Is resurrection possible under materialism?

[Mnutu]

by your own initial assumption, this is impossible. You cannot exist beyond a materialistic and deterministic reality, wherein the consciousness arises from physical reactions to outer stimuli. If the person possesses the SAME EXACT external and internal qualities that you possess, one or the other cannot NECCESARILY exist in a singular materialistic and deterministic reality.

If you’re arguing down this line, the only logical conclusion has to involve a greater level of reality, a super-reality encompassing the infinite realities across time. Too often this is oversimplified; it would have to be that in an infinite amount of realities, there exists only one difference of an atomic particle zigging one way rather than zagging another, and that this particular difference has NO reprecussions before or after the single instance (otherwise, it NECESSARILY must have a difference greater than a single atoms single movement in a single moment).

This notion could be stretched as thin as to say that every variation of a particular atom moving FROM a PARTICULAR starting point in space to a DIFFERENT point in space no matter how great and exceptional the distance, WHILE having NO other effect, great or small, on an otherwise totally identical reality or timeline. This is however totally incongruent with our understanding of reality (as in, the behavior of atoms, physics, and other natural laws).

If we assume our understanding of the natural laws are precisely true, then this completely renders the concept invalid as it completely violates the order of natural law. Atoms exist in interplay with other atoms and cannot be totally removed from their interactions with other atoms in some way.

If we accept that there are limitations in our understanding of the universe, then the only accurate statement anyone could ever make is “I assume the world is inherently what I believe it to be because the circumstances of my existence have lead me to think so”. It’s fucking circular logic that cannot be proven without greater input.

Look, this is a rough attempt at trying to get this across; it is not accurate to the nitty-gritty of physics, which is way more complicated and debated beyond my understanding. It’s not meant to describe what is accurately, but to show how it can’t be even in a crude way.

TL;DR stop thinking about shit that is actually impossible by your own assumptions without REALLY THINKING THROUGH THE IMPLICATIONS. This is why every fucking scientist obsesses over Quantum Physics and Alternate Timeline shit, and why every sci-fi nerd gets it wrong (myself included). It’s a fucking headache to think through. Fun in a frustrating way and I’ve gotten to tired to bother thinking more about it at this time.

 

[WhatIsThePunchline]

Posting this thread because I'm curious about Kiwifarmers' responses. I'm not plotting anything in my secret underground lab, nor I am planning the resurrection of my great army of Joseph Stalins that will one day rule the world. Pinky swear!

An identical copy of something is not the same thing.

Two things can be identical while stile being different things.

There would just be someone similar to you running around.

You don't have to wait a million years for this though:

 

[Overly Serious]

and while approximations might be possible,

As outlined in my post, my contention is that any level of precision such that you would rule out reoccurrence, would also be such that you rule out continuity of the self. And thus render the entire question moot. If the question is valid then reoccurrence is possible. If it isn't then the premise of the question that there is a self to recur, is itself false. The self is not a static, fixed thing. Even if we went outside the premise of the question and didn't assume a materialistic view of the Universe I don't think the self is a static thing. But that's neither here not there. The choice of where to draw the boundaries of precision is an entirely subjective one because the entire question of how you categorise an individual is inherently a choice. There's a difference between IS and IS DEFINED AS. A materialistic view of the universe requires a distinction between the two because it presumes an existence independent of observation.

This is why with two exceptions only, I despise philosophers and philosophy. The large majority of it is people running into the limitations of human language and mistaking them for contradictions of reality. The rest is masturbation.

 

[We Are The Witches]

An identical copy of something is not the same thing.

Two things can be identical while stile being different things.

There would just be someone similar to you running around.

You don't have to wait a million years for this though:

I kind of go over that in my OP, beyond the first paragraph.

The video you linked is not really what I'm talking about, but thanks for sharing anyways.