4 ms·
> The reasoning is representable with and by a finite number of elementary physical particles Do we even know this much?
by foobarian 2y ago
> The reasoning is representable with and by a finite number of elementary physical particles
Do we even know this much?
- traverseda 2y agoI'm sorry you had to find out this way but no, souls aren't real.
- mrybczyn 2y agoShow me the experimental results...
- Xunjin 2y agoWell, I could argue the contrary, show that souls are real with experimental results! Your argument, might not be your intention, infer that just because you can't prove X thus Y exist.
- costigan 2y agoThe commenter's point was to disagree with the previous comment that "souls aren't real". Lack of evidence either way means we don't know. Occam's razor, while a good heuristic, is a heuristic, not a theorem.
- sorokod 2y agoThat result is stashed in a small china teapot that is orbiting the sun.
- GoblinSlayer 2y agoEven according to platonism souls are forms and forms are described by science. The only difference is that forms are substance and can exist detached from matter, but this doesn't affect computability. Moreover, mathematics is epitome of eidos.
- traverseda 2y agoYes yes, everyone has their own twee bespoke definition of soul.
- matt-attack 2y agoWell, our brain is comprised only of a finite number of neurons. How could it possibly not be finite?
- Supermancho 2y agoIs it only neurons? Is it not also the forces acting on the brain matter, chemical/physical and pre-conditionally? I suspect any brain state is practically created from infinite complexity, unless there was some way to simulate the local light cone and age a model appropriately.
- int_19h 2y agoBekenstein bound applies to any physical system. If humans are to be excluded from it for some reason, then that needs to be proven.