everyone should go buy them immediately, of course!
I have some troubles undestanding why objects don't count as reincarnated? You see. Humans are made of organized atoms. Tables are made od organized atoms. If humans/person happens once it means that that organization of atoms happened once. Same goes for tables/objects. Just change the terminology from a talk about a person or a table into a talk about organized atoms (about what they both are) and you get that what applies to one also applies to the other. If a person can be reincarnated in the sense that that organization of atoms will happen again, then a table will also be reincarnated since it's organization of atoms will also happen again. If not, what makes a person different or what is the definition of a person? What is the ontological status of a person (how does a persons way of existence differ from a tables and how does that impact the application of this argument for reincarnation)?
I select a random real number r between 0 and 1. I claim r occurs more than once between 0 and 1. I use this argument: if it only occured once, then the probability of picking it is 0. But I did pick it. Therefore it must be that r occurs more than once. This is clearly absurd. I don't think me picking any specific number is evidence that that number is more popular than any other number just like me being alive now is not evidence that it is more likely than not that I'm alive at other times as well. If the probability of an event is 0 doesn't mean the event is impossible - the probability of picking any specific real number between 0 and 1 is zero, and yet I did pick r.
You can't pick a random real number from the infinitely uncountable set of real numbers between 0 and 1 because you can't represent an infinitely specific number. I can represent 0.01 with a few bits, 0.0000000000000000001 takes a few more bits, etc until we've used all the possible memory in the universe which still isn't enough. We're always bounded in specificity. If you're picking a real number between 0 and 1 of bounded specificity then that's not the same kind of choice he's using.
@@notillatall I don't see how 0.5 could get any more specific than it already is. One could also choose (π-3), e, or (√2 - 1), all of which would require infinite space to fully expand in decimal notation.
The word "Now" is the key here I think. When different people consider "the" argument they are actually considering different arguments. A person called Bob born in the 1960 would have considered the argument with "now" referring to, 1978 or something" I am considering it with "now" pointing to 2021. So for the vast amount of versions of "now" it will be false that I exist that "now". It is false that I existed at Bob's "now" but it is true that I exist at my "now". Now, what is the probability that I will exist at some "now". Well, given that I have, will or do exist it will be 100%.
Am I understanding the argument correctly that eternity basically ran out of souls and had to start reincarnating them? That's why we have zero chance of being alive now if we only live once? Because we had infinite time to have our life and would be dead an eternity ago. That's an interesting point, but it doesn't have to be that way. There could be a cosmic serial number to each soul which does not repeat even if everything else does, analogous to how the digits of pi go on forever for example. If we only live once and somebody is alive now after infinite time, that must still be somebody and we might as well be them.
"Given infinite time, everything that happens must repeat exactly, infinitely many times" No. After the heat death nothing interesting will repeat. Galaxies won't form. The atoms will be running away from each other, not bundling together.
Dr Huemer, I have to say that you are really good at arguing clearly. Your books are a blast to read, and everyone should go buy them immediately, of course!
Wouldn't this argument work for spacial reincarnation as well.
If I only exist in one position in space, what is the chance I exist "here"?
I have some troubles undestanding why objects don't count as reincarnated?
You see. Humans are made of organized atoms. Tables are made od organized atoms. If humans/person happens once it means that that organization of atoms happened once. Same goes for tables/objects. Just change the terminology from a talk about a person or a table into a talk about organized atoms (about what they both are) and you get that what applies to one also applies to the other. If a person can be reincarnated in the sense that that organization of atoms will happen again, then a table will also be reincarnated since it's organization of atoms will also happen again. If not, what makes a person different or what is the definition of a person? What is the ontological status of a person (how does a persons way of existence differ from a tables and how does that impact the application of this argument for reincarnation)?
I select a random real number r between 0 and 1. I claim r occurs more than once between 0 and 1. I use this argument: if it only occured once, then the probability of picking it is 0. But I did pick it. Therefore it must be that r occurs more than once. This is clearly absurd. I don't think me picking any specific number is evidence that that number is more popular than any other number just like me being alive now is not evidence that it is more likely than not that I'm alive at other times as well. If the probability of an event is 0 doesn't mean the event is impossible - the probability of picking any specific real number between 0 and 1 is zero, and yet I did pick r.
It's less like picking between 0 and 1, and more like choosing between 0 and infinity
You can't pick a random real number from the infinitely uncountable set of real numbers between 0 and 1 because you can't represent an infinitely specific number. I can represent 0.01 with a few bits, 0.0000000000000000001 takes a few more bits, etc until we've used all the possible memory in the universe which still isn't enough. We're always bounded in specificity. If you're picking a real number between 0 and 1 of bounded specificity then that's not the same kind of choice he's using.
@@meditationstuff yes I can. 0.5 there, I picked a number
@@borisdatzar 0.5 is an infinitely specific number? okay
@@notillatall I don't see how 0.5 could get any more specific than it already is. One could also choose (π-3), e, or (√2 - 1), all of which would require infinite space to fully expand in decimal notation.
The word "Now" is the key here I think.
When different people consider "the" argument they are actually considering different arguments.
A person called Bob born in the 1960 would have considered the argument with "now" referring to, 1978 or something"
I am considering it with "now" pointing to 2021.
So for the vast amount of versions of "now" it will be false that I exist that "now". It is false that I existed at Bob's "now" but it is true that I exist at my "now".
Now, what is the probability that I will exist at some "now". Well, given that I have, will or do exist it will be 100%.
Am I understanding the argument correctly that eternity basically ran out of souls and had to start reincarnating them? That's why we have zero chance of being alive now if we only live once? Because we had infinite time to have our life and would be dead an eternity ago. That's an interesting point, but it doesn't have to be that way. There could be a cosmic serial number to each soul which does not repeat even if everything else does, analogous to how the digits of pi go on forever for example. If we only live once and somebody is alive now after infinite time, that must still be somebody and we might as well be them.
17:50 ah yes the earth can't reincarnate but ppl can ¯\_༼ᴼل͜ᴼ༽_/¯
He replies to this kind of objection later in the video when he talks about tables reincarnating.
A great deal of larping from the comment section, from reddit atheists and wannabe Neil g tysons
This theory is perfectly compatible with atheism, though.
@@Nexus-jg7ev No one suggested it wasn't.
Bruh no, I wanted like this guy
"Given infinite time, everything that happens must repeat exactly, infinitely many times"
No. After the heat death nothing interesting will repeat. Galaxies won't form. The atoms will be running away from each other, not bundling together.
He replies to that objection.