My conclusion is heaven is universal. Respectfully, how does the uniqueness of each sperm relate to the probability reincarnation? The fact that each sperm fertilizing the egg results in a different individual being conceived, and then maybe born, causes reincarnation to fall in probability. The recycling of consciousness(the theme of reincarnation) is further lowered in probability by the uniqueness of each sperm. Also each sperm, forming a completely different individual than another sperm, creates a completely different consciousness than another sperm would have. How could someone who had died have their consciousness recycled through the genitals of others? Thus, the uniqueness of each sperm( and the randomness of which sperm fertilizes which egg) causes reincarnation to be a less parsimonious explanation of the afterlife than heaven without reincarnation is. Sources: Book Highly Theoretical Differential Equations of the Afterlife
Code My Current Thoughts on the Afterlife
A sperm per se without producing an individual does not relate to any reincarnation.
The discussion reminds me of something I've read in, AFAIR, Gödel Escher Bach. It was said that primitive worms have neurons whose wiring structure is entirely encoded in the genes. According to the text, these worms have isomophic brains - there exists only one worm.
Regards,
Joachim
Reincarnation is a less parsimonious explanation of the afterlife because of the winning sperm dilemma.
S. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist Each sperm would form a different individual upon fertilizing the egg. Reincarnation is about the recycling of consciousness from one dead individual to one born again, once the former had already died. The uniqueness of a given sperm and a given egg forming a unique individual makes reincarnation a more complicated explanation of the afterlife with less evidence than heaven in universalist Christianity. Thus reincarnation is a less parsimonious explanation of the afterlife than a universalist Christian heaven. I am writing a publication on the improbability of reincarnation and will post it on ResearchGate. Here I wrote a thesis of what I think the afterlife is: Book Highly Theoretical Differential Equations of the Afterlife
S. Béatrice Marianne Ewalds-Kvist Dr. and Professor Ewalds-Kvist, I am honored to have gained your attention. If you would like to debate me on this issue I would be all the the more honored.
Why do you find that perplexing? You didn't specify any requirements for the satisfaction of any criteria. I can prove to you that you are in fact, reincarnated, or at least one aspect of your consciousness is:
Let C(x) represent "x is Alexander."
Let B(x) represent "x exhibits goofiness."
The argument can be expressed as follows:
(∀x)(C(x) → ∃y(C(y) ∧ B(x) ∧ ¬B(y)))
The argument suggests that while humans may believe in the reincarnation of their consciousness, what actually reincarnates is our bad habits or goofy nature, and we often encounter others who don't possess the same flaws in their next life-or heaven.
Roomal Seferaj Dr. and Professor Seferaj, I apologize if my question was disrespectful. At the risk of attracting animosity and possible sabotage towards me, I am autistic and thus I often offend without realizing it. I am honored to have your attention. I do not believe in absolutes. More specifically, at least on my view, ethics are deduced by tradition, then secondly risk analysis and thirdly skin in the game. Progress is an open society guided by negative utilitarianism. Finding out who needs aid the most with falsification. I believe ethics are objective but NOT absolute. Thus, the absolute ethical forces guiding reincarnation, to me, do not seem to exist. I will rephrase the question more respectfully.
Here are my sources:
Book Highly Theoretical Differential Equations of the Afterlife
Code My Current Thoughts on the Afterlife
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts