Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 104

Thread: The afterlife

  1. #1 The afterlife 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Does anyone here believe in an afterlife, and in what context ?


    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    nope, how could there be a afterlife? its impossible


    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Only believe that you cannot die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Starry.Skies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The Universe is really big...but I'm somewhere out there.
    Posts
    32
    Can't say I do. I think I read somewhere that it was more of an ancient belief, but I could be wrong. There might be some people still out there that believe in the afterlife.
    Science is organized knowledge; wisdom is organized life.
    -Immanuel Kant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    The atoms of your body will be recycled by nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    The atoms of your body will be recycled by nature.
    exacly but the information stored in your brain wich is you is gone FOREVER MOHAHAHA
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    my information won't be because i am special :-D, i believe in reincarnation if you call that an afterlife... and Zelos, please don't argue with me on this one
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    my information won't be because i am special :-D, i believe in reincarnation if you call that an afterlife... and Zelos, please don't argue with me on this one
    i am your friend, but im also evil
    so i will argue
    just not now.

    We are all doomed to cease existing
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    ^ he actually believes that. MWUHAHAHAAAA
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    No, in no context.

    The matter and energy in my body will be around for the demise of the solar system and part of some unfolding of the universe. The only potential afterlife would be if some intelligence 'x' trillion years now decides to bring all my atomic particles back together offers me a beer and lets me watch videos of 'things that have not yet happened but will come to pass'. Might get boring after the first few billon years and I might regret his hospitality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Lets see. There was a point in your life that you first became aware of your very existence. Eventually, you and this universe will die.

    Since I believe universes appear and die all the time.... who knows if a new you will again be aware of your existence.... not knowing anything of past universes. You could have existed many times before but will never know.

    Sounds stupid but thats what I really believe.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Lets see. There was a point in your life that you first became aware of your very existence. Eventually, you and this universe will die.

    Since I believe universes appear and die all the time.... who knows if a new you will again be aware of your existence.... not knowing anything of past universes. You could have existed many times before but will never know.

    Sounds stupid but thats what I really believe.

    Bettina
    Wow. Really and stupid in the same sentence, that must be a really stupid-sentence. Hehe, kidding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    life comes, life goes
    star comes star goes
    planet comes planet goes

    everything has a begining and a end. so does our life. and our "soul"
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Something neverengingly big goes in a neverendingly big perspective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    my information won't be because i am special :-D, i believe in reincarnation if you call that an afterlife... and Zelos, please don't argue with me on this one
    If you believe in re-incarnation then could you please explain to me why there are more people living on the planet than before ?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    my information won't be because i am special :-D, i believe in reincarnation if you call that an afterlife... and Zelos, please don't argue with me on this one
    If you believe in re-incarnation then could you please explain to me why there are more people living on the planet than before ?
    ok then there is a queue, we do not know how many other life forms share this universe
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    now im jumping in nevyn. how could you not see this coming?

    1: if you belive in reincarnation please tell us how the "soul" is transfered out of the body
    2: how the neural synaptic pathway information is transformed into this form and how its stored there
    3: how the process can go in revers
    4: how did the reincarnation go before higher lifeforms?
    5: how did the reincarnation heirarchy get decieded?
    6: how can it be decieded if specieses allways changes
    7: how are we supposed to detect this?

    i think thats enough for now
    i do this for 2 reasons
    1: for fun
    2: for the sake of argument
    adding third
    3: cause i wish to assimilate every bieng
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Guest
    There was the 50's and 60's and now there's only the afterlife, friends, you are living it at the moment! 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    life comes, life goes
    star comes star goes
    planet comes planet goes

    everything has a begining and a end. so does our life. and our "soul"
    In the beginning....

    There was no planet, no star, and no universe, yet when it all took place a "you" emerged and bore witness to it.

    Since time is endless.....

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Guest
    Time had a begining, a very definite begining.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    If you believe in re-incarnation then could you please explain to me why there are more people living on the planet than before ?
    I'll bite... If you are a believer in reincarnation, there is no reason not to believe others are born "new" instead of being reborn. That would explain the increasing amounts.... Or, how about twins, quads, etc.

    Bee
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Hang on, i never said that :?
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    now im jumping in nevyn. how could you not see this coming?

    1: if you belive in reincarnation please tell us how the "soul" is transfered out of the body
    2: how the neural synaptic pathway information is transformed into this form and how its stored there
    3: how the process can go in revers
    4: how did the reincarnation go before higher lifeforms?
    5: how did the reincarnation heirarchy get decieded?
    6: how can it be decieded if specieses allways changes
    7: how are we supposed to detect this?

    i think thats enough for now
    i do this for 2 reasons
    1: for fun
    2: for the sake of argument
    adding third
    3: cause i wish to assimilate every bieng
    I can answer that with one word 'Magic' . Why oh why did you have to do this too me, why would you want to reverse the process? reversing would be impossible anyway because your body is dead. I don't believe in a reincarnation heierachy. Why would you want to detect it?
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Guest
    By reversing he clearly means restoring the soul to the next lifeform it takes on. re-incarnation is crap, why? because there is an egg and a sperm to create life yet each, individually is a living entity, which one gets the soul and when?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior Bettina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Time had a begining, a very definite begining.
    This is going off topic but to contradict your statement... just a little... I'm assuming your referring to my comment that time is endless. If you are, then your statement above is true only if it applies to our time which occurred at the big bang.

    Those of us who believe in other universes believe there was time before our big bang. So, in that sense, time is endless. Just because our time can come and go, doesn't mean that time ends.

    Bettina
    Emotionally based life form. The Fword will get you on my ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I can answer that with one word 'Magic'
    no you cant its unaccapteble. You must give a explination that is testeble

    Why oh why did you have to do this too me
    "why bob why?"
    "why the hell not?"
    cause of the reasons ive already mentioned

    why would you want to reverse the process
    since reincarnation means that souls jump from one body to another as the previus one dies the process must be reversed in order to get to the new body.

    reversing would be impossible anyway because your body is dead
    the revers is done in the new body

    don't believe in a reincarnation heierachy
    so no species is more valueble than others in your reincarnation thingy? every bieng can be reincarnated into any other bieng on this planet? my friend then you can do bad stuff since the probability you become a human then is so slim and undecieded by your actions

    Why would you want to detect it?
    if its not detecteble it doesnt happen or exist.
    1: everything can be explained according to a few laws and rules
    2: everything that do exist can be detected in someway
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: The afterlife 
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Does anyone here believe in an afterlife, and in what context ?
    Where is your mind? How can we comprehend the idea of honor? I believe there is more to life than we think. I believe that it something to do with that not so well known double helix. We are modified copies of ourselves. Each of us has a uniqueness. I think these qualities are eternal and maybe are resurected. As for heaven or being some angry ghost that wants revenge then I don't fully agree with these. Although I think media has flawed these concepts immensely so that nothing is left to imagination.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Where is your mind?
    inside my cranium where the cerebrum act as its storage and processing device

    How can we comprehend the idea of honor?
    electrochemical reactions via synaptic pathways

    I believe there is more to life than we think. I believe that it something to do with that not so well known double helix
    such as what?

    We are modified copies of ourselves. Each of us has a uniqueness
    its cause the chance of getting a copy of us is so slim it wont happen

    I think these qualities are eternal and maybe are resurected
    yes but highly unliky but it can be copied while you are alive
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Where is your mind?
    inside my cranium where the cerebrum act as its storage and processing device
    That is storage and proccessing but not actaul thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    How can we comprehend the idea of honor?
    electrochemical reactions via synaptic pathways
    Let me clarify. If we are simply byproducts of evolution than what is the point of honor and what would compel us to come up with such a concept?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    I believe there is more to life than we think. I believe that it something to do with that not so well known double helix
    such as what?
    I don't know what bu I believe it may something to do with DNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    I think these qualities are eternal and maybe are resurected
    yes but highly unliky but it can be copied while you are alive
    However you want to look at it is fine with me.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    That is storage and proccessing but not actaul thought.
    the storage and processing is the toughts

    If we are simply byproducts of evolution than what is the point of honor and what would compel us to come up with such a concept?
    survival, by having honor wich a group hold onto we connect more to each other and feel more one of them and is more willing to help each other and by that increases our overall survival chance.

    don't know what bu I believe it may something to do with DNA.
    what can have do with DNA?

    However you want to look at it is fine with me
    "You have the right to think what ever you want, feel what ever you want, belive what ever you want but it will never change how it is"
    Quote from me
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    the storage and processing is the toughts
    Please then, point to the thoughts so that I may see them, or hear, touch, taste, or smell them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    survival, by having honor wich a group hold onto we connect more to each other and feel more one of them and is more willing to help each other and by that increases our overall survival chance.
    riiiiight... :?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    what can have do with DNA?
    I said that I think there is alot more to life that we do not understand, or want to understand. I think part of that "more" has to do with DNA.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Please then, point to the thoughts so that I may see them, or hear, touch, taste, or smell them.
    sure but i dont think enither you or the guiniepig will like you doing it to his brain

    but "seeing" is hard since its to small for human mind to see but can be detected via EM fields generated, tough a brain just eat some monkey brain and you can touch, taste and smell it

    riiiiight...
    im allways right

    I said that I think there is alot more to life that we do not understand, or want to understand. I think part of that "more" has to do with DNA.
    what is this more? we know all the base pairss, what they are made up by, what makes them work how they work etc alone what can we have missed? somekinda lifeforce? please dont tell me that since you´ll kill my
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 simple logic 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Hi,

    Here's a simple reason why you should believe in life after death.

    When I need to make a decision I set up a decision matrix. Thats simply a tree diagram of all the different options and their consequences. Here we have 2 options, and 4 outcomes.

    1. You Dont believe in life after death, and are wrong.
    2. You Dont believe in Life after death, and you are correct.
    3. You Do believe in Life after death, and you are wrong.
    4. You Do believe in Life after death, and you are correct.

    If you choose Option 1, and are wrong then you have lived your entire life based on a false premise. You gain nothing.
    If you choose Option 2, You are correct, but if you cease to exist, all benefits of being correct vanish too. You gain nothing.
    If you chose Option 3, once again you have lived your entire life based on a false premise. You gain nothing.
    If you chose Option 4, You have lived under the correct premise and exist to beneft from it. You make a gain.

    Clearly there is nothing to be gained from choosing option 1 to 3. If you hope to gain anything at all then you must follow option 4. I would suggest that you take Option 4 as granted and move on to the next question.
    How the does life after death work. What is the science behind it. To solve this you need to first understand what life is. You need to understand what you are. What are the prime requirements of a living entity that need to be preserved so that you can live after death. If you can't understand what you are (as an entity) then you'll never understand life after death.
    Theres more I can add but this subject can fill volumes of text.

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Lets see. There was a point in your life that you first became aware of your very existence. Eventually, you and this universe will die.

    Since I believe universes appear and die all the time.... who knows if a new you will again be aware of your existence.... not knowing anything of past universes. You could have existed many times before but will never know.

    Sounds stupid but thats what I really believe.

    Bettina
    Bettina,

    I don't think this is silly at all. Our universe supposedly started with a big bang, from nothing. Logically, if one universe can spring from nothing, why can't more. Why can't they exist at the same moment, constantly appearing and dissappearing. Physicists believe that space is full of virtual particles appearing and disappearing out of existance, for no reason at all.
    Doesn't the existance of a single partical constitute a universe, even if somewhat limited.
    The theory of quantum computers is based on multiple versions of known space occuring at the same time. Theres ample evidence of multiple universes all around us. The fact that the fine constants in our universe are so finely tuned for life points to the fact that multiple universe must exist.

    If we are to survive death, then all our knowledge and experience needs to be preserved and appear functional some where else. If life after death does in fact exist then we must appear in those other universes. Its possible that a tailor made universe will pop into existance just for us.

    You think that sounds like magic? The universe started from nothing. The funny thing about nothing, apart from the fact that we're incapable of trully understanding it, is that there are no rules. In nothing, a pink elephant can pop into existence because there's no rule that saids it can't.
    Nothing, implies "no laws of physics".

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Robert --

    I think your first point is missing the point. I don't care about any gain from answering the question right. That's like people who say they are good Christians just so that if there really is a heaven and hell they don't go the wrong way. It's not about that at all, at least not to me. It's not like Zelos and I have a bet going that we will settle after we die (wait... do borg even die?).

    You say that the universe supposedly started with the "Big Bang". Who is making supposition? You? The big bang is merely an educated guess.
    So if everything started as nothing than wouldn't that nothing be nowhere? If so, than wouldn't this universe be nowhere; and if something is nowhere doesn't it not exist? My point being that I think you are making lots of assumptions. Logically nothing we know has any probability what soever in existing.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: The afterlife 
    Forum Junior Kolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    246
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Does anyone here believe in an afterlife, and in what context ?

    "Believe" is a word that has nothing to do with knowledge or information. You believe in something because you hope for it or because you fear it. Othrwise, if you say you believe in a spacific thing, it is because you think that it best fits your identity or the image of yourself that you wish others to see.

    As far as the afterlife goes, theres what you know and theres what you don't know.

    As for me, I don't know sh*t. I guess I'll find out when I die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Robert --

    I think your first point is missing the point. I don't care about any gain from answering the question right. That's like people who say they are good Christians just so that if there really is a heaven and hell they don't go the wrong way. It's not about that at all, at least not to me. It's not like Zelos and I have a bet going that we will settle after we die (wait... do borg even die?).

    You say that the universe supposedly started with the "Big Bang". Who is making supposition? You? The big bang is merely an educated guess.
    So if everything started as nothing than wouldn't that nothing be nowhere? If so, than wouldn't this universe be nowhere; and if something is nowhere doesn't it not exist? My point being that I think you are making lots of assumptions. Logically nothing we know has any probability what soever in existing.
    Hi Dabob,

    My point was that it was illogical to proceed with the assumption that there was no life after death, since theres no point to being either right or wrong in that case. If there were no life after death your opinions, or mine, become irrelevant since our thought processes cease to exist along with us. It becomes irrelevant that you don't care about being wrong.

    You say you don't care about getting the question right, buts thats nonsense. I don't think theres a person alive who doesn't care that they were wrong about something. We all strive to be right, to some degree.
    You wouldn't be arguing this point if you had not cared.

    I'm not the one doing the supposing about the big bang theory. Its the current accepted theory of science, mostly. I'm not trying to validate it.
    I'm just using it as a starting point. We all need to start somewhere and thats the point I picked, rightly, or wrongly.

    Yes, you are correct. This universe is nowhere. Nothingness and nowhere are concepts we have a great deal of trouble understanding. Actually its probably impossible to understand. The human mind can only understand something it has experienced, either directly or something similar to.
    We can imagine what its like to jump off niagra falls because we've all experienced jumping and falling. Since its impossible to experience "nothing" we just can't get our minds around it. You think of the void of space, but even the void of space is filled with stuff that obey the physical laws. Even space has dimensions. The nothing that comes before universes exist does'nt obey physical laws. There are no laws. There are no dimensions, no up, no down, or size and distance, no magnetic fields, or quarks, or atoms. Nothing as an absolute.

    When dealing with the true nature of the universe we have no choice but to make assumptions, because we have no firm facts to deal with. By definition we could not be at the beginning of the universe, or before it, because we are of the universe. We can not view other dimensions and other universes because we are cemented to this one. In order to see the other universes, or dimensions you need to be operating at a reference point outside of the universe.

    I understand the basic procedures of science as well as anyone. Come up with a theory based on observed phenomena, devise a test, and show proof. In this case though the phenomena we're interested in is beyond our ability to see. We want to see the other dimensions, and universes but we can't. They're hidden to us, possible forever. In this scenario we have only one avenue for advancement. Make a basic assumption about the universe, in this case, that universes spring from nothing, for no reason at all. Based on that assumption you quickly progress to other universes springing into existance, and so on. If i'm wrong, then I cease to exist and me being wrong becomes irrelevant, if I'm right I would have started down a path of thinking that possibly might yeild a true understanding of nature. The decision matrix chooses for me, and it chooses to take the path where I might gain something, instead of nothing.

    I would suggest we all use the decision matrix in all our dealings in our daily lives. We'd all be better off for it.

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Hi Dabob,

    My point was that it was illogical to proceed with the assumption that there was no life after death, since theres no point to being either right or wrong in that case.
    I guess it just seems to me that, according to this logic, it is illogical to have any philisophical discussion in general. Since, if there is no life after death nothing matters. Or if there is life after death than I suppose we will have an eternity to discuss the questions when we die, although this quesiton would obviously be answered.


    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    You say you don't care about getting the question right, buts thats nonsense. I don't think theres a person alive who doesn't care that they were wrong about something. We all strive to be right, to some degree.
    You wouldn't be arguing this point if you had not cared.
    I said that I don't care about gaining anything from asnwering the question correctly. I wish to discuss the question and maybe reach some conclusion but I will not recieve and satisfaction in life after death just because I guessed it right. Obviously I would care if I am right or not because it would be nice to know the truth, but in this case the truth seems very much out of our reach. I would rather know there is no life after death than guess that there is. Am I making sense?


    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    I'm not the one doing the supposing about the big bang theory. Its the current accepted theory of science, mostly. I'm not trying to validate it.
    I'm just using it as a starting point. We all need to start somewhere and thats the point I picked, rightly, or wrongly.
    You mean that it is the current most accepted theory by most recognized scientists. I wasn't bothered about your assumption that the big bang may or may not have truth, what bothered me is that you assumed that everyone in the discussion had the same assumption as you. I can assure you they don't. It may have just been the way you worded it but you talked as though everyone here had agreed on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    When dealing with the true nature of the universe we have no choice but to make assumptions, because we have no firm facts to deal with. By definition we could not be at the beginning of the universe, or before it, because we are of the universe. We can not view other dimensions and other universes because we are cemented to this one. In order to see the other universes, or dimensions you need to be operating at a reference point outside of the universe.
    I see another thread being started here...

    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    The decision matrix chooses for me, and it chooses to take the path where I might gain something, instead of nothing.

    I would suggest we all use the decision matrix in all our dealings in our daily lives. We'd all be better off for it.
    Again comes the question: "what's in it for me". Honestly I don't care what's in it for me. I want truth. I don't need comfort of faith in an idea just because it has better gains than not having the faith.

    To choices for this decision matrix.
    1. If I clap my hands it makes a noise.
    2. If I clap my hands it makes a noise and I get a million dollars.

    Well, it seems there would be more gain with option 2 so I guess we should go with that. Obviously this is an exaggeration but I hope that it get's across my point. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to know the truth than to waste your time clapping your hands.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Hi Dabob,

    My point was that it was illogical to proceed with the assumption that there was no life after death, since theres no point to being either right or wrong in that case. [/qoute]

    I guess it just seems to me that, according to this logic, it is illogical to have any philisophical discussion in general. Since, if there is no life after death nothing matters. Or if there is life after death than I suppose we will have an eternity to discuss the questions when we die, although this quesiton would obviously be answered.
    Hi Dabob,
    In this case you are correct. You understand the gist of what I'm saying. According to my logic it is illogical to have any philisophical discussions if there is no life after death. The problem lies in the fact that we don't currently know if there is life after death or not. We don't know if our current thoughts will cease to exist (and therefore become irrelevant), or whether they continue on. You don't know if you should continue with your philisophical questions or not.
    Since we don't know the answer, and we so like to have these philisopical discussions I'm suggesting to you that you accept "life after death" as fact, without proof, because if there isn't then nothing we say or do, or think is relevant. If I were wrong about this it wouldn't matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    You say you don't care about getting the question right, buts thats nonsense. I don't think theres a person alive who doesn't care that they were wrong about something. We all strive to be right, to some degree.
    You wouldn't be arguing this point if you had not cared.
    I said that I don't care about gaining anything from asnwering the question correctly. I wish to discuss the question and maybe reach some conclusion but I will not recieve and satisfaction in life after death just because I guessed it right. Obviously I would care if I am right or not because it would be nice to know the truth, but in this case the truth seems very much out of our reach. I would rather know there is no life after death than guess that there is. Am I making sense?.
    Lets say you somehow found a secret video of the "life, the universe and everything" Lets say that from the video you realized for certain that there was no life after death. At that moment you'd feel satisfaction in knowing the truth. But then you do die. The knowledge that was in your head ceases to exist, along with the satisfaction you felt, and everything that was you. Its like you never existed at all. All the effort you had put in to finding the truth all becomes a waste of time. Even all those times you were wrong about something ceases to become relevant.

    I understand what you're trying to say. If this was any other subject I would say that you should come to a conclusion based on facts or anything other than what you have to gain from choosing one path over another. I get that. But this case is a unique exception. It relates to what it means to become "nothing" I've felt my own mind twist in on itself so often on this subject. Try to remember that if you cease to exist, then things like truth, satisfaction, right, or wrong, simply have no meaning any more.



    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    The decision matrix chooses for me, and it chooses to take the path where I might gain something, instead of nothing.

    I would suggest we all use the decision matrix in all our dealings in our daily lives. We'd all be better off for it.
    Again comes the question: "what's in it for me". Honestly I don't care what's in it for me. I want truth. I don't need comfort of faith in an idea just because it has better gains than not having the faith.

    To choices for this decision matrix.
    1. If I clap my hands it makes a noise.
    2. If I clap my hands it makes a noise and I get a million dollars.

    Well, it seems there would be more gain with option 2 so I guess we should go with that. Obviously this is an exaggeration but I hope that it get's across my point. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to know the truth than to waste your time clapping your hands.
    Actually in either case you find yourself clapping your hands. So theres no real decision there. The hand clapping is the input, and the noise/million dollars are the output.
    A decision matrix is something we used to use in design school, when there were several options available to us, and we needed to evaluate the merits of each option.

    Regards,
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman Junglist_Movement's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    31
    i know i exist beyond the limitations of my body. birth is not the beginning and death is not the end, just transitional phases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    22
    ive never heard of an afterlife, how do you know this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman Junglist_Movement's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by AtakesLeHpargio
    ive never heard of an afterlife, how do you know this?
    because my religion tells me to believe so! ....

    haha no just kidding, i had a few experiences in my life and putting 2 and 2 together i came up with the conclusion that the body is just a vehicle. when your car runs out of gas can you not just get out and walk?

    now you may be wondering what my "experiences" were that led me to be so sure of my view of life. well since i was first consious on this planet i have had a pre-birth memory of being above the earth with a white energy sphere like being and this being told me i was going to be born on this planet. 19 years of my life thinking about it and not knowing what to think about it, i googled pre-birth memories and was shocked to find that houndreds of people have experienced this and it is quite normal.
    this to me means that there is a pre-life. so therefore there is more to me than my physical body, and this part of me existed without a body before, exists now, and will exist after my physical death.
    when i was a child i also had several involuntary out of body experiences. i was in day care and it was always during the nap time. i vividly remember "shaking out" of my body and floating up. clearly seeing the other children lying down in their beds and the teachers sitting in chairs around the room. this happened more then a few times, and every time i clearly remember thinking "oh, im here again. well im not sleeping but atleast i can still rest like this". other times i would enter the vibrational state before separation and i would panic and stop it from happening. the times i entered the vibrational state and remained calm i would soon separate and float around as i pleased. i was able to move through the floor and the bed, i was clearly in an energy body.

    i can understand looking at everything from a scientifical view that death is the end, and feel like the only reason you exist is to pro-create, but as much as science knows now, it is still not a reliable source to inform you about the truth about pre-life, and after-life. it would be truly amazing if one day it could though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Junglist_Movement
    now you may be wondering what my "experiences" were that led me to be so sure of my view of life. well since i was first consious on this planet i have had a pre-birth memory of being above the earth with a white energy sphere like being and this being told me i was going to be born on this planet. 19 years of my life thinking about it and not knowing what to think about it, i googled pre-birth memories and was shocked to find that houndreds of people have experienced this and it is quite normal.
    this to me means that there is a pre-life. so therefore there is more to me than my physical body, and this part of me existed without a body before, exists now, and will exist after my physical death.
    when i was a child i also had several involuntary out of body experiences. i was in day care and it was always during the nap time. i vividly remember "shaking out" of my body and floating up. clearly seeing the other children lying down in their beds and the teachers sitting in chairs around the room. this happened more then a few times, and every time i clearly remember thinking "oh, im here again. well im not sleeping but atleast i can still rest like this". other times i would enter the vibrational state before separation and i would panic and stop it from happening. the times i entered the vibrational state and remained calm i would soon separate and float around as i pleased. i was able to move through the floor and the bed, i was clearly in an energy body.
    hmmm....

    Quote Originally Posted by Junglist_Movement
    i can understand looking at everything from a scientifical view that death is the end, and feel like the only reason you exist is to pro-create, but as much as science knows now, it is still not a reliable source to inform you about the truth about pre-life, and after-life. it would be truly amazing if one day it could though.
    Would you say that religion is a reliable source?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    From one perspective: The afterlife doesn't exist, because our 'personality' is simply information encoded in our brain; whenever our brain is destroyed, that information is also destroyed. This is obvious by the fact that when a person's brain is damaged, they may lose a certain aspect of their personality. Now, where does that aspect go? Nowhere, it's just destroyed along with the killed tissue. So when you die, the same thing happens: bacteria decomposes your brain tissue, or it becomes victim to worms, and your information gets destroyed. Thus, 'you' (your personality) ceases to exist, except as separated portions in worms bellies.

    From another perspective: The afterlife probably exists because our 'personality' is not determined by our physical bodies. When our brain is damaged, it's not that part of our personality is destroyed, it's just that that portion cannot physically manifest itself, as the portion of the brain through which it manifests itself physically is gone. The more of your physical brain that gets damaged, the more metaphysical, if you like, you become. Thus, when you die, and your body is completely decomposed/digested, your metaphysical being becomes complete, and you live in the metaphysical world, i.e., the afterlife.

    From a third perspective: The afterlife does exist; I've experienced it m'self.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    71
    I take a neutral stance on this subject because it's unknown, and no way of proving either way.

    I think life is just a test, a mind boggling ride of experience to see how you cope with things, and make choices in different types of situations and learn about the universe and everything in it.

    Just arrangements of atoms and matter spewed out from the universe held together by a perfect balance of forces in this physical realm, but thats not to say that it's impossible for a continuation in some other realm unknown to us, because we are not at that stage.

    Strip it down and the fact that life exists is as crazy as thinking that there isn't some weird next phase.

    We will just have to wait and see, one day we will all find out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    who an why resurected this Dead thread...
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    who an why resurected this Dead thread...

    It's been reborn. It's now not a thread but a been read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    hmmm, I remember havin very big arguments on the matter and If I remember rightly I lossed to Zelos and Megabrain... oh well it was a laugh
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Sorry I was gone for a while and this was one of my watched topics.... so I replied to it. My bad.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman Junglist_Movement's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    31
    >>Would you say that religion is a reliable source?<<

    well, first of all, like science, religion is only part of the big picture. its the part of the picture science does not always portray. because of this i would say that religion is a reliable source in small doses, every religion has something to teach about pre life, this life, and afterlife. testimonies are also reliable sources because its based on experiences. from my experience i know that there is an energy body of sorts that religion talks about and calls a soul, and another life, more significant than this one, more "real" than this one, awaits us. a life religion talks about and calls an afterlife, or "heaven". from others experiences they say they know that something exists that religion talks about and calls god. putting together the peices of religion, science, and experiences you can have a bigger picture than with just science, or just religion.

    however, i think beyond religion, deep meditation would open the doors to perception much faster than any book. i often find things written in religion that i already knew from meditation, but it still seemed relevant to see it on paper.

    and remember, as confusius said, "wherever you go, there you are."[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Somebody Junglist_Movement quoted
    >>Would you say that religion is a reliable source?<<
    No.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Junglist_Movement
    >>Would you say that religion is a reliable source?<<

    well, first of all, like science, religion is only part of the big picture. its the part of the picture science does not always portray. because of this i would say that religion is a reliable source in small doses, every religion has something to teach about pre life, this life, and afterlife. testimonies are also reliable sources because its based on experiences. from my experience i know that there is an energy body of sorts that religion talks about and calls a soul, and another life, more significant than this one, more "real" than this one, awaits us. a life religion talks about and calls an afterlife, or "heaven". from others experiences they say they know that something exists that religion talks about and calls god. putting together the peices of religion, science, and experiences you can have a bigger picture than with just science, or just religion.

    however, i think beyond religion, deep meditation would open the doors to perception much faster than any book. i often find things written in religion that i already knew from meditation, but it still seemed relevant to see it on paper.

    and remember, as confusius said, "wherever you go, there you are."
    Actually some religions also speak of reincarnation. So do we go to heaven or are we reincarnated?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman Junglist_Movement's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    31
    I personally believe we are in heaven temporarily, after death and before birth, and we re-incarnate some place in the universe, to learn some important things we chose and face new challenges so our souls can continue to develop. So to answer that, we go to heaven and when we are ready we are re-incarnated. This is also why I say religion is good in small doses, because now someone will say no we go to heaven with God forever or go to hell with satan forever, or no we re-incarnate endlessly until we become enlightened.

    scientistphilosophertheist, just out of curiosity, as you said religion is not a reliable source, did you find out about God through religion? I'm assuming your a theist here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Religion isn't a reliable (nor relevant) source when applied to any natural phenomena, which humanity is but one example of.

    To particular supernatural phenomena, such as Gods existence, it is best to use a dash of logic with a healthy dose of pragmatism and consider that the only evidence for supernatural beings is a flawed book from 2000yrs+ authors and the inherent feeling some people have and also desire/indoctrinated to cultivate, that there is something beyond just the natural.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman Junglist_Movement's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    31
    why does the existence of god have to be supernatural? with a dash of logic do you still think god has to be an old guy in the clouds telling people to sacrifice their children in his name?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    if god was natural, who created the universe ? if nothing existed before the big bang, then anything that belongs to nature came after, which would include god if he was natural instead of supernatural
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Junglist_Movement
    scientistphilosophertheist, just out of curiosity, as you said religion is not a reliable source, did you find out about God through religion? I'm assuming your a theist here.
    Yup.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    why is everyone about afterlife, and not beforelife?
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Bettina
    Lets see. There was a point in your life that you first became aware of your very existence. Eventually, you and this universe will die.

    Since I believe universes appear and die all the time.... who knows if a new you will again be aware of your existence.... not knowing anything of past universes. You could have existed many times before but will never know.

    Sounds stupid but thats what I really believe.

    Bettina

    This is exactly what I believe too!

    If time is infinite, then everything with a probability higher than zero will occur an infinite amount of times, unless we believe that a specific law of nature or a God or so "decides to reset the probability to zero" e.g. with the argument: "You have lived once now". (irony)


    This is my argument:
    Factor A, Factor B,..., Factor X are the factors in the history of the universe that lead to my existence.

    I am a living proof that:
    Factor A, Factor B,..., Factor X => My consciousness ("my 1st person").

    As a direct consequence of this, we know for a fact that:
    P(Factor A, Factor B,..., Factor X => My consciousness)>0.

    At a random point of time, t, my consciousness either exists (1) or it does not exist (0), so this is a binominal case. In a binominal case, the expectation value is defined as:

    E(X)=n*P(X).

    If P(X)>0 and n->oo, then:

    E(X)=lim{n->oo}n*P(X)=oo.

    So mathematically, seen from the point of view of each consciousness, it will always exist. Seen from an objective point of view, between each recurrence of a specific consciousness, the consciousness will not exist, and it will as such be dead.

    The same can be said about everything which has a probability higher than zero, including a universe exactly like the one we are living in right now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    VikingF,

    If time is infinite, then everything with a probability higher than zero will occur an infinite amount of times, unless we believe that a specific law of nature or a God or so "decides to reset the probability to zero" e.g. with the argument: "You have lived once now". (irony)
    But what if time is not infinite? Time as we know it is a measure of the age of the universe, which seemed to have had a definite beginning. If time began at that point it will never be infinite, no matter how long the universe lasts. That's an empirical argument of course. Taking a rational line, time and space are measures of finite things (size, age), so I do not see how they can ever belong to the realm of the infinite anyway. By definition they are finite.

    So mathematically, seen from the point of view of each consciousness, it will always exist. Seen from an objective point of view, between each recurrence of a specific consciousness, the consciousness will not exist, and it will as such be dead.
    If you are saying that a precise repetition of genetic and environmental conditions will lead to the same consciousness reappearing, that seems highly unlikely. Identical twins are genetically identical and were raised in nearly identical environments but have separate identities.

    I have to laugh when people who know nothing except that they are conscious reduce that consciousness to an epiphenomenon of the brain, which they know only indirectly. Since all we know is that we have - or are - minds, it is surely more logical to take mind as our starting point and discuss how it might give rise to the experience of worlds (including dream worlds).

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    But what if time is not infinite? Time as we know it is a measure of the age of the universe, which seemed to have had a definite beginning. If time began at that point it will never be infinite, no matter how long the universe lasts. That's an empirical argument of course. Taking a rational line, time and space are measures of finite things (size, age), so I do not see how they can ever belong to the realm of the infinite anyway. By definition they are finite.
    I think it is highly unlikely that time in it's purest form can ever begin or end. The reason why our Big Bang is looked upon as "the beginning of time" is because we don't know anything about the (possible) time before 10^-43 s after the BB, and hence it is meaningless to speculate about a time before that. The BB is marking the beginning of "our time". However, many cosmologists are taking seriously the idea that our universe may be only an infinitesmall part of the entire multiverse, and that the entire multiverse may be infinite in space and/or time. Of course, we can't know this for sure, but e.g. the inflationary cosmology, which is one of the leading cosmologies right now, assumes that our pocket universe is one of infinitely many in a possible infinite multiverse/universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    If you are saying that a precise repetition of genetic and environmental conditions will lead to the same consciousness reappearing, that seems highly unlikely. Identical twins are genetically identical and were raised in nearly identical environments but have separate identities.
    Maybe it is unlikely, but we know that we exist, and we know that we must be a result of something (atleast if we prefer determinism), and whatever that something is, it must have a probability of happening above zero, since it actually happened. It doesn't really matter what that something is, as long as it is something, if you see my point. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    We can't have infinity behind us though... Or what do you say norwegian guy? We have an infinity on us to figure all this out, take your time. Given that all decay equally fast given their own time frame, and infinity will decay into the time line, exactly one infinity. Blackholes decays the slowest, their time flow is equally slow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    We can't have infinity behind us though... Or what do you say norwegian guy? We have an infinity on us to figure all this out, take your time. Given that all decay equally fast given their own time frame, and infinity will decay into the time line, exactly one infinity. Blackholes decays the slowest, their time flow is equally slow.

    I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. :-D

    What do you mean by "all decay equally fast given their own time frame", "infinity will decay into the time line", and "one infinity"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    We decay, some are space, some are mass, some are dark matter, some are even dark energy. All was one, at time one, and all dimensions that were possible were like time at this time. For time to expand, other dimensions were sacrificed, and eventually time will be all there is, hence infinite. If one experience that infinite time has past, and all experience the same speed of decay per time, then all will experience infinite time, even those who have allready passed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Ok, if I understand your words correctly, you are saying that time is future-eternal, but not past-eternal, i.e. that time did start, but that it will never end?

    My only problem with that is that I think it is hard to imagine how time suddenly started from a timeless state "before" (or maybe more correctly at) BB. It is more logical that time is something that has always existed, and that BB was just the beginning of our concept of time. I still haven't seen a good argument or an evidence showing that BB was the absolute beginning of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    "Ok, if I understand your words correctly, you are saying that time is future-eternal, but not past-eternal"

    Cause then we wouldn't be here.

    , "i.e. that time did start, but that it will never end?"
    We will percieve it to end after an infinite period of time, while it has allready ended to some, though they experienced that they existed for an eternal amount of time, and that it never ended, because our reference frames are different and one can not experience others experience.

    "My only problem with that is that I think it is hard to imagine how time suddenly started from a timeless state "before" (or maybe more correctly at) BB."
    The moment without time dimension was the first moment of time, time "no time". After that there was "time one" and time dimension was not chosen, hence all dimensions got lenght one, and there was a singularity. After that it has decayed to create time 2, 3 etc. on the cost of other dimensions.

    "It is more logical that time is something that has always existed, and that BB was just the beginning of our concept of time."

    Previous universes have run out through our hands. There were many time 0, but they are not interconnected.
    "I still haven't seen a good argument or an evidence showing that BB was the absolute beginning of time." Tell me when you have changed your mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    I will answer you without quoting. It seemed to me that you were argumenting for a time with a beginning, but without an end. In my logic (and it might be illogical :wink: ), the universe is a part of time, and not the other way around. As a result of this, I look at time as infinite in both "ends" (both in past and future), and the/our universe appeared 13.7 billion years ago. Since we don't have any knowledge about the conditions before that point in time, we talk about "our time" as if it started at the same moment as our universe began. However, that doesn't mean that time (in it's purest form) cannot have existed before that, e.g. in an infinite "multiverse"/cosmos. Many scientists accept that idea, so I don't feel too alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    I think it is highly unlikely that time in it's purest form can ever begin or end.
    Hi,

    You seem to know a lot about time. What is time in its purest form?

    I don't actually believe that there is such a thing as time, only sequence of events. If all the matter in the universe suddenly froze in space for say a year, and then started moving again. Would you know it. Would you notice any difference? Would you feel older? I bet you wouldn't.

    The mechanism behind the universe doesn't measure time. It measures movement.

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    From one perspective: The afterlife doesn't exist, because our 'personality' is simply information encoded in our brain; whenever our brain is destroyed, that information is also destroyed. This is obvious by the fact that when a person's brain is damaged, they may lose a certain aspect of their personality. Now, where does that aspect go? Nowhere, it's just destroyed along with the killed tissue. So when you die, the same thing happens: bacteria decomposes your brain tissue, or it becomes victim to worms, and your information gets destroyed. Thus, 'you' (your personality) ceases to exist, except as separated portions in worms bellies.
    Yes, you're correct. Personality is just information in the brain, and if the brain is destroyed so is the information. Therefore for life after to death to exist the information stored in your brain must be retained even after the individual cells go their separate ways.
    So the real question becomes, if life after death exists, how does the information get transposed from your brain to somewhere else.

    I think the answer lies in the things we don't see about atoms, and molecules and cells. Theres some sort of invisible mechanism that is responsible for all the particles and their interactions that we see in our universe. I suspect its an older, larger universe that is simply number crunching and causing an effect that we perceive as physical reality.

    Anyway, the mechanism creating the universe must contain all the information about all the particles in the universe, and therefore contains a copy of all the information in our heads.
    The atoms and molecules in our heads are continually interacting in a set pattern, sometimes changing slightly as we learn, sometimes excercising the same routines over and over. What if over time the mechanism generating the universe was able to "notice" the patterns in our heads and continued to recreate those patterns long after the actual molecules were spread to the 4 winds. Would'nt this be a method where by the information in our heads continued to survive after we died.

    A big IF, I know. But you have to start somewhere.

    Regards
    Robert

    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    I think it is highly unlikely that time in it's purest form can ever begin or end.
    Hi,

    You seem to know a lot about time. What is time in its purest form?

    I don't actually believe that there is such a thing as time, only sequence of events. If all the matter in the universe suddenly froze in space for say a year, and then started moving again. Would you know it. Would you notice any difference? Would you feel older? I bet you wouldn't.

    The mechanism behind the universe doesn't measure time. It measures movement.

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )

    I don't think you understood my point. You say that time is a sequence of events. Well okay, but how do we know that time (i.e. the total sequence of events) began at the Big Bang, and that there was no time before that? We don't know if there was a sequence of events before that, we only know that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe (or our part of the universe if you prefer)/our sequence of events. We can't even measure time before 10^-43 s after the Big Bang. Since we can only trace time X years back, then there is no reason to say for sure that there "was no time before that". It's like saying "I can only look as far as the horizon goes, hence there is nothing beyond that". It doesn't make sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by VikingF
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    I think it is highly unlikely that time in it's purest form can ever begin or end.
    Hi,

    You seem to know a lot about time. What is time in its purest form?

    I don't actually believe that there is such a thing as time, only sequence of events. If all the matter in the universe suddenly froze in space for say a year, and then started moving again. Would you know it. Would you notice any difference? Would you feel older? I bet you wouldn't.

    The mechanism behind the universe doesn't measure time. It measures movement.

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )

    I don't think you understood my point. You say that time is a sequence of events. Well okay, but how do we know that time (i.e. the total sequence of events) began at the Big Bang, and that there was no time before that? We don't know if there was a sequence of events before that, we only know that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe (or our part of the universe if you prefer)/our sequence of events. We can't even measure time before 10^-43 s after the Big Bang. Since we can only trace time X years back, then there is no reason to say for sure that there "was no time before that". It's like saying "I can only look as far as the horizon goes, hence there is nothing beyond that". It doesn't make sense.
    Hi,
    Yes, you are correct. We can not know if there were sequences of events before the supposed big bang. I expect there probably was. Being a believer of multi-universes as I am.
    But how does this relate to the topic of life after death. Sorry if I missed some important previous post. Sometimes its hard to keep track of the many side trips that occur in forums.

    Regards
    Robert

    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Hi,
    Yes, you are correct. We can not know if there were sequences of events before the supposed big bang. I expect there probably was. Being a believer of multi-universes as I am.
    But how does this relate to the topic of life after death. Sorry if I missed some important previous post. Sometimes its hard to keep track of the many side trips that occur in forums.

    Regards
    Robert

    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )

    I think we do agree about time and the uni-/multiverse.

    My point is:
    I know that I do exist now. I also know that certain factors lead to my existence, e.g. the right sperm carrying the right DNA fertilizing the right egg carrying the right DNA, my parents meeting, my two pair of grandparents meeting, etc.... A lot of factors all the way back to the beginning of our universe. Since I know all this, then I do also know that the probability that these factors may happen in a universe (given the right circumstances) is above zero. They did in fact happen, hence we know that.

    Since we have seen that these factors may lead to the existence of me, we know that the probability for me to exist in a universe is above zero.

    If time and/or the uni-/multiverse is infinite, then everything with a probability above zero will occur an infinite amount of times, with a probability equal to 1:

    E(something)=n*P(something).

    In this case:
    E(my existence)=lim{n->oo}n*P(my existence)=oo.

    (oo=infinite, E=expectation value)

    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73 life, but not you. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by VikingF
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Hi,
    Yes, you are correct. We can not know if there were sequences of events before the supposed big bang. I expect there probably was. Being a believer of multi-universes as I am.
    But how does this relate to the topic of life after death. Sorry if I missed some important previous post. Sometimes its hard to keep track of the many side trips that occur in forums.

    Regards
    Robert

    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )

    I think we do agree about time and the uni-/multiverse.

    My point is:
    I know that I do exist now. I also know that certain factors lead to my existence, e.g. the right sperm carrying the right DNA fertilizing the right egg carrying the right DNA, my parents meeting, my two pair of grandparents meeting, etc.... A lot of factors all the way back to the beginning of our universe. Since I know all this, then I do also know that the probability that these factors may happen in a universe (given the right circumstances) is above zero. They did in fact happen, hence we know that.

    Since we have seen that these factors may lead to the existence of me, we know that the probability for me to exist in a universe is above zero.

    If time and/or the uni-/multiverse is infinite, then everything with a probability above zero will occur an infinite amount of times, with a probability equal to 1:

    E(something)=n*P(something).

    In this case:
    E(my existence)=lim{n->oo}n*P(my existence)=oo.

    (oo=infinite, E=expectation value)

    Hi,
    Yes, good logic. Unfortuneately it just shows that life is very probable in a universe with the right conditions. It doesn't show that you could live after death.

    Unless you're saying theres a good chance that at any particular moment there could be a duplicate you in another universe? Is that what you're saying?
    Even if there was the duplicate you they would need identical information stored in their brains and have had the same experiences to be considered to be the same person.

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74 Re: life, but not you. 
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Hi,
    Yes, good logic. Unfortuneately it just shows that life is very probable in a universe with the right conditions. It doesn't show that you could live after death.
    It actually shows that anything with a probability above zero is very probable in a universe with the right conditions, including your specific existence/sense of being.


    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Unless you're saying theres a good chance that at any particular moment there could be a duplicate you in another universe? Is that what you're saying?
    Yes, that is also an implication of time and/or space being infinite. Not just in one universe, but in infinitely many.


    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Even if there was the duplicate you they would need identical information stored in their brains and have had the same experiences to be considered to be the same person.
    That's true, but if anything that is possible happens sooner or later somewhere, then an identical human being with the exact same experiences will also recur somewhere, using the same logic. Your existence is real, hence the probability for it to occur in a universe is above zero, hence it must recur somewhere again sooner or later, if only by pure chance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75 Re: life, but not you. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Even if there was the duplicate you they would need identical information stored in their brains and have had the same experiences to be considered to be the same person.
    That's true, but if anything that is possible happens sooner or later somewhere, then an identical human being with the exact same experiences will also recur somewhere, using the same logic. Your existence is real, hence the probability for it to occur in a universe is above zero, hence it must recur somewhere again sooner or later, if only by pure chance.
    Hmm, this part is rather iffy. The probability of someone existing in another universe with exactly the same information in their heads as you is infinetessimally small. I don't think we can say that just because something has a possibility of occuring above zero that it must occur at some point, in an infinite progression of universes. Even though the maths appear to say so. Even in maths there are boundary limits where an equation will break down.

    The universe is essentially digital in nature. The smallest distance between two points is limited to a fixed distance known as the planks constant. For example a moving electron will dissappear from its current position and appear a short distance away. It will not travel through the interval space.
    The mechanism that is responsible for our universe appears to have some limitations. It appears to be a system with limited computational power.

    When you have a digital system of limited resolution theres a cut off point where events of extremely low probability are elliminated. Quantization error, where things are rounded up, or down.

    Anyway, for a person to appear in another universe with the same information in their heads it would mean that all their experiences would have to be the same. This means that everyone in the copy's life would have had to do and say exactly as they would have in our universe. Which decreases the probability exponentially down to a ridiculous point.
    And even then, if you did find such a universe where everything was identical, all you'd have is a copy universe. If you died in your universe, you'd most likely die in the copy universe. Once again the topic of life after death has not been addressed.

    Maths alone is'nt going to cut it I'm afraid. If "life after death" actually occurs then its about time we started thinking about the practical framework required in a system that allows that sort of thing to occur. It would be nice if we could all move from yes, I believe, or no I don't believe, to "this is the framework under which it could occur". Only then could we have some real insights into this subject.

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76 Re: life, but not you. 
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Hmm, this part is rather iffy. The probability of someone existing in another universe with exactly the same information in their heads as you is infinetessimally small. I don't think we can say that just because something has a possibility of occuring above zero that it must occur at some point, in an infinite progression of universes. Even though the maths appear to say so. Even in maths there are boundary limits where an equation will break down.

    The universe is essentially digital in nature. The smallest distance between two points is limited to a fixed distance known as the planks constant. For example a moving electron will dissappear from its current position and appear a short distance away. It will not travel through the interval space.
    The mechanism that is responsible for our universe appears to have some limitations. It appears to be a system with limited computational power.

    When you have a digital system of limited resolution theres a cut off point where events of extremely low probability are elliminated. Quantization error, where things are rounded up, or down.
    But still, even if such events are eliminated, we know for sure that some of them did in fact happen. If it is like you say, i.e. that a universe can be expressed as a long sequence of digits (0s and 1s), then it is a limited number of possible universes. If we visualize a matrix ordered like this: [The sequence of digits from the 1st planck second of the universe, the sequence of digits from the 2nd planck second of the universe,...,the sequence of digits from the last planck second of the universe], then there is a finite amount of possible matrices, and if there is an infinite amount of universes in the multiverse, then all of these combinations are bound to re-occur. It's like having a computer program displaying a (pseudo-)random number between 0 and 9 every second without stopping. After 10 seconds, some numbers must re-occur, as a direct result of the limited amount of numbers to choose from.

    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Anyway, for a person to appear in another universe with the same information in their heads it would mean that all their experiences would have to be the same. This means that everyone in the copy's life would have had to do and say exactly as they would have in our universe. Which decreases the probability exponentially down to a ridiculous point.
    I will use the same argument as above. Even if the probability is infinitesmall, if it is more than zero, and the number of possible "digit state-matrices" is finite, then they are bound to reappear somewhere/sometime again if time and/or the number of universes is infinite.


    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    And even then, if you did find such a universe where everything was identical, all you'd have is a copy universe. If you died in your universe, you'd most likely die in the copy universe. Once again the topic of life after death has not been addressed.
    Yes, in parallel universes, you and your "copy" will be born and die exactly at the same planck second, but an identical universe will appear in the future as well - if time is infinite.

    What would be the difference between an identical universe and the universe we are living in now, and what makes this "the original universe", seen from your self's point of view? The way I see it, whatever makes you you (and not just a copy) must have a non-zero probability, even if it is extremely close to zero, and this non-zero probability must be based on the "digit state-matrix" we were talking about above here, i.e. the state of the universe at the exact moment when your existence began.



    Maybe there is something here that I misunderstand, but I really have a hard time seing how some kind of "eternal return" can be avoided from happening if infinity exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77 Re: life, but not you. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    And even then, if you did find such a universe where everything was identical, all you'd have is a copy universe. If you died in your universe, you'd most likely die in the copy universe. Once again the topic of life after death has not been addressed.
    Yes, in parallel universes, you and your "copy" will be born and die exactly at the same planck second, but an identical universe will appear in the future as well - if time is infinite.

    What would be the difference between an identical universe and the universe we are living in now, and what makes this "the original universe", seen from your self's point of view? The way I see it, whatever makes you you (and not just a copy) must have a non-zero probability, even if it is extremely close to zero, and this non-zero probability must be based on the "digit state-matrix" we were talking about above here, i.e. the state of the universe at the exact moment when your existence began.
    The question is not whether a copy of us appears in another universe, because in theory, given infinity and a multitude of universes we should see us appearing again. That part of your view is correct. But what makes us "alive" or appear alive is the information in our heads and how it is processed.
    For us to continue to exist after our bodies die the information in our heads needs to be preserved and it needs to be transferred to a system that can process and add to that information.
    This is the point you're missing. Even though your assertion that an identical universe must occur is correct this identical universe would not allow the identical you (lets call him You_B) and the associated information in your head to continue. Since it is an identical universe You_B would also die at the same point as You_A. Unless your saying that everything in Universe B was identical from its beggining for millions of years right up to the point where the You_A died. That at that point You_B continued to live despite the fact that You_A had died at that point. Even if for some bizzare reason Universe B stopped being identical at the point where you died in Universe A You_B is still human and sooner or later even You_B would die.

    Managing to find a copy of yourself in another universe is not sufficient to be considered as being "alive after death". This is the important point here
    >>> For you to exist after death, the information in your head ( or a copy of it) needs to still be active somewhere else (even if this occurs in the future). Further to that the information that is preserved needs to evolve as it normally does as we go about our lives and create new memories and systems of behaviour. Simply replaying our thoughts like some recording, over an over again does not make us living entities. What makes us living entities is that the information that is us continually evolves from moment to moment <<<<

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    p1drobert

    For you to exist after death, the information in your head ( or a copy of it) needs to still be active somewhere else (even if this occurs in the future).
    You are assuming that consciousness resides within the brain, or is a by-product of the workings of a brain. This may not necessarily be so. The brain may simply be a transducer of mental energy. The mind, rather than simply being an epiphenomenon of the workings of the brain, may in fact be separate from the brain, using it to act in the world but able to survive without one. If so, many phenomena that are currently dismissed by materialistic science, such as telepathy, out-of-body experiences and, of course, the hypothesis of survival after death, can be seriously entertained.

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79 localized conscienous 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    p1drobert

    For you to exist after death, the information in your head ( or a copy of it) needs to still be active somewhere else (even if this occurs in the future).
    You are assuming that consciousness resides within the brain, or is a by-product of the workings of a brain. This may not necessarily be so. The brain may simply be a transducer of mental energy. The mind, rather than simply being an epiphenomenon of the workings of the brain, may in fact be separate from the brain, using it to act in the world but able to survive without one. If so, many phenomena that are currently dismissed by materialistic science, such as telepathy, out-of-body experiences and, of course, the hypothesis of survival after death, can be seriously entertained.

    BT
    Hi Bluetriangle,

    Actually I didn't assume that at all. In fact I've long wondered if the main processing of the information is in fact located somewhere else. However, speculating on such things without following through is not getting us anywhere. I'm an electronics engineer by profession and I need to know the details of the system. All the ins and outs of how the process is working.

    You believe the conciousness could already be located elsewhere. Ok, I respect that. Now really impress me, and tell me where and how you think it all might work. I don't want to be stuck in this "I believe", " I don't believe" nonsence. Until some bright spark, perhaps even one of us, suggests a practical framework for such things to occur, we'll never get to the point where we can formulate a test to prove what we say.

    Incidentally I do believe in ESP, and it fits in with my belief in multiple universes. Theres more than ample evidence for ESP, even if its difficult to reproduce on demand. Work by Rhine and many other repected scientists. We were speculating in an earlier post how there may be copy universes. If a copy universe existed but it was running 1 hour in advance of our own, and information was somehow leaking through into our universe it could be one mechanism whereby we know things before they happen. We might, for example, get a premonition about a plane crashing so we don't board it. Later it does crash. We may have gotten that premonition because in the copy universe you got on that plane and died.
    There are also other possible mechanisms that might be responsible for ESP but I'm not going to speculate on them here because thats not the topic for this thread. The point I'm making is that if you have a theory about the mechanism behind "life after death" then we need to hear it in full, or the best you can.

    Regards
    Robert

    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80 Re: life, but not you. 
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    p1drobert:
    I think we agree on many things concerning multiple universes and how everything possible "must" occur in different locations of spacetime, so I don't think there is any need to elaborate any further on that theory.

    The way I see it, the main difference between your view and my view, is the following:

    Let's call the different VikingFs VikingF_x, where x is a number between -oo and oo, and I am VikingF_250.

    In your view: I am VikingF_250, and all the others are identical although other individuals.

    In my view: I am VikingF_250, however I am also all the other VikingFs. This is because there is no physical difference between my version of him, and the other versions of him. If I became VikingF_250 randomly, i.e. without being the results of specific physical factors, I may just as easy become VikingF_432425 randomly.

    In other words, I came from nothing and became something, i.e. VikingF_250, without bringing any information (thoughts, personality, etc) into this life from anywhere. The way I see it, I came into this world because the right circumstances happened to be in this universe at that time. That is atleast the best solution in my view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81 Re: life, but not you. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by VikingF
    p1drobert:
    I think we agree on many things concerning multiple universes and how everything possible "must" occur in different locations of spacetime, so I don't think there is any need to elaborate any further on that theory.

    The way I see it, the main difference between your view and my view, is the following:

    Let's call the different VikingFs VikingF_x, where x is a number between -oo and oo, and I am VikingF_250.

    In your view: I am VikingF_250, and all the others are identical although other individuals.

    In my view: I am VikingF_250, however I am also all the other VikingFs. This is because there is no physical difference between my version of him, and the other versions of him. If I became VikingF_250 randomly, i.e. without being the results of specific physical factors, I may just as easy become VikingF_432425 randomly.

    In other words, I came from nothing and became something, i.e. VikingF_250, without bringing any information (thoughts, personality, etc) into this life from anywhere. The way I see it, I came into this world because the right circumstances happened to be in this universe at that time. That is atleast the best solution in my view.
    Hi VikingF,

    Yes, thats correct. You are VikingF_250, and you are VikingF_432425, and all the other VikingF_xx's. Just as long as the information is the same.
    Although in this view each universe is unconnected. Information doesn't leak through to the other universes. I wonder if thats true. Could there be a process where the universes are connected in some fashion?

    How do we take the information from Viking_250 inside system 250 and transfer it to another system. One that has slightly different physics.
    One where you still have your body (or think you have your body), but doesn't age and die. Or perhaps a scenario where your old memories, and thought processes are transferred to a new body in a different universe. It would be a shock for sure, but the old you could continue to evolve in a new environment. Perhaps only to transfer out again when that body expires.

    You know, you're maths approach about all possible universes must occur, implies that anything we think of must materialize, and then some. I'm left to wonder why universes need to start at a "big bang" point at all. Why can't universes simple pop out of nothing fully formed, as in planets and stars, and stuff, for no reason at all. Did we just create one just by discussing it, and were we in it.
    Yes, fanciful speculation on my part, but then who can say if fanciful speculation can't lead to sudden a insight into the nature of things.

    I get the feeling we're running out of steam on this line of thought, unless someone else has an insight or can suggest an experiment that might help us get to the next step.

    Regards
    Robert

    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82 Re: life, but not you. 
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    How do we take the information from Viking_250 inside system 250 and transfer it to another system. One that has slightly different physics.
    One where you still have your body (or think you have your body), but doesn't age and die. Or perhaps a scenario where your old memories, and thought processes are transferred to a new body in a different universe. It would be a shock for sure, but the old you could continue to evolve in a new environment. Perhaps only to transfer out again when that body expires.

    Just one more thought: You are saying that the information from VikingF_250 has to be transferred to another universe. But can't it just disappear here, and then re-appear in another VikingF, without any transmission, and still be the same information (the same me)? Like you said earlier, when we study a particle at planck length, it just disappears in one planck length/planck cell, and then re-appears in the planck length/planck cell beside. But we are still referring to it as the same particle, right?


    Yes, others are of course also welcome to join the debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by VikingF
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    We can't have infinity behind us though... Or what do you say norwegian guy? We have an infinity on us to figure all this out, take your time. Given that all decay equally fast given their own time frame, and infinity will decay into the time line, exactly one infinity. Blackholes decays the slowest, their time flow is equally slow.

    I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. :-D
    I'm afraid nobody does...some postulate that he (she?) isn't human.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    p1drobert,

    You believe the conciousness could already be located elsewhere. Ok, I respect that. Now really impress me, and tell me where and how you think it all might work.

    The point I'm making is that if you have a theory about the mechanism behind "life after death" then we need to hear it in full, or the best you can.
    Just like an engineer, wanting to get to the nuts and bolts! That's okay with me, though. My own training was in chemistry, with some physics and mathematics, so I completely understand where you're coming from.

    First of all, you won't accept much of what I say unless you accept that there are actually three sources of knowledge. The traditional split of rational knowledge (relations between ideas) and empirical knowledge (information about the world out there) is actually incomplete. There is a third source of knowledge, associated with religious mystics, that could best be described as gnosis. If you've read any of the novels of Philip K. Dick you will have a clue as to what I mean. Gnosis is knowledge imparted from a higher source directly into the mind of the recipient. By this means (and gnosis takes many forms) I know that reality is a far more exotic creature than the insipid version currently accepted by scientific materialists.

    When you talk of alternative universes do you have something like Rupert Everett's or David Deutsch's 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics? I don't really accept that, although I accept that there may be probable futures, perhaps a continuum of future probabilities, with anything possible. Perhaps we sail upon a sea of probable universes, collapsing our chosen reality into being, in the same way that a subatomic particle's wavefunction collapses upon it being observed. This collapse seems to extend into the future, however - as if it is crystallising ahead of us. How far ahead I do not know, but I do know that I have had many precognitive dreams, sometimes involving events that take place years or even decades into the future, a future that already exists in some sense. Of course, it could be that I am continually splitting into alternative versions of me who explore other possibilities. However, there cannot be too many, because I simply don't have the time to have a large number of precognitive dreams, some of which would then be lived out by alternative versions of me, not yet split off from the me having the dream.

    As a gnostic, I know that the universe we know is a creation of the mind and does not really exist, except for those who perceive it. Think of The Matrix or The Truman Show and you are very, very close. Our minds actually belong to a higher realm, which is True Reality, yet we somehow fell (from whence comes the myth of Adam and Eve being banished from the garden of Eden) into a lower state of being, where we live out an illusory existence, trapped in a prison, perhaps of our own making. The 'fall' may have been the Big Bang, which may also have been the beginning of time, space and the illusion of physicality. Understand that the entire universe exists inside our minds, or rather inside the mind that created it. We are fragmented parts of that mind that view the universe apparently from inside, as part of that universe. We are the perceived and the perceiver.

    The individuality of our personality is also an illusion. All that exists is one supermind, which imagined the universe into existence and splintered itself in the process. The resulting fragments have gradually been piecing themselves together again, like Humpty Dumpty, as the universe evolves. Individual bodies are concentrated areas of mind, which imagine themselves to be separate from other minds (from whence comes the ego) and live out apparently individual lives. The connection between the individual ego mind and the supermind is through the unconscious. Jungians would call it the Universal Unconscious. The human part of the supermind would be called the Collective Unconscious. The next level would be the individual consciousness, then, finally, the conscious mind, the leaf, connected through branches and limbs to the divine trunk.

    Gnostics know that the supermind is, however, connected to a yet higher mind. In some individuals (often those who have had their ego shattered in some way - they are, quite literally, cracked) an individual reconnection can be made to the higher mind, which may simply be the original, unseparated mind. This reconnection involves a range of paranormal experiences, such as telepathy, precognition, clairaudience, visions, miraculous experiences, all of which reveal vistas beyond the mundane world.

    It may seem incredible to say that our universe does not really exist. However, to a particle travelling at light speed, the universe is traversed in no time and therefore would appear to have a diameter of zero. Also, the total gravitational energy, which is negative, may well be equal to the total of all the positive energy: mass energy, kinetic energy, etc in the universe. The total energy in the universe would then be zero. Its total momentum, for similar reasons, may also be zero, as would its angular momentum. Matter itself is mostly empty space. The more one looks at the universe, the more ghostly it becomes...

    The structure and form of matter in the universe may be essentially mathematical and determined by the basic properties of the universe. Perhaps the first crystallisation from probable future worlds the mind made was to select a universe whose rules allowed the formation of matter, although this matter would ultimately be no more real than a hologram.

    So, in summary, I would postulate that the universe is a creation of our own minds (which may create ex-nihilo by essentially separating nothingness into positive and negative energy) which are our true reality and which need no body to survive, because the body itself is also a creation of the mind. After the death of the body the mind continues to create a reality that suits it, or moves to another consensus reality, which it maintains along with others. Perhaps after death, religious souls create or join the heaven that most fits their prior beliefs. The soul itself may incorporate all the alternative versions of you that exist (including possible past and future lives) and so may be much larger than we currently imagine. In fact there may ultimately be only one soul, the supermind.

    I have no idea what mind itself is made of, or if this is even a valid question. I only know, like Decartes, that cogito ergo sum.
    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85 Re: life, but not you. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by VikingF
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    How do we take the information from Viking_250 inside system 250 and transfer it to another system. One that has slightly different physics.
    One where you still have your body (or think you have your body), but doesn't age and die. Or perhaps a scenario where your old memories, and thought processes are transferred to a new body in a different universe. It would be a shock for sure, but the old you could continue to evolve in a new environment. Perhaps only to transfer out again when that body expires.

    Just one more thought: You are saying that the information from VikingF_250 has to be transferred to another universe. But can't it just disappear here, and then re-appear in another VikingF, without any transmission, and still be the same information (the same me)? Like you said earlier, when we study a particle at planck length, it just disappears in one planck length/planck cell, and then re-appears in the planck length/planck cell beside. But we are still referring to it as the same particle, right?


    Yes, others are of course also welcome to join the debate.
    Hi VikingF,

    I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. If theres another "exact" copy of us somewhere then theres no need for the information to transfer, its already there. It is the same you. Even if one version ceased to exist.

    Unfortuneately in order for that information to be identical it would mean that everything about you including your physical state and environment was identical too. If version A of you died of a heart attack then so would Version B of you since your physical state is the same.

    Or are you saying, why can't a new universe pop open at the moment you die. One with a freshly created you in it, that has the information transfered. Except in this new universe you don't die from a heart attack, or anything else. Its a possibility, but its extremely unscientific of me to speculate on this without the slightless shred of proof.

    Although I will venture that scientists believe that virtual particles are forever poping into and out of existance from the quantum vacuum, even within our own universe. I'm thinking if a single particle can pop out of nothing for no reason than why can't an entire universe. The thing about "nothing" is that there are no physical laws, or dimensions, or anything you can think off at all. For this reason theres no law that prevents a universe full of bunny rabbits suddenly poping into existance, and then out again, for no reason at all.
    I tend to believe thats why we can have multi-universes. They're all poping out of nothing for no reason at all. As crazy as it sounds, what ever we can think of might all just suddenly pop into existance, maybe not in our universe but somewhere. It all gets back to the nature of "nothing", and I challenge anyone to try to describe "nothing" because its not something our brains can possibly understand.

    Incidently, I only suggested other might want to join in because the more minds involved, means the greater our chances we may stumble on a trully important insight. I get tired of the sound of my own voice on occassions.

    Regards
    Robert

    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    First of all, you won't accept much of what I say unless you accept that there are actually three sources of knowledge. The traditional split of rational knowledge (relations between ideas) and empirical knowledge (information about the world out there) is actually incomplete. There is a third source of knowledge, associated with religious mystics, that could best be described as gnosis. If you've read any of the novels of Philip K. Dick you will have a clue as to what I mean. Gnosis is knowledge imparted from a higher source directly into the mind of the recipient. By this means (and gnosis takes many forms) I know that reality is a far more exotic creature than the insipid version currently accepted by scientific materialists.

    Hi Bluetriangle,
    Yes, you would be correct in that view. Its possible the third source of knowledge is coming from a more exotic source, as would be required if things like ESP really do exist. However we need to be extremely careful here as there is no way to distinguish between information from an "exotic" source, and that information that general springs forth from a deranged, deluded, or simple mind.
    Our society is bursting at the seams with people with such knowledge that they claim is from a higher source. Usually of the type that has them killing or imprisoning people who don't share these same higher knowledge.


    When you talk of alternative universes do you have something like Rupert Everett's or David Deutsch's 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics? ...
    I do know that I have had many precognitive dreams, sometimes involving events that take place years or even decades into the future, a future that already exists in some sense. Of course, it could be that I am continually splitting into alternative versions of me who explore other possibilities. However, there cannot be too many, because I simply don't have the time to have a large number of precognitive dreams, some of which would then be lived out by alternative versions of me, not yet split off from the me having the dream.
    I try not to subsribe to any mode of thought as it promotes stubborn thinking. People tend to cling to notions that they've invested time in. Even long after they see the evidence for discarding it. I find Deutsch to be a sloppy thinker.
    Yes, I know about the dreams. I've had them too. Thats why I don't waste my time looking for proof, or trying to convince others. I focus on figuring out how its working. I have some theories, and even some ideas for building some test instrumentation. I often wish I could discard my work obligations and just focus on that, but were getting way of the point I'm afraid. Anyway, I try not to talk about them (the dreams) to people as they often think I'm a nut case. Not that there's anything frightening or controveresial in them, just simple dreams about people and things that eventuate despite the extreme unlikelyness of it.

    The individuality of our personality is also an illusion. All that exists is one supermind, which imagined the universe into existence and splintered itself in the process. The resulting fragments have gradually been piecing themselves together again, like Humpty Dumpty, as the universe evolves. Individual bodies are concentrated areas of mind, which imagine themselves to be separate from other minds (from whence comes the ego) and live out apparently individual lives. The connection between the individual ego mind and the supermind is through the unconscious. Jungians would call it the Universal Unconscious. The human part of the supermind would be called the Collective Unconscious. The next level would be the individual consciousness, then, finally, the conscious mind, the leaf, connected through branches and limbs to the divine trunk.
    Hmm.. all good possibilities... now how do we narrow these down to the most likely candidate. A supermind,.. you know, I've always wondered if there hadn't been a universe that was just one single mind, with nothing to do for eons, that over time just fragmented into multiple personalities to keep itself amused. Like the persona we see in our dreams that seem like separate individuals but are really is our own mind creating the characters. Hmmm.. fun to speculate,... but its not getting us anywhere.

    About the topic of this thread, in order for us to understand if life can survive death, we first need to understand what life is. I think we need to define what we are in no uncertain terms. I thinks its clear we are not the atoms that our bodies are made from. Its clear, to me at least, that we are the information the body contains. If we stick to seeing our universe, all universes, as computing systems (like any ordinary computer running a program) it should help us clarify our thoughts and maybe get closer to the truth.

    Er... about particles only existing if observed, and double split experiment and quantum computing. I have a theory. If our universe is a computing system and a photon approaches a double split, such that it needs to decide which slit it choses to go through. It doesn't do so randomly. Have you ever tried to generate a random number. It can't be done. There's no formula we can use to generate it and still have it as a random number. The universe is confronted with the same problem. It can't generate a random path, or make a decision, so the universe splits into two at that point (or a localized universe, or short term calculation space) Two universe exist where one photon goes down one path, and one the other path. They continue to travel this way until one of the photons encounters a particle in one of those paths. At that point the universe keeps the universe where an collision occurred, and the other universe ceases to exist. Thats why for a time both particles exist.
    Our probes are made of particles. For us to observe the photon we need to interact with it, which immedietely annihilates the other universe of the other path. Its not that we, as human need to observe it for it to exist, its that the universe hasn't decided on a path until it actually needs to, till a collision with another particle occurs.
    Sorry, this is off topic, and I shouldn't be speculating on this anyway. Couldn't help myself.

    Regards
    Robert
    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Freshman VikingF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. If theres another "exact" copy of us somewhere then theres no need for the information to transfer, its already there. It is the same you. Even if one version ceased to exist.

    Unfortuneately in order for that information to be identical it would mean that everything about you including your physical state and environment was identical too. If version A of you died of a heart attack then so would Version B of you since your physical state is the same.
    Yeah, I am talking about some kind of "eternal return". If p1drobert_250 (you here and now) dies of a heart attack, then someday in the future, a 100% identical universe will appear again, and p1drobert_251 who will be born there after approx. 13.7 billion years will still be you, because there is really no difference between p1drobert_250 (who died of a heart attack here), and p1drobert_251 (who are born there). Due to determinism that person will be you.


    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Or are you saying, why can't a new universe pop open at the moment you die. One with a freshly created you in it, that has the information transfered. Except in this new universe you don't die from a heart attack, or anything else. Its a possibility, but its extremely unscientific of me to speculate on this without the slightless shred of proof.
    No information is transferred. The information that is you disappears in p1drobert_250 (because his brain activity halts), and it re-appears in p1drobert_251 (because he by coincidence will live the exact same life in an identical environment).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    First of all, you won't accept much of what I say unless you accept that there are actually three sources of knowledge.

    Hi Bluetriangle,
    Yes, you would be correct in that view. Its possible the third source of knowledge is coming from a more exotic source, as would be required if things like ESP really do exist. However we need to be extremely careful here as there is no way to distinguish between information from an "exotic" source, and that information that general springs forth from a deranged, deluded, or simple mind.
    Our society is bursting at the seams with people with such knowledge that they claim is from a higher source. Usually of the type that has them killing or imprisoning people who don't share these same higher knowledge.
    As Robert Pirsig says, sanity is culturally defined. There are of course people whose thought patterns are truly degenerate, but there is no way for any culture to tell the difference between degeneracy and inspiration, because both stand outside of the static value patterns of any society and cannot therefore be distinguished. This comes from Pirsig too (Lila). According to Pirsig - and I agree - the only way of telling the difference between good ideas and bad ideas or right ideas and wrong ideas is to sense their quality, a higher-quality idea being one that temporarily reintroduces the recipient to the Dynamic Quality (roughly equivalent to God) that surrounds us, by briefly shaking us out of the tangle of static ideas that separate our minds from Quality. We sense the Light and say that the idea is a good one, although the idea itself has no Dynamic Quality - its just another static pattern. We can all do this; in fact we never do anything else, because some part of our mind is a quality detector. This process is easy in the case of, say, the theory of a spherical earth versus the theory of a flat earth. However, in other cases (say, different interpretations of quantum mechanics) the job is much harder, because the static patterns themselves do not yet exist in the minds of all but a few physicists, or do not exist at all. That is the function of scientific discovery: to create a background of static patterns against which a new idea can be tested. I think virtue ethics may say something similar: the value judgments of people 'in the know' are to be trusted most.

    If you have to threaten to kill people to get them to agree with you, that usually because, at some level, you know that you have a low-quality idea that will not be accepted without 'encouragement', or because you stand to gain in some way from its acceptance.

    Now as regards the afterlife we have no experts. The closest we have are people who have had NDEs, communication with discarnate intelligences and related phenomena such as precognition, telepathy, etc (they often come together). They are the people most 'in the know', rather than theologians, priests, ministers, scientists or medical people, including psychiatrists. According to Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality and virtue ethics, we should, therefore, listen to what they have to say, especially if they show no other signs of mental illness. They can teach us something and their gnosis would percolate through society and perhaps open others to such experiences. This is, in fact, already happening - but it could be happening faster.

    However, people who report these phenomena are in danger of being classified as insane (schitzoprenia is a common diagnosis) and put on medication or locked away along with others who are genuinely ill. This is because our society, or the static patterns it has placed into our minds has no real way of determining who is sick and who is inspired. The cultural immune system (including psychiatrists) takes no chances and removes all such people from society. Lesser forms of ostracism are far more common, such as being ignored or ridiculed. Its just another way of locking them in, however. People who do this are, therefore, blindly acting to preserve society. But they may, in many cases, be preventing the dissemination of new information about our universe, information that may yet save us from ourselves.

    Yes, I know about the dreams. I've had them too. Thats why I don't waste my time looking for proof, or trying to convince others. I focus on figuring out how its working. I have some theories, and even some ideas for building some test instrumentation. I often wish I could discard my work obligations and just focus on that, but were getting way of the point I'm afraid. Anyway, I try not to talk about them (the dreams) to people as they often think I'm a nut case. Not that there's anything frightening or controveresial in them, just simple dreams about people and things that eventuate despite the extreme unlikelyness of it.
    So you also know? Wonderful! I also am very careful about who I tell. However, its right to tell those who are ready to hear it. With a little discernment you usually know who you can safely tell. This is a moral thing to do, because you are opening society up to more general acceptance of these phenomena.

    Like the persona we see in our dreams that seem like separate individuals but are really is our own mind creating the characters. .
    Read Jung for more on these characters. Most of them are aspects of your psyche.

    About the topic of this thread, in order for us to understand if life can survive death, we first need to understand what life is. I think we need to define what we are in no uncertain terms. I thinks its clear we are not the atoms that our bodies are made from. Its clear, to me at least, that we are the information the body contains. If we stick to seeing our universe, all universes, as computing systems (like any ordinary computer running a program) it should help us clarify our thoughts and maybe get closer to the truth..
    I like to think of it the other way round, since we understand computers better than minds or universes. You can't really define the greater in terms of the lesser. However, for the sake of discussion I'll go along.

    I think the body, including the brain, can perhaps be defined in terms of information. But I cannot see how the mind can be so defined. Information can be reduced to zeros and ones. By your argument, your thought patterns could be placed on some kind of computer, robot or even mechanically and somehow activated to create conscious awareness. I think not.

    I think that consciousness or awareness has nothing to do with informational patterns, although it may use them. It is the ghost in the machine. Neither is it dependent on the machine. If it can precognise a time after the machine is destroyed (the body dies), as with, say a prophet, it may in some sense actually be there. The same goes for people who recall past lives. Both would imply life after the death of the body.

    Er... about particles only existing if observed, and double split experiment and quantum computing. I have a theory. If our universe is a computing system and a photon approaches a double split, such that it needs to decide which slit it choses to go through. It doesn't do so randomly. Have you ever tried to generate a random number. It can't be done. There's no formula we can use to generate it and still have it as a random number. The universe is confronted with the same problem. It can't generate a random path, or make a decision, so the universe splits into two at that point (or a localized universe, or short term calculation space) Two universe exist where one photon goes down one path, and one the other path. They continue to travel this way until one of the photons encounters a particle in one of those paths. At that point the universe keeps the universe where an collision occurred, and the other universe ceases to exist. Thats why for a time both particles exist.
    Our probes are made of particles. For us to observe the photon we need to interact with it, which immedietely annihilates the other universe of the other path. Its not that we, as human need to observe it for it to exist, its that the universe hasn't decided on a path until it actually needs to, till a collision with another particle occurs.
    That's very interesting. I'll have to go and think about it. Is this your own hypothesis or someone else's work? Another thing. Is the copy of you in the other universe destroyed along with the temporary universe? Doesn't that make our own existence a little precarious, since, as you yourself say, there is no reason why one universe should be preferred over another?

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89 copies 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by VikingF
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. If theres another "exact" copy of us somewhere then theres no need for the information to transfer, its already there. It is the same you. Even if one version ceased to exist.

    Unfortuneately in order for that information to be identical it would mean that everything about you including your physical state and environment was identical too. If version A of you died of a heart attack then so would Version B of you since your physical state is the same.
    Yeah, I am talking about some kind of "eternal return". If p1drobert_250 (you here and now) dies of a heart attack, then someday in the future, a 100% identical universe will appear again, and p1drobert_251 who will be born there after approx. 13.7 billion years will still be you, because there is really no difference between p1drobert_250 (who died of a heart attack here), and p1drobert_251 (who are born there). Due to determinism that person will be you.
    Quote Originally Posted by p1drobert
    Or are you saying, why can't a new universe pop open at the moment you die. One with a freshly created you in it, that has the information transfered. Except in this new universe you don't die from a heart attack, or anything else. Its a possibility, but its extremely unscientific of me to speculate on this without the slightless shred of proof.
    No information is transferred. The information that is you disappears in p1drobert_250 (because his brain activity halts), and it re-appears in p1drobert_251 (because he by coincidence will live the exact same life in an identical environment).
    Hi,

    I fail to see the point of having an exact copy of you turn up somewhere else if it also fails to exist past the point the original died. Theres no continuation in this case, just some pointless recording. Even if this did occur I wouldn't classify it as life after death

    Regards
    Robert

    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90 machine minds 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle

    Now as regards the afterlife we have no experts. The closest we have are people who have had NDEs, communication with discarnate intelligences and related phenomena such as precognition, telepathy, etc (they often come together). They are the people most 'in the know', rather than theologians, priests, ministers, scientists or medical people, including psychiatrists. According to Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality and virtue ethics, we should, therefore, listen to what they have to say, especially if they show no other signs of mental illness. They can teach us something and their gnosis would percolate through society and perhaps open others to such experiences. This is, in fact, already happening - but it could be happening faster.
    .
    I'd have to disagree here. When this happens to people they are not able to rationally examine what has happened to them. For the most part they are ordinary people lacking a suitable scientific frame of mind to analyse what has happened to them. Much less have enough knowledge of science to formulate a suitable theory. We can't take their stories for granted. Not that we should ignore them, but at best they could only provide us with some mental seed for a useful theory about whats happening.



    About the topic of this thread, in order for us to understand if life can survive death, we first need to understand what life is. I think we need to define what we are in no uncertain terms. I thinks its clear we are not the atoms that our bodies are made from. Its clear, to me at least, that we are the information the body contains. If we stick to seeing our universe, all universes, as computing systems (like any ordinary computer running a program) it should help us clarify our thoughts and maybe get closer to the truth..
    I like to think of it the other way round, since we understand computers better than minds or universes. You can't really define the greater in terms of the lesser. However, for the sake of discussion I'll go along.

    I think the body, including the brain, can perhaps be defined in terms of information. But I cannot see how the mind can be so defined. Information can be reduced to zeros and ones. By your argument, your thought patterns could be placed on some kind of computer, robot or even mechanically and somehow activated to create conscious awareness. I think not.

    Why do say that? Its clear that our bodies are machines. Sophisticated, complex, awesome machines, but still machines. If our conciousness exists inside these machines made from "organic" molecules why couldn't we exist equally well from machines made from metallic or other materials. I expect most people reject the notion that we could live inside a computer because machines are not thought to "live after death". No-one expects their computers to go to "heaven", or other reality.

    People seem to ignore the fact that the brain is a computer. It just doesn't seem special enough, and of course it doesn't look like one of our desk top PCs. Years ago, while a student, I used a computer made from water flowing through tubes to make complex calculations. It was a hydraulic computer. All natures processes are computers because they all run calculations, or work to mathematical equations. Every particle in the universe is running to an equation. We know this because our knowledge of physics have shown us the equations.


    I think that consciousness or awareness has nothing to do with informational patterns, although it may use them. It is the ghost in the machine. Neither is it dependent on the machine. If it can precognise a time after the machine is destroyed (the body dies), as with, say a prophet, it may in some sense actually be there. The same goes for people who recall past lives. Both would imply life after the death of the body.
    A past life can not be considered as a continuation. Firstly, people seem to forget their past lives. If the memories dissappear, you dissappear.
    Even if after death you suddenly could remember all the details of a previous life, theres no way the details of you current life could merge with the previous life. If you we're a sinner in a past life, and a saint in this one the memories of your deeds would not merge well at all. And the merging of the two personalities would only create a third one, different than either of the original two. Past life continuation theory seems to ignore this fact.

    We have no knowledge regarding the "ghost in the machine" We need to stick to things we do know if we want to make sense of these things.

    Things we do know are that our bodies our made of atoms, but we can replace the atoms and we would still be us. If I were to replace every carbon atom in your body with that from someone else, you as a concious entity would remain unchanged and feel no different. We know this from our knowledge of atoms and their function, and the fact that our cells are being continually replaced anyway. So this we know, we are not our bodies.

    So whats left that we know. We know that were all made up of the same stuff, atoms, carbon, hydrogen, etc, and yet despite being made up from the same stuff were are different entities. We know that despite being made from the same atoms the atoms are arranged differently. We look and think differently. The synapses and neurons in our brains generally behave the same in all humans, however we know that the connections are different. This is the information in our heads that makes us separate individuals. We can't change these connections and still have the same personality. Any brain damaged car accident victim can demonstrate that. We know this for a fact.
    Logic would dictate that the bare minimum we would need to survive death would be for us to retain the information encoded in the connections in the brain.

    There could be something other than this that is an essential ingredient, but you're going to have to show logical that its there before we start using it our theories.

    Regards
    Robert

    ( http://www.priority1design.com.au )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Would sure be nice to die and wake up again, somewhere else. The great undiscovered country, 'n all.

    Not having an afterlife is so depressing.

    70 years, plus or minus a few, then that's it. Pop, yer gone. That's it. No more anything. What's that against the backdrop of eternity? What is there that's meaningful? What purpose is there in existence?

    Without an afterlife, we truly are just evolutionary byproducts. Our lives have no more meaning or reason than the bacteria crawling around a kitchen sink.

    What a waste. :?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92 pdrobert 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    bluetriangle wrote:
    I think the body, including the brain, can perhaps be defined in terms of information. But I cannot see how the mind can be so defined. Information can be reduced to zeros and ones. By your argument, your thought patterns could be placed on some kind of computer, robot or even mechanically and somehow activated to create conscious awareness. I think not.

    Why do say that? Its clear that our bodies are machines. Sophisticated, complex, awesome machines, but still machines. If our conciousness exists inside these machines made from "organic" molecules why couldn't we exist equally well from machines made from metallic or other materials. I expect most people reject the notion that we could live inside a computer because machines are not thought to "live after death". No-one expects their computers to go to "heaven", or other reality.
    I'm not saying for a minute that consciousness could not exist within a machine, simply that the consciousness is not the machine itself, whether it be carbon based or metallic.

    People seem to ignore the fact that the brain is a computer. It just doesn't seem special enough, and of course it doesn't look like one of our desk top PCs.
    The brain is a computer.

    Quote:
    I think that consciousness or awareness has nothing to do with informational patterns, although it may use them. It is the ghost in the machine. Neither is it dependent on the machine. If it can precognise a time after the machine is destroyed (the body dies), as with, say a prophet, it may in some sense actually be there. The same goes for people who recall past lives. Both would imply life after the death of the body.

    A past life can not be considered as a continuation. Firstly, people seem to forget their past lives. If the memories dissappear, you dissappear.
    Even if after death you suddenly could remember all the details of a previous life, theres no way the details of you current life could merge with the previous life. If you we're a sinner in a past life, and a saint in this one the memories of your deeds would not merge well at all. And the merging of the two personalities would only create a third one, different than either of the original two. Past life continuation theory seems to ignore this fact.
    Children can sometimes recall past lives before they become encultured, as can adults in dreams. Just because we cannot normally access them it does not mean they aren't there! Most of our memories of this life cannot be accessed either, but they still exist.

    The mind has different levels. When you dream, or when you react in an emergency or when you have a mystical experience you become temporarily aware of these deeper levels of the mind. Our life, in fact, is controlled from these levels. Our conscious awareness is like a horse, whose directions are controlled by its rider.

    We have no knowledge regarding the "ghost in the machine" We need to stick to things we do know if we want to make sense of these things.
    Yes we do. In fact all we know is that we are minds, that (like the horse) we receive sense impressions and that we are manipulated by deeper levels of our mind, of which we are mostly unconscious. and by other minds, through the ideas they have put into our heads.

    Things we do know are that our bodies our made of atoms, but we can replace the atoms and we would still be us. If I were to replace every carbon atom in your body with that from someone else, you as a concious entity would remain unchanged and feel no different. We know this from our knowledge of atoms and their function, and the fact that our cells are being continually replaced anyway. So this we know, we are not our bodies.
    No, we are minds! You're in my camp here. Our sense of continuity from childhood, despite the fact that almost every atom in our body has been replaced at some point, is simply evidence that what is really us is our mind.

    So whats left that we know. We know that were all made up of the same stuff, atoms, carbon, hydrogen, etc, and yet despite being made up from the same stuff were are different entities. We know that despite being made from the same atoms the atoms are arranged differently. We look and think differently.
    We look and, at a deep level, think almost identically. At heart, people are really all the same. We simply fall into different roles in life, have different bodies, are born into different cultures and fall under the spell of different ideas.

    The synapses and neurons in our brains generally behave the same in all humans, however we know that the connections are different. This is the information in our heads that makes us separate individuals. We can't change these connections and still have the same personality. Any brain damaged car accident victim can demonstrate that. We know this for a fact.
    Imagine a faulty TV set. The signal comes through but the broken electronics cannot properly display the picture. Nobody who knows how TVs work, however, would say that the picture is created inside the set. You are equating personality with consciousness or mind and implying that the person is thereafter a different mind once the brain is damaged. I would argue that the brain-damaged person is still the same mind, it's just that the mind is trying to express itself through faulty equipment.

    Logic would dictate that the bare minimum we would need to survive death would be for us to retain the information encoded in the connections in the brain.
    I don't agree. We could be conscious after death but have no memory of what our life had been like. The evidence from NDEs etc, would suggest, however, that we do remember our past life, sometimes in every detail. There must, therefore, be a storage unit within the mind (not the brain) where our memories lie. Where in the brain could our memories be stored anyway? It's too crude to store a lifetime of complex memories. Karl Pibram has arleady shown that memories are not stored within any one area of the brain anyway, but holographically: each part of the brain somehow contains the whole set of our memories.

    There are also cases of people who have, essentially, no brain at all beyond the brain stem and a scrap or two of cerebelum and cerebrum, yet are of normal intelligence and with normal memory storage capacity. So it looks as if we have to look beyond the brain itself to find where our memories are really stored. I would suggest that our memories are contained within our minds, perhaps electromagnetically or even in some way we can't yet imagine. For instance, could our memories be stored in our bioelectric field? I also suspect there may be a multidimensional aspect to the mind and that memories may be recorded somewhere beyond the four dimensions of spacetime - recall my assertion that minds create universes and not the other way round.

    There could be something other than this that is an essential ingredient, but you're going to have to show logical that its there before we start using it our theories.
    What about studying the diligent work of researcher Ian Stevenson on the past life experiences of children? Very young children make good subjects for study, as they are too young to tell sophisticated lies, or be trained to do so, have not yet been encultured enough to blot out the past-life memories and yet often do recall past lives in great detail. Stevenson's work focused on validating these claims by finding evidence that the life recalled was a real one - which he did on many occasions. Where are these memories stored? They can't be inside the child's brain. The child must therefore either be recalling memories from some deep place within the mind - a mind that has lived multiple lives - or be receiving them through postcognition. Evidence from birth marks, which were consistent with injuries to the person whose life was recalled, suggests recall, rather than postcognition, however.

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93 Re: The afterlife 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Does anyone here believe in an afterlife, and in what context ?
    No one can say what may or may not happen to the energy that is part of us when it leaves the body. Allw e know is that the biological body ceases to function as we know it, decays and becomes smaller and smaller parts which are recyled back into the environment and thus breathe new life again as part of some other thing. You may consider that an 'after life'?

    But I suspect you are talking about the essence of us continuing else where.

    I personally see the human being as not one but two living things.
    A biological animal organism and an energy organism. Both work relatively harmoniously in a symbiotic relationship. Much like deep vent fish who have bacteria protecting them from the hot temps. The bacteria cannot exist without the fish and the fish cannot exist without that bacteria. Are they aware they are seperate or do they consider they are one and the same? (Let's not get into a fish and bacteria's level of awareness..this is an analogy!)

    When the animal dies, the energy organism lives on and goes elsewhere, perhaps to inhabit another living thing or to enjoy a different level of existance that only a creature of pure energy can know and comprehend.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    56
    I believe that the afterlife is in a sense possible. I'm not talking about some God induced reincarnation, but more looking at reality. As I ask the idea of, what is reality? What is the thing that makes us feel human. The idea of moving from one body from another is possible, as in the end, we are just chemicals, and those chemicals can be made again!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17
    Max velman made a good point using Leibnzs assertion that, in order for A to be identical to B (that is, for consciousness to be a state of the brain), the properties of A must also be the properties of B. A better question would be, "are we already dead?"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Good point. I always thought DC traffic was part of hell incarnate.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17
    It also depends on Consciousness is it made by the brain or is it seperate.

    For instance if you severe corpus callosum in the brain one side acts diffrent from the other like two minds in one but the person is still aware of it they know they have two minds.

    "A patient with a split brain, when shown an image in his or her left visual field (the left half of what each eye sees), will be unable to name what he or she has seen. This is because the speech control center is in the left side of the brain in most people and the image from the left visual field is sent only to the right side of the brain. Since the two sides of the brain cannot communicate, the patient can't name what he or she is seeing. The person can, however, pick up a corresponding object (one within the left overall visual field) with their left hand, since that hand is controlled by the right side of their brain."

    (From wikipedia)

    some might say this is proof that consciousness is in the brain but if the person knows what they see it shouldn't matter since they are aware of themselves and the object, but not for the descisons they make.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    17
    but in my opinion I think we survive, I mean there other deminsions explained by physics, and then reincarnation and Out of body experience too much weird stuff that goes on in the brain, it might be more mysterious and powerful than we think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    I think theres no afterlife and that we overestimate our own sense of self. Theres probably more chance that we are a simulation made by an advanced civilization that is itself a simulation than there is of there being a heaven with clouds, harps and nothing to do for the rest of eternity or that we are in a prison for entities that are either immortal or should not be killed and would presumably be able to free themselves unless made unaware of the reality there are from.

    Existance is itself puzzling, regarless of if theres a god or not (a god hypothesis just pushes back the question by one level, why does god exist?), and I wonder why we assume non-existance is the obvious starting point. If theres nothing theres vacuum or nothingness, nothingness is not much but in a sense its something. And even nothingness can be thought of being not one but two opposite something put together. This makes inexistance hard to exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100 Re: The afterlife 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Willoughby, OH U.S.A.
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Does anyone here believe in an afterlife, and in what context ?
    I have posted a bit of a mental exercise on the subject in The "Mutual Dream Theory". It makes sense to me but apparently few others at the current time.
    If it helps you, imagine that you are the base of a tree. If someone were to ask you where you came from, you would have to answer, "everywhere".
    You would also have to give the same answer if they asked you "where are you going?" You came from everywhere and you are going everywhere. That is my belief. :-D
    DOMINIC
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •