when science can do that, jeannie, i'll cosider it. until then it's hypothetical. i don't do hypothetical.

Why not?

I can understand not answering hypothetical questions in a courtroom, but we are just using our imaginations here.

Its not a test, its just a question.

It is an exercise in your imagination. Do you have any imagination? Or are you simply an observer who accepts nothing except what you can see, feel, hear, and what is proven with evidence by science?

My answer to your hypothetical question is that they would both be me, and I wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Would your point of observation be in both of them?

Each would have their own point of observation.

What if your point of experience was only in one of them?

I have no doubt that the point of experience would seem individualistic and unique for each of them.


Who would the other one be?

Me. I would be both of them. And both of them would be me.

And in this case, that would be true in every possible sense at that particular point in time. Although our individual experiences would begin to diverge from that point forward. So if you are defining "me" by my experiences then you'd have to chose which one you'd like to consider to be "me" at that point in time.

I would suggest that you consider them both to be "me". At that point in time.

As time progresses forward from that point you could label them Me-A, and Me-B. Me-A and Me-B would begin to diverge in experience and viewpoint from that point forward.

Would your point of observation be in both of them?

Each would have their own point of observation.

I am not asking for me, I am asking for you.

Ok. Well in that case I would be both. But I would only experience each body and perspective separately from that point forward.

Or at least I think I would. I can't say for certain. Two brains that are that perfectly identical could potentially share information via some form of ESP for all I know. I've never really had the opportunity to try it so I can't say.

I don't think I'd want that though especially if it couldn't be turned off.

But I'm not talking about the bodies. I'm talking about you.
Would you be operating and experiencing two bodies or just one?

If just one, then who is the other guy?

But that's not what I said. I said, "It's a false notion that it is 'unscientific' to consider things like spirit, soul, etc."

The very postulates of Quantum Theory are proof of this. Without those postulates Quantum Theory would not stand.

And the postulates that I'm speaking of is simply the face that non-physical information must necessarily exist in order for Quantum Theory to work.

So in a very real sense scientist are already relying upon a concept of the "supernatural" (or non-physical) in their current theories.

So for them to suggest that such things are beyond science is simply false. Their theories already depend on a postulation of the existence of the unknowable and unobservable.

So they are already there whether they realize it or not.



Einstein's hypothesis that time could dilate was totally irrational by standard. That was as unthinking to most scientists at the time as an idea of ghosts or goblins. Yet Einstein's hunch turned out to be true.



But the predictions of this theory have indeed been proven since. Time truly does dilate. Modern physics would not even work if this wasn't true. We see this everyday in particle accelerators.

Einstein most certainly did "discover" the relative nature of nature.

He discovered "relativity" to be a very real property of the universe in which we live. He "discovered" a property of our universe.

He didn't just make up an unprovable theory. Had that been the case no one would even know who Albert Einstein was.

No. He "discovered" a physical property of our universe that has since been confirmed to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt. And his discovery only happened because he dared to imagine the unimaginable - the idea that time is not at all what we thought it was.

Albert Einstein "discovered" that time is a physical fabric of our physical reality and it can be warped and stretched just like space.

That's nothing to sneeze at.

In fact most people even today do not fully grasp what he did. Even many people who are educated scientists. They can calculate time dilation, but they still don't seem to fully grasp the significance of the actual physical nature of it.

Albert Einstein showed the time is just as "physical" as anything else in this physical universe. And it is malleable!

That's truly WILD!

Why not?

I can understand not answering hypothetical questions in a courtroom, but we are just using our imaginations here.

Its not a test, its just a question.

It is an exercise in your imagination. Do you have any imagination? Or are you simply an observer who accepts nothing except what you can see, feel, hear, and what is proven with evidence by science?

Just because 'there is no evidence' or 'no scientific evidence' that something does not exist, that does not mean that it does not exist.

While I admire and respect the scientific method, it does not hold absolute authority over what I will personally experience, believe, think, create or imagine. I am more than an observer of creation; I am a creator.

everything exist in the mind and on the sci-fi channel ....if you are truely the creator...then create some evidence

Evidence of what?

jrbogie wrote:

again, what you say is unscientific doesn't make it so. the scientific method requires evidence that can be tested to show predictable and repeatable results. there is no evidence, other than testimony, that a soul or spirit exists. that relativity has been shown to hold up under repeatable testing does not mean that it's been proved. as hawkings suggests, that it passed every challenge so far does not mean that it will past the next challeng. for three hundred years newton's law was the gold standard when explaining gravity. one day einstein was having his morning coffee and thought, "hey, sir isaac was full of crap. gravity doesn't work like that. gravity works because big things warp space. the stuff bends." not those words precisely of course. now folks like hawking are questioning einstein's concepts of gravity.

again, what you say is unscientific doesn't make it so. the scientific method requires evidence that can be tested to show predictable and repeatable results.

Besides funches, I said I was a creator, not THE CREATOR.

And I also said:

While I admire and respect the scientific method, it does not hold absolute authority over what I will personally experience, believe, think, create or imagine.

And I am extremely grateful for that.

Thank God.