Zark wrote:Skip to the conlusion if you find the mumbo jumbo too much
Then, any such conclusions would be deprived of any value at all.
Zark wrote:Let x == Elephant with pink and blue polka dots (or in our case a werewolf)
Let y == Universe
(A) x does not exist in all y .. (ie. Werewolf does not exist in all Universe)
(B) x does exist in all y ... (ie. Werewolf does exist in all Universe)
If x does exist (and we find photographic evidence) then (A) can be proved true, and (B) can be proved false. BUT if x does not exist then we can not find out whether (A) or (B) are true or false without knowing the entire content of the universe.
Conclusion: In plain english this means that even if werewolves do not exist we can not prove it in absolute terms.
Your analysis does not have a control parameter. You need a control parameter that would qualify as a measure to check if some thing can/can't exist. In plain english, it means that you simply didn't actually examine if something (ie. a werewolf) can/can't exist in the universe.
Let's find a suitable control parameter:
Thao says:
"Now usually, in nature, everything has a precise reason for existing
-Quote from the book
It is also understood from the book that accidents "do" happen. It is clear (to me at least) that the existence of a werewolf cannot relate to any such accidents. Please see the examples of such accidents given in the book, I categorize them as "low level" genetic mess (am I wrong?). A werewolf is of much a higher category ( A whole man <=> A whole animal) Therefore it must have a "
reason" to exist. Since nature is an integral part of the universe. We can conclude that "Usually, in the Universe, everything has a precise "
reason" for existing (I made up this sentence by myself)"
Since a werewolf must exist within the domain of Nature to be able to be observed and interact/interacted with by other entities who exist in the domain of Nature. It all becomes Clear...
We can
check to see if there would be a "reason" for a werewolf to exist. If it has a
reason then it can exist. If it doesn't have a reason to exist, then it is very unlikely that it can exist. It is also clear that these
reasons must be compatible with the universal law.
Zark wrote:Since our knowledge of the universe is limited we often must choose whether to trust a person's eye witness report. And that comes down to whether we find the source of the information trustworthy.
Is Michel Desmarquet a person who can be trusted? Can Thiaooubians be considered as a trustworthy source of information?
(I composed these questions with a lot of love and concern toward the individuality of those who come to read them, and I am in no way inclined to force anyone to believe in specific things. I imagined that Zark is not the only member of the forum who would read my post)
Does a "reason" for something to exist apply as a good control parameter to you? Can you propose a good control parameter that may fit better, so that we may make better explorations and better approximations?
The essence of Consciousness, is the ability to Create, Process, Transmit and Receive Information Autonomously.