Two theories of a 'physical' life after death...

Hi all.

I was thinking about this the other day and I felt the need to get some other perspectives on this.

I personally find it hard to grasp the concept of a spiritual life after death. It seems more likely to me that our 'mind' is simply a product of our 'brain'.

However, the question is, why am I me and not someone else?

Some scientists say that our consciousness is a result of electrical and chemical reactions in the brain.

So, my discussion concerns the possibility of a 'physical' life after death.

If the universe is infinite (if we disregard theories of the big crunch and consider that the universe never ends). Then perhaps in an infinite universe, eventually, all possibilities are realised. So wouldn't it be fair to say that at some point, (remembering the scope of infinity) the same chemical and electric reactions that brought us into an individual consciousness in the first place, will come together again. Therefore, creating our personal sense of 'being' again (Of course it would be unlikely we would have memories the previous existence). But if it was still our 'individual' awareness then in a way it is life after death. I find this an interesting view of reincarnation.

My other thought is that, say the universe is finite, and theories of the big bang/crunch are correct. Then eventually the universe will collapse upon itself and possibly when the force is so huge there will be another big bang. Now, if we think of the possibility that the big bang and big crunch happen in cycles, then after the big crunch, at the point of the next big bang, if the conditions were exactly the same as the 'previous' big bang, surely every chain reaction from that individual point would be the same, therefore eventually our galaxy and solar system and planet would be created exactly the same as before, and eventually we too would be re-created and live out our lives as we are doing now. Referring to my earlier point, would this exact combination of chemical and electrical reactions create 'us' (as an individual conscious) again?

Perhaps we are destined to repeat our lives over and over again. (better make the most of it then!)

Please rip my theories to pieces, I have never studied philosophy, perhaps people have thought similar things before and had good arguments against put forward.

So it would be nice to get some feedback.

Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If they are true. It is also possible the Universe came from a big bang but will die a far more different death. It will expand untill it loses energy and just stop untill all heat is lost. Matter may break down and then reassemble itself to form another big bang....unless that is what you meant...then oops.

There is a theory about that. That whatever you do now you will do infinite time again and probably have done infinite times before...mistakes, accomplishments and all. If true then it makes no sense, no point in repeating everything again. Universe would seem like a giant waste of time and energy then.

But why?..It makes no sense (holding that it is true). If one cannot change anything then why repeat the mistakes.


BTE Welcome to Sciforums.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

welcome to sciforums!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

these are some very interesting theories about reincarnation and afterlife, you are suggesting another perspective on the concept of destiny, if it exists

my thoughts are that first of all, you are suggesting that the universe and our lives will repeat because of the limited possibilities for combinations of the matter and energy that make up consciousness, BUT these combinations or possibilities are randomized, there would be many places and times where things can go differently
your theories are possible, but not likely, in my opinion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok..hears my idea.

Now, if we think of the possibility that the big bang and big crunch happen in cycles, then after the big crunch, at the point of the next big bang, if the conditions were exactly the same as the 'previous' big bang, surely every chain reaction from that individual point would be the same, therefore eventually our galaxy and solar system and planet would be created exactly the same as before, and eventually we too would be re-created and live out our lives as we are doing now. Referring to my earlier point, would this exact combination of chemical and electrical reactions create 'us' (as an individual conscious) again?


I don't have alot of knowledge in this area but i find that very hard to beleive. If the universe were finite and for the big bang to happen again the same way seems to far fetched to me. Think of the size of it and the time that everything would have to happen at a certain same time everytime.

And the theroy about the univese being infinite and our bodys and minds being re-created again the same way, again i feel is to... hard tograspformy mind i guess. (laughs)

I think all this is based on how much your mind can handle.

Dont make fun of the stupid kid on Scifourms.com

Im just a visitor to the place we call earth.

Have a nice day

 

On the contrary,

We are pilgrims on earth. Evidence supports.

 

The infinite can be applied to diversity as well. So conceptually repetition is unlikely. The main factor being time itself. Nothing can ever be identicle either because of the space it takes up ( different ) and the time it was produced.

 

Nick and Mr.eddy, you're both right in that the chances the big bang happening with the same initial conditions is mind bogglingly low. But the point is when you're dealing with infinite quantities of time anything that can happen will happen (and that includes complex strings of events happening any number of times over and over again). Successfully flipping a coin to randomly land tales a million times in a row will eventually happen.

I rather liked reading those theories myself because they operate only on logic that I can understand. In my opinion, these theories seem very plausible.

I think some of you would be interested in the concepts of cellular automata if you can see how they relate to the universe. I wrote a little bit about it in my web page right below. To get to it, just click on the link on the bottom of my page that says 'cellular automata'.

awaranowski.0catch.com

 

Thanks for the interesting responses guys.

sargentlard:

That is what i meant yes..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps there is no sense? Why should there be sense to anything? Mind boggling, but just as plausible as there being sense to things no?

Everyone else:

My thoughts about the chain reaction thing, well, I kind of think that everything 'should' be the same. If the big bang occurs from a singularity, then shouldn't it be the same every time?
However, what if it was slightly different the next time, say, one event (in the beginning of the chain) is different. Would the Earth be re-created, but as a result of that one chain event, our lives take completely different courses?
Perhaps some times around Earth isn't re-created at all as the event is completely different altogether.

This still all brings me to thinking that, all we are made of is recycled matter, and if our individual consciousness is a result of a certain combination of matter/energy then as apendrapew said, in an 'infinite' amount of time, all possibilities are realised (the old monkeys/typewriter/shakespeare thing comes into play here). So if all possibilites are realised. Even if the big bang/crunch goes in cycles, it is always the same 'matter' that is recycled. Sooner or later perhaps the exact combination of matter/energy that makes me 'me' and you 'you' will come together again.
Therefore creating your personal sense of consciousness again.

It 'is' a logical way of thinking about things, but to me it kind of makes sense, relying on logical thought.

If my theories are correct, then death would simply be like going to sleep, and waking up in a new life without any recollection of the past one. Perhaps that life would be exactly the same as this one. Perhaps slightly different. Perhaps completely different, perhaps not even on Earth. Who knows?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Even if we assume the truth of your premises, all you've established is that, at some point in the future, a replica of ourselves will exist. Imagine someone who believes that they are Napoleon. That person would seem to remember losing the Battle of Waterloo. However, we know that they did not actually lose that Battle of Waterloo, because they are not Napoleon. Therefore, sameness of memories is not sufficient evidence for sameness of identity. I have no right to look forward to this imposters pleasures and pains, anymore than he would have the right to feel regret for my mistakes or appreciate my successes.

So, you haven't shown any physical survival (insofar as survival necesitates anticipation), only the possibility of a copy of our present selves existing at some point in the future. A copy, however exact, is not identical.

 

there'd be another Earth with a history that mirrors our own, up to the point of me typing this. if the universe is infinite, it could be that that Earth already exists.

 

Right, I granted that. What I'm saying is, that doesnt meet the requirements for physical survival of my person. All it establishes is that a copy of my present self may exist at some future point in time. Each entity, or copy, would be seperate and unique, regardless of any similar or seemingly intentical characteristics they may share.

If I burned a box of kleenex, and then purchased another one of identical shape, color, dimensions, etc., we would both agree that the original box was still gone for good. The similarity between boxes does not guarantee a sameness of identity.

 

talk2farley: I think you misunderstand what my point is. I'm not talking about a replica or something similar. I'm talking about how if the theory that our individual sense of consciousness is simply a product of a mixture of matter/energy is correct. Then in an infinite scope of time, if all possibilities are realised, at some point, the exact same combination of matter/energy would form again. Therefore creating our individual sense of consciousness again. Of course it wouldn't be you as you are at this present moment in time. But the question is. Would it still be 'you' (as in your individual personal sense of consciousness unique to you) looking out and thinking?
If the consciousness is made from the exact same combination of matter/energy, what's to say it wouldn't?

 

simply....a different time...that's why it wouldn't. If you can come up with an identicle time possibly you may have something but because you are using time as your datum line the concept isn't plausable.

 

Why would time make a difference? You have the same individual sense of consciousness when you are a child as you have when you are elderly.

If someone took your brain and cut it into four pieces, then years later restored it perfectly and managed to bring it to life. Wouldn't it be you?

So what if your brain was blown up into a million pieces? Then at some point in the future someone finds all the pieces and fuses it all back together perfectly formed and alive. Again wouldn't it be your individual consciousness?

So my point is that, what if that exact chemical and electrical combination that makes us have 'our' individual consciousness (assuming this theory is correct) was completely destroyed (i.e. death), but in an infinite amount of time, where all possibilities are realised, at some point comes back together again (through any medium or perphaps none) - as all matter is recycled.

Why wouldn't that be our individual sense of consciousness?

 

You could, reasonably, manufacture a box of kleenex which was atomically (a word?) identical to the box of kleenex that was previously burned. Are these two now identical, as well? If the answer is yes, what happens if we assemble two of these boxes simultaneously? Are there now two identical individuals? Is such a thing possible? If not, whats the distinction? What seperates the pair? Remember that we are not using "identical" as in common parlance, to mean extremely similar. Rather, we are using it to reference a single identity between two states of existence.

Hence my previous; continuity of memory (or seeming to remember) is not sufficient for continuity of identity.

"So what if your brain was blown up into a million pieces? Then at some point in the future someone finds all the pieces and fuses it all back together perfectly formed and alive. Again wouldn't it be your individual consciousness?"

Aproach this question from a different angle. Suppose someone copied your brain, exactly, and all memories therein. Using this copy, a replica was assembled. This replica shares your memories, feelings, beliefs, likes, dislikes, etc. Are the pair now a single identity, a single consciousness?

Have you read the book "Solaris," or seen the film?

 

If you built two boxes exactly identicle in every way they would still be different. Simply because they occupy different space. Now keeping in mind we are condstantly bombarded by Em etc the two different positions are in receipt of differring EM, gravity, etc etc....In absolutum.

Two identical boxes are in absolutum impossible unless they take up the identical position and perspectives. Other wise the ambience they exist in will make them different.

Replace the boxes with two brains and the same result applies.

Continuity of mind or self is another very different issue I feel.

 

talk2farley: I still feel you are understanding me wrong.

It is impossible to build two boxes identical in every way because although atomically they may be identical, the matter that creates them could not exist in two places at the same time. Therefore, it must be 'different' matter otherwise it would be impossible for both to exist.

My analogy of the brain being blown up into a million pieces and your question of building a replica/copy are two different things.

In my analogy the 'exact' matter/energy that was used to create our individual consciousness (note this may not necessarily mean the brain - although it is likely there would be a need for some kind of medium) in the first place is 're-used' to build it again.

You're talking about making a copy which is a completely different thing altogether.

In my theories I am talking about the eventual re-combining of the exact SAME matter/energy that makes us have our individual consciousness. Not the formation of a copy or replica.

I also never mentioned continuity of memory or identity, these are different things.

Rather, I am exploring whether it would be the same sensory consciousness.

Look at it like reincarnation, if that particular theory is correct, then you die, and your particular consciousness is reborn into another being.

This is just a logical way of looking at the same concept (albeit on a bigger scale), taking into consideration the possibilities of infinity.

 

Alright, so let us say we use the "same" matter and energy. I know that at the moment of my death, my matter and energy will not cease to be, but rather will change physical states, perhaps providing the fuel necesarry to sprout an oak tree.

Is the oak tree a continuity of my identity?

 

No talk2farley.

The subject is not a concern of continuity of identity. It's about re-formation of consciousness.

Say when you die, your matter/energy is scattered - You no longer have consciousness as you are dead. The only thing that made you conscious in the first place was the mixture of certain matter/energy processed through a medium (the brain).

Basically the point is, that certain combination of matter/energy, is what brought 'you' into consciousness, not me, not the next person, but you.

So for an extreme example, what if in multiples of billions of years time, having been recycled many times (through trees and many other things), that EXACT combination of matter/energy that created 'you' as a particular consciousness in the first place was brought together and processed through another medium (such as another brain or maybe something else).

Would this be 'your' personal and unique sensory awareness. Even if it wasn't your current personal identity.

The possibility arises from the fact that there may be an infinite amount of time, and if in an infinite amount of time it may be that all possibilities will be realised.

Back to your Kleenex analogy, you were talking about copying a box and how it wouldn't be the same. Let me put it another way.

If you took a box of Kleenex, and destroyed it. But then you gathered up all the remains and 'rebuilt' the box of Kleenex, to EXACTLY how it was before you destroyed it. Then you would have the original box of Kleenex.

Think about this in terms of the energy/matter that gives us our unique individual sense of consciousness (note, this is not the brain, the brain is just the medium used to process it).

 

I've been cogitating upon this matter recently as well. Precluding a soul, or some other flag for personal identity, what more do we have to go upon with identifying with ourselves, rather than someone else?

Upon birth we're granted a certain body, certain traits, and born into a certain environment. This all helps develop our identity, including that which we're taught along the way, for simplicity, I'll just say memes. This is one idea: that our personal identity, 'I', is made up of genes, memes, and environment.

Granting the conditions for consciousness to be begat still exist, then 'I' will always exist. It'll be a different person altogether, with no recollection of any past life, but, in a way, it'll still be 'me'. It seems to me that without any defining source of personal identity, such as a soul or spirit, that we could have easily been someone else. Or is the body a materialistic representation of the soul?

This is just vague theorizing, though.