Thread:User talk:Tmtoulouse/Bump: You know that obnoxious thing people do on the internet when they've said something and they feel they haven't been paid enough attention? I'm doing that./reply (20)

The model I have proposed isn't static at all, the elements vary in time in conjunction with observation points. I did limit the dimensionality of the equations because non-linear statistical modeling is needlessly complex when the point can be shown in a linear context.

Your use of the after life is no different than any proposed model that makes a claim about a specific point in the future that has yet to occur. I could say that we actually all live in a giant lollipop, but that the lollipop is structured so that we will never know that we live in it until the giant finishes licking it to the center core. The giant will finish licking the lollipop and reach the center core on March 26th, 2014.

When does my giant lollipop model become superior to the anti-thesis that we don't live in a lollipop? Well when we reach the point that our observational evidence can show that we do. Until then the rational thing to do is to accept the more parsimonious model and wait further observation.

This is how science works, we change our models when new data is introduced that is better explained by another model. But until that time the rational individual will rely on the simplest model with the greatest explanatory power.

If you abandon this idea and say that any model that postulates some future event should be viewed as equally likely as any other, then you are stuck in your infinite loop of gibberish and giant lollipops.