ABC Machine Poll

[ABC2019]

reincarnation is contrary to the second principle of thermodynamics .

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

reincarnation is contrary to the second principle of thermodynamics .

So you messed up miserably. And it's you who says it. Of which act.

[ABC2019]

reincarnation is contrary to the second principle of thermodynamics .

So you messed up miserably. And it's you who says it. Of which act.

because you believe reincarnation is proven?

well if not I remind you that it is not me who wrote the second principle, it is part of the principles accepted by all physicists. Even Thibado doesn't question him, he just says his experience would respect him - which is wrong.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

reincarnation is contrary to the second principle of thermodynamics .

So you messed up miserably. And it's you who says it. Of which act.

because you believe reincarnation is proven?

Of course, for thousands of years.
And also in modern times:
https://www.wemystic.fr/reincarnation-vraie-fausse/

[ABC2019]

So you messed up miserably. And it's you who says it. Of which act.

because you believe reincarnation is proven?

Of course, for thousands of years.
And also in modern times:
https://www.wemystic.fr/reincarnation-vraie-fausse/

So for you if it is marked on a web page, is it necessarily true?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

because you believe reincarnation is proven?

Of course, for thousands of years.
And also in modern times:
https://www.wemystic.fr/reincarnation-vraie-fausse/

So for you if it is marked on a web page, is it necessarily true?

No, but you can't prove otherwise. If there are (hypothesis) multiverse, why not multiverse?

[Obamot]

It's cool that we come to talk about reincarnation in the ABC thread, it shows the high standard he intends to give it!

[ABC2019]

Of course, for thousands of years.
And also in modern times:
https://www.wemystic.fr/reincarnation-vraie-fausse/

So for you if it is marked on a web page, is it necessarily true?

No, but you can't prove otherwise. If there are (hypothesis) multiverse, why not multiverse?

because multiverses, by definition, do not communicate with each other, otherwise it would be a long time since they would have been proven to exist.
So since it is not proven, I did not contradict myself in any way, and it is not proven that the second principle is wrong. So far it is not contradictory with any known fact (obviously, otherwise we would have abandoned it ...)

We must understand the strength and weakness of the principles of physics: they must apply to everything, without exception. And suddenly if ONLY ONE known fact contradicts them, they must be abandoned. It's not like a police rule that you can chat with the cop if he's nice ...

So the fact that the second principle has not been abandoned proves that nothing has been found to contradict it.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

because multiverses, by definition, do not communicate with each other, otherwise it would be a long time since they would have been proven to exist.

Ah bah no because the testimonies which could indicate this possibility are ignored, the witnesses being taken for madmen! Try again.

[ABC2019]

because multiverses, by definition, do not communicate with each other, otherwise it would be a long time since they would have been proven to exist.

Ah bah no because the testimonies which could indicate this possibility are ignored, the witnesses being taken for madmen! Try again.

when something is only proven by human testimonies, but by no simple physics experiment, you can be sure that it is not due to a physical reality, but just to the great propensity that humans have to tell and to believe in anything ...