The Good Place

Yes, I do.  But the laws of physics have a standard set of units of measure (SI).  These understanding these laws has lead to the discover of informational influences and new units of measure that model information.  Thermodynamics, Information theory and logic all are expressed in probability-based measures of order, organization, communication, and logical relations.  These units are different from SI units.

Thanks.

You're assuming life after death is some utopia. Such a notion is a matter of faith expressed by virtually every religion ever practiced but with not one crumb of evidence in support.

Who mentioned religion ?

 Steve 001 said > "Not one crumb of evidence " 

That remark is frankly too stupid to respond to.

You're assuming life after death is some utopia. Such a notion is a matter of faith expressed by virtually every religion ever practiced ...

Not for unbelievers!

Using pure logic if one life is meaningless, x lives is x times as meaningless.

No it isn't. Everyone experiences one life (in your philosophy) and that's it, end of.

Therefore, no chance for reflection or adjustment, certainly not justice; just one life until the earth disappears into the sun and the universe disappears up it's own bottom hole (sorry to be crude)

EDIT :

I read your post to quickly, Malf, it wasn't written very well.

But, I agree with that. That is it, precisely ! If your philosophy is correct.

This is just me awkwardly saying - I think that Wheeler's "It from bit" is a worthy model.

Incidentally, I hadn't realised until recently quite how violently opposed Wheeler was to parapsychology:
https://web.archive.org/web/200807240354...events.htm

Who mentioned religion ?

 Steve 001 said > "Not one crumb of evidence " 

That remark is frankly too stupid to respond to.

You didn't explicitly. But the meaningfulness of life after death ultimately in the Judaeo/Christian traditions including Islam (which are perhaps the most widespread influences) indicates it's someplace people look forward to going home to. If your consciousness after death experiences nothing more than a continuation of the here and now what's the point?

Stupid you say. The thoughts you think from wholecloth aren't. Sometimes Tim I don't think you truly understand the basis of your positions.

Incidentally, I hadn't realised until recently quite how violently opposed Wheeler was to parapsychology:
https://web.archive.org/web/200807240354...events.htm

The notable thing about this is since it's writing almost 40 years ago is it accurately assesses the current state of all things parapsychological.

The notable thing about this is since it's writing almost 40 years ago is it accurately assesses the current state of all things parapsychological.

Well, I thought it was interesting that Wheeler was so hostile to parapsychology, but I can't see that it has any merit as an assessment of the field, either then or now.

It barely mentions experimental parapsychology. In fact the only substantial comment about psychical research is quoted from Hudson Hoagland, and relates to the investigation of the Boston medium "Margery" (Mina Crandon) in 1924-5. Obviously Hoagland is critical of Margery's adherents, and those did include some leading members of the American Society for Psychical Research, but the founders of parapsychology were far from being taken in. There's a detailed account of the "Margery" affair by James G. Matlock here:
http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/CATPAW.htm

The background is that there was a division in the ASPR between those favouring spiritualism and those who were more sceptical. Although the committee appointed by Scientific American to assess "Margery" was divided, according to Matlock only one member, Hereward Carrington - in addition to J. Malcolm Bird, representing the Scientific American as secretary - was in favour of Margery. The other members included J. B. Rhine's mentor William McDougall and Walter Franklin Prince. In the aftermath of the affair, the ASPR split, with McDougall and Prince forming a rival Boston Society for Psychical Research. Hoagland was a graduate student at Harvard who also investigated "Margery" but concluded she was a fraud. After Rhine himself attended a sitting with her, he came to the same conclusion, and published a paper denouncing her. In fact, Hoagland and Rhine were friends, and Hoagland evidently remained supportive of Rhine's work at least until the mid 1930s [Mauskopf and McVaugh, The Elusive Science (1980), pp. 252, 351, note 13]. (Perhaps the editorial quoted by Wheeler indicates that he changed his views in later life. I'd like to see the whole piece, but it doesn't seem to be available online.)

Anyhow, it doesn't seem to me that Wheeler's critique gives a balanced picture of psychical research in the 1920s, let alone parapsychology in the 1970s.

Using pure logic if one life is meaningless, x lives is x times as meaningless.

I really don't get the argument you are responding to. First off, humans clearly find meaning in their lives. But if one were to ignore this and use some sort of arbitrary metric for "meaning", how does "exist indefinitely" fit the bill? As you point out, if life is meaningless, merely stretching out that meaninglessness just gives you more of the same.  

Plus, it should be pretty obvious by now that human consciousness is not progressing with subsequent generations. We are only as wise as you'd expect if every new human started fresh.

Linda

Well, I thought it was interesting that Wheeler was so hostile to parapsychology, but I can't see that it has any merit as an assessment of the field, either then or now.

It barely mentions experimental parapsychology. In fact the only substantial comment about psychical research is quoted from Hudson Hoagland, and relates to the investigation of the Boston medium "Margery" (Mina Crandon) in 1924-5. Obviously Hoagland is critical of Margery's adherents, and those did include some leading members of the American Society for Psychical Research, but the founders of parapsychology were far from being taken in. There's a detailed account of the "Margery" affair by James G. Matlock here:
http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/CATPAW.htm

The background is that there was a division in the ASPR between those favouring spiritualism and those who were more sceptical. Although the committee appointed by Scientific American to assess "Margery" was divided, according to Matlock only one member, Hereward Carrington - in addition to J. Malcolm Bird, representing the Scientific American as secretary - was in favour of Margery. The other members included J. B. Rhine's mentor William McDougall and Walter Franklin Prince. In the aftermath of the affair, the ASPR split, with McDougall and Prince forming a rival Boston Society for Psychical Research. Hoagland was a graduate student at Harvard who also investigated "Margery" but concluded she was a fraud. After Rhine himself attended a sitting with her, he came to the same conclusion, and published a paper denouncing her. In fact, Hoagland and Rhine were friends, and Hoagland evidently remained supportive of Rhine's work at least until the mid 1930s [Mauskopf and McVaugh, The Elusive Science (1980), pp. 252, 351, note 13]. (Perhaps the editorial quoted by Wheeler indicates that he changed his views in later life. I'd like to see the whole piece, but it doesn't seem to be available online.)

Anyhow, it doesn't seem to me that Wheeler's critique gives a balanced picture of psychical research in the 1920s, let alone parapsychology in the 1970s.

Perhaps I have a longer historical perspective that this is an accurate assessment.  Classical physics is no help so to any QM theory, were does that leave the parapsychologically faithful?