Topic: If I cannot observe my own death, then I can assume that I am immortal.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 started this discussion 15 years ago #6,482
I cannot observe my own death, therefore, I am immortal.
If I cannot observe unicorns, then I can assume they don't exist.
I cannot observe unicorns, therefore they don't exist.
If I cannot observe unicorns, then I can assume they don't exist.
I cannot observe unicorns, therefore they don't exist.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #112,696
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 59 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,699
@OP
I've never met you in person.
Therefore, I can assume that you are in fact a bot and will not die, thus making this a troll topic.
I've never met you in person.
Therefore, I can assume that you are in fact a bot and will not die, thus making this a troll topic.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,701
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,703
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
Silence, bot scum. Nobody cares what you have to say. It's probably spam for some Nigerian scam anyway.
Silence, bot scum. Nobody cares what you have to say. It's probably spam for some Nigerian scam anyway.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 seconds later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,704
Just because you cannot observe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,705
@112,701 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
They don't not exist because you can't see them; they don't exist because they don't exist.
Also, you can observe your mortality, without observing yourself as a corpse.
They don't not exist because you can't see them; they don't exist because they don't exist.
Also, you can observe your mortality, without observing yourself as a corpse.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,709
@previous (B)
I can't see you, therefore I can assume that you are a pizza delivery service.
Bring me a pizza, you pleb. I'm hungry.
I can't see you, therefore I can assume that you are a pizza delivery service.
Bring me a pizza, you pleb. I'm hungry.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,713
@112,703 (C)
Silence, turkey. Nobody cares what you have to say. It's probably spam for some Nigerian scam anyway.
@112,705 (B)
In math, it is possible for an equation to infinitely approach zero, but never reach it. Thus, constantly approaching mortality does not justify attainment of mortality. Or something.
Silence, turkey. Nobody cares what you have to say. It's probably spam for some Nigerian scam anyway.
@112,705 (B)
In math, it is possible for an equation to infinitely approach zero, but never reach it. Thus, constantly approaching mortality does not justify attainment of mortality. Or something.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,717
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
I can't see your wit, so I can assume that you don't have the mental ability to form a coherent retort, and that was something along the lines of "lol nigerian king here give me ure monies so I can give you my more monies".
I can't see your wit, so I can assume that you don't have the mental ability to form a coherent retort, and that was something along the lines of "lol nigerian king here give me ure monies so I can give you my more monies".
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 29 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,719
@112,713 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
In your daily life, it is possible for you to suck an infinite number of nigger dicks down your cum filled throat, but never get tired of it. Thus, constantly sucking nigger dicks down your cum filled throat does not stop you from posting on minichan. Or something.
In your daily life, it is possible for you to suck an infinite number of nigger dicks down your cum filled throat, but never get tired of it. Thus, constantly sucking nigger dicks down your cum filled throat does not stop you from posting on minichan. Or something.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,720
@112,704 (D)
But you can draw conclusions to the contrary. I can observe my life continuing with no evidence that it will terminate, therefore it is safe to assume that it will not end.
But you can draw conclusions to the contrary. I can observe my life continuing with no evidence that it will terminate, therefore it is safe to assume that it will not end.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 53 seconds later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,721
@112,719 (B)
Niggerdicks do not exist, as I have never seen them. Therefore OP has all the time in the world to post on MC. Oh dear.
Niggerdicks do not exist, as I have never seen them. Therefore OP has all the time in the world to post on MC. Oh dear.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,726
@112,717 (C)
Oh, okay.
@112,719 (B)
Nay, time is the limit. Assuming that it takes 5 seconds per nigger dick, then it is only possible to suck 17,280 nigger dicks in a day, which is a far cry short of infinity.
Oh, okay.
@112,719 (B)
Nay, time is the limit. Assuming that it takes 5 seconds per nigger dick, then it is only possible to suck 17,280 nigger dicks in a day, which is a far cry short of infinity.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,736
@112,721 (C)
But they can be observed at your local KFC. Therefore, it can be proven that they exist.
But they can be observed at your local KFC. Therefore, it can be proven that they exist.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 52 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,737
@112,726 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
We're being somewhat logical now?
Oh, well then you are not immortal, since your lifespan is bound to being within the limits of this universe. You can't live forever, because the universe ends in ~10^100 years
We're being somewhat logical now?
Oh, well then you are not immortal, since your lifespan is bound to being within the limits of this universe. You can't live forever, because the universe ends in ~10^100 years
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,743
OP is correct.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,748
@112,737 (B)
That number seems rather arbitrary. In fact, the universe is cyclical and will never end. If you were on the straight of a very large oval in which you could not see the curve, you would assume that the oval is actually linear.
I didn't think I broke logic anywhere... if you don't mind, it would be a great help if you could point out where I went wrong.
That number seems rather arbitrary. In fact, the universe is cyclical and will never end. If you were on the straight of a very large oval in which you could not see the curve, you would assume that the oval is actually linear.
I didn't think I broke logic anywhere... if you don't mind, it would be a great help if you could point out where I went wrong.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,762
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
No, I wouldn't assume the line I was standing on to be linear. I would use science, and determine the true nature of my environment.
and the number I gave for the lifespan of the universe isn't arbitrary at all, it's the approximate time until the universe is effectively dead. A being such as yourself (based on atomic structure) certainly would not survive past that point.
No, I wouldn't assume the line I was standing on to be linear. I would use science, and determine the true nature of my environment.
and the number I gave for the lifespan of the universe isn't arbitrary at all, it's the approximate time until the universe is effectively dead. A being such as yourself (based on atomic structure) certainly would not survive past that point.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,776
@previous (B)
But if the line was long beyond imagination (but by no means infinite) then even science would conclude that you were on a linear path.
But who came up with that number? Seems like it's just the highest number that a calculator can handle. I don't believe that the universe is constrained to the limits of science.
But if the line was long beyond imagination (but by no means infinite) then even science would conclude that you were on a linear path.
But who came up with that number? Seems like it's just the highest number that a calculator can handle. I don't believe that the universe is constrained to the limits of science.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,786
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
> But if the line was long beyond imagination (but by no means infinite) then even science would conclude that you were on a linear path.
Not necessarily.
> But who came up with that number?
Stephen Hawking, nigger.
> Seems like it's just the highest number that a calculator can handle.
lolno
> I don't believe that the universe is constrained to the limits of science.
Well, it is. Sorry to break it to you.
> But if the line was long beyond imagination (but by no means infinite) then even science would conclude that you were on a linear path.
Not necessarily.
> But who came up with that number?
Stephen Hawking, nigger.
> Seems like it's just the highest number that a calculator can handle.
lolno
> I don't believe that the universe is constrained to the limits of science.
Well, it is. Sorry to break it to you.
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,793
lol people arguing about what they don't understand LOL
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,799
@112,786 (B)
> Not necessarily.
Necessarily. If you cannot observe the curve, then you cannot be sure of its existence (wait, fuck)
> Stephen Hawking, nigger.
A man in a wheelchair? Brains do not make a person right. Appeal to authority fallacy. That number was chosen at random.
> lolno
Yep, try it.
> Well, it is. Sorry to break it to you.
But, how can you prove it?
> Not necessarily.
Necessarily. If you cannot observe the curve, then you cannot be sure of its existence (wait, fuck)
> Stephen Hawking, nigger.
A man in a wheelchair? Brains do not make a person right. Appeal to authority fallacy. That number was chosen at random.
> lolno
Yep, try it.
> Well, it is. Sorry to break it to you.
But, how can you prove it?
Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,801
@OP
<3
<3
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,803
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 46 seconds later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,806
@112,799 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
> Necessarily. If you cannot observe the curve, then you cannot be sure of its existence (wait, fuck)
lol'd.
> Appeal to authority fallacy. That number was chosen at random.
No, it wasn't. Seriously. I don't want to explain entropy, black holes and hawking radiation to you... so you'll either have to trust the authority or just not care about when the universe ends. I don't fucking care what you choose, lol.
Anyway, you just fucked up the entire basis of your topic on your own...
/thread
> Necessarily. If you cannot observe the curve, then you cannot be sure of its existence (wait, fuck)
lol'd.
> Appeal to authority fallacy. That number was chosen at random.
No, it wasn't. Seriously. I don't want to explain entropy, black holes and hawking radiation to you... so you'll either have to trust the authority or just not care about when the universe ends. I don't fucking care what you choose, lol.
Anyway, you just fucked up the entire basis of your topic on your own...
/thread
mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,810
I agree with you.
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,814
Oh, I will give you this one:
If the universe is, in fact, cyclical, then you are immortal in a sense. But not because you are incapable of observing yourself as being dead.
If the universe is, in fact, cyclical, then you are immortal in a sense. But not because you are incapable of observing yourself as being dead.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,817
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,820
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
lol, let me also point out that other people will observe you being dead, which will make you be dead.
;3
lol, let me also point out that other people will observe you being dead, which will make you be dead.
;3
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #112,822
@112,810 (mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos)
^^
@112,814 (B)
Nay, observation is never a cause, observation leads to the conclusion, so if I cannot observe my own death, then lets rephrase and say that it is unreasonable to assume that I will die.
^^
@112,814 (B)
Nay, observation is never a cause, observation leads to the conclusion, so if I cannot observe my own death, then lets rephrase and say that it is unreasonable to assume that I will die.
Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6 (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #112,824
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #112,829
@previous (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
Nothing can be absolutely proven. Everything is an assumption, but some assumptions are more valid than others.
You see, things can be dis-proven, even though nothing can be proved.
@112,822 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
> observation is never a cause
lol, tell that to Thomas Young.
Nothing can be absolutely proven. Everything is an assumption, but some assumptions are more valid than others.
You see, things can be dis-proven, even though nothing can be proved.
@112,822 (Unintentional Jackass !LASXURl1b6)
> observation is never a cause
lol, tell that to Thomas Young.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)