Hi everyone, I'm just thinking about the impossibility of death. These are logical "axioms" on which I built this idea: A) something does exist, and something has to always exist B) because if it ceased to exist, that period would take zero time (because time doesn't exist either) C) when you die, you lose concept of time (perception of time) D) when you die, you lose ability to recognize yourself (obviously to recognize anything, but just to point it out) If we agree on these, then we can continue further. Then there are two variants of this idea: 1) the parallel universes (of any type) do exist 2) they don't exist (It really doesn't matter so much, but variant 1) makes it even more probable.) This idea probably isn't new as it's hard to come up with something new. So here we go: When you die, you'll lose the concept of time (!) and yourself (!). You is just a configuration of your assumptions of what you are, memories (probably not even to full extent) there's no other you then your thoughts, imagine this situation to illustrate my point: a) You are being teleported (star-trek style) to next room. It still is you, even though you are being destructed, and recreated. b) Now imagine, you are being teleported to the other end of the universe, but it's still you. c) Now imagine, that instead of being deconstructred by a beam, you (X) only are 'read' but not 'deleted' in the place of origin. So the other yourself (Y) is created on the other side of the universe, and your first self is still alive. Now make that original will die of natural death in a minute or so after the teleportation. But you are on the other side of the universe. Happy and well. There's no difference between X and Y. You're both. If left with some time to differentiate by a different influence of the environment. They would become (more or less) different persons. Now finally imagine yourself being not teleported, but on the other side of the universe, there already lives someone how at the time of your death has absolutely the same brain, and also the same events have occurred. It will be you without you realizing. That's the only difference between teleportation case, and death. These are examples of what might happen after death (to illustrate the idea): Same universe -------------- (in these situations, you are being aware that you almost died) - you are resuscitated after few minutes (confirmed to happen) - you are reconstructed biologically in the future - you are simulated in a "computer" in the future (for example somebody is trying all combinations of structure/chemistry in the human brain possible, and they hit your exact brain.. this includes other civilizations) - other ways of bringing you back, while still in this universe Parallel universe (if variant 1 applies) ----------------------------------- (you really died in your original/this universe, if that even means anything) This parallel universe is same in all aspects - or at least the ones you do remember (thus your mind wouldn't notice) - as this (or previous) one, but you're alive here. Remember that the original 'you' has died, so you don't know that this is not you (de facto). There are almost infinitive universes, so the question may arise, why this one in particular ? It's not one it is a set of them, that has same history and sequence of events. As well as you don't know the future here, you don't know in which one of these universes are you in. Will Obama be re-elected ? You don't know. So you'll only find out (if you're in a universe with Obama re-elected) when the situation happens. Thus as usual, you don't know the future. There are just few possible explanations, of how the last remembered situation before death can be resolved: - all the same reasons as in 'Same universe' situation (therefore you'll know you've died) (in these additional cases, you won't even notice you died in a different universe) - you woke up in bed, thinking that the death was only a bad dream (for example being hit by a car), and you go on with your life never even noticing - you were day-dreaming imagining the situation, but now you snapped out of it - it is even possible, that older version (a day older for example) will boot in this universe, and you won't do the things leading to your death - other explanations I didn't thought of (most of them probably Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Next universe ------------- In case that the parallel universes doesn't exist. And the reasons for your revival won't occur in this universe (nobody resuscitated/reconstructed/simulated/etc. you). This universe will end, and after googleplex of years, and more, (but you don't feel time passing so it doesn't matter to you) the universe will arise from quantum fluctuation as it did at least once. It doesn't have to be the same one, but after statistically plausible number of universes will rise, and perish. There will be one in which you exist, and all the history is same as you do remember, and all the events will take place same as they did in your original universe. Except you didn't die here. Your mind will continue, because as said there's no other you than you your thoughts. - all the possibilities as for 'Same universe' and 'Parallel universe' options apply Superior universe ---------------- There are no bounds to where something simulating/emulating our mind may be. It maybe possible to even jump up in a hierarchy of universes, if this is the case. If this universe is only a rough simulation of the real one (as our games are only crude polygons). It is possible, that in this universe a different paradigm (real) of how the universe is, and how it should behave may change, but still if a condition for our mind (doesn't have to be exact biological structure) to realize itself - again all the possibilities as for 'Same universe', 'Parallel universe' and 'Next universe' apply Note ==== Q: For those of you asking: Why only humans, would have such privilege to be immortal ? A: It applies to anything. It can be the same rock, in both universes, but the advantage is really only useful with a certain degree of self-awareness, because otherwise there's no 'you' to acknowledge the facts. So it applies to all the matter, animals, humans, other non-human civilizations (if there are any). Conclusion ======== So the case is, that we as self-aware mind, are living all the situations (either in parallel, or in next universes). Whenever it has occurred that the conditions are such, our mind will exist. At the same time, we really cannot determine in how many, because they're all the same to us. So the consciousness is basically to make sense of those transitions in time. There are cases of people, who when their brain was damaged, their personality changed drastically (at least for the family, or relatives), but the patient himself still felt the continuity of his I (ego) to consider it himself. If we die in one universe, we're still living in less infinite count then before. So we're all bound to end up in the universe, such that we are immortal there, or at least to the last possibility of our survival allowed by physical reality (all the universal constants also). All of us to bound to be a god in our own 'best' universe, where we got all the luck. Ask yourself. What would be required of the reality, for you to die, and for all the eternal existence of all the combinations of matter not to hit the same combination again, if we already know that you are a possible combination ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sounds a little like my psychology-report, that I got a D on, where I stated, with very logical reasoning, that demons are actually real and not figments of the imagination. But yes, we don't know for sure, but my guess is that we only die in the aspect that our physical body is no longer being perceived by the rest of the people inhabiting the same dimension. For the person who dies, not much changes to begin with ( I'm speculating of course), they find themselves in the same reality where death was avoided. Or at least that is one scenario that happens, among many, sometimes I think there's too much, seemingly unecessary experiences required for...yes, for what?
That's kind of a creepy thought...I've had a number of times where I almost got killed...the idea that I'm leaving me-carcasses strewn behind me in alternate realities...dude, that's really weird.
I guess when I'm creamated it will be very difficult to find "me" anywhere to put "me" back together again since I've been burned beyond all recognition.
It could've been just a dream, or you'll have amnesia next day, or it was hallucinations because you took strong LSD, and you'll just say: "That was a hell of a trip!", to your friend afterwards, "I was like cremated, man." Or billions of other reasons. K.
Yeah right. When he's a million years old he'll have had a lot of such dreams. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well it obviously won't be still human. It won't be like you jump to another reality. To you it will still seem like this reality of course. Can we live to million years ? No. So it has to be achieved otherwise, it will be a reality in which they either transfered you to a cyborg body, or computer, or whatever. If you were caveman when you died, the continuity is much easier, because you don't know, that it can't happen, so you got access to wilder universes (their rules still has to be consistent, and possible), where other civilization not only exist, but visits the earth, and kidnaps exactly you (or at least you), and gives you a revival. Or one maybe kind of weird, when you wake up, and actually find out, you're in the future, and you're in fact cleverer, than it seemed in a dream. But what, it was just a dream. It will feel right to you. regards, Kate
Er: Haven't quite got the bugs in your "thinking" sorted out, have you? Maybe you should have picked a different username.
What do you mean ? I don't why you have to be hostile. Consider this example (prefix U means universe): (U-A) Born (U-A) Hit by a car. Dead. (U-B) You'll woke up in the hospital. You're in the car crash, but you've survived. (U-B) You're disabled from accident, and you drown after falling to a swimming pool. (U-C) You woke up, having a nightmare about drowning. (U-C) You'll die of natural causes. (U-D) You woke up, you're informed, that your self have been successfully transfered to a computer. You may had some weird dreams. That just can happen during the transfer, executing engineer informs you. (U-D) You're destroyed by a passing object when traveling in universe (hundred years later). (U-E) Your failsafe boots up, and informs you, that some of your system was knocked out, by a passing object. Nothing critical, auto-repair has commenced. .. (U-X) You're the only disc-shaped object in the universe, consisting of all matter. .. (U-Z) I can't even imagine.
Let's take dying of old age. How do they get "you" and bring you back? How do they get the cavemen who dies before this technology was (will be?) invented? You posted in the philosophy sub-forum. Philosophy requires logic, rigour and clarity. SO far you've demonstrated none of these, just wild unsupported speculation.
English is not my first language, so I struggle a bit to describe things in a clear way. I need whole sentences, to rephrase words I can't translate. I think you are mislead by the quality of language to think it doesn't make sense not only grammatically, but also logically. > How do they get "you" and bring you back? They don't bring you back. I don't know by what clue, possibly by the same clue, the future happens the way it does. After you die, one instance where you are still alive (in any form being still capable of thinking) is selected. In another universe. Be it parallel, or the one after this one. It only needs to give sense to you. It is not selected by someone particular, you more or less lived in all the universes at once. Like the reflections in a multiple mirrors. There is set of the realities A where you live exactly the same life as here, with history of whole universe being the same as in this one. Then there is set of realities B, where something is different, and C where you don't or can't exist. (C > B > A) You live in all the A's. As the time passes, the set is getting smaller. For example you doesn't usually woke up as your neighbor, because you know the context. That he is a different entity, and you went sleep in your house not in his. If you did woke up as him somehow, there would have to be plausible explanation (objective, not necessarily explained to you) in context of physical rules. The same thing happens to you after you die, you continue your life. Either by more plausible explanation (like you passed out, or dreamed), or by a less plausible (from our standpoint) explanation, like you are a robot and virus has been introduced to you. This will explain why you thought what you thought a second ago. Those less plausible explanations are due to my inability to imagine the real possibilities, but it can be explained. To think better of this. Don't think about objective standpoint, from which I describe these things, but from a subjective view of that person. You live your life. One day you walk across the street. You're hit by a car. You always wake up. If you died, you'll woke up in a universe, where the crash wasn't fatal. There are infinite number of situations that might occurred. As well as normal life. A car hits you, you lose consciousness. It depends on the future in what condition you'll wake up. Some people will wake up paralyzed, some blind, some with only scratches. Death is not different. If you died, you'll woke up in another universe as one of the previous solutions. Which one is chosen is unknown, as well as choices of the future. > How do they get the cavemen who dies before this technology was (will be?) invented? I explained exactly this, the in the post before. There are of course much more possible explanations. This is my way of embedding jokes. P.S.: Don't hide your hostility behind the requirements of this forum. It seems to me like some kind of territorial pissing, so to speak. Even 20k posts doesn't mean you can be rude to me. I'm talking about this unnecessary post: "Haven't quite got the bugs in your "thinking" sorted out, have you? Maybe you should have picked a different username." I found this link, it describes more or less this idea, but in native english: naturalism.org/death.htm (can't post links)
That would an incorrect assumption on your part: I'm fairly used to reading stuff by non-native English speakers. Except that parallel universe are an assumption. Assumption. No you didn't. You glossed over it with assumptions. Try reading my posts: I'm not being rude to YOU I'm being rude to your unsupported assumptions. The "bugs in your thinking" refer to the contradictions in the two quotes given. Not really. The guy waffles a lot and plays with words: yet he also makes the point (claiming it supports his view) that Epicurus pointed out When I am, death is not, and when death is, I am not. (He also makes false claim about nothingness, but that's by-the-by. There is zero evidence for your contention.
> Except that parallel universe are an assumption. They are, but that's explained in my original post. I assumed, that you read it. It is not required to have multiple universes. This idea stands on 3 prerequisites: 1) Required: nothingness does not manifest in reality 2) Required: human body is where human self-awareness is distributed 3) Optional: human body is where time flow is detected It these are satisfied, it is not possible that there's nothing after death. It is now assumed that is is so, without evidence as well. There cannot be evidence for current untestable "theory". So the qualities you require from my explanation exceeds the existing ones. BUT this idea actually can be tested in the future. Therefore it's higher in a scientific sense that religious/nothingness ideas. If 1) is satisfied, then there is at least one universe always available at all times, be it only vacuum fluctuation, but statistically it's bound to create all allowed combinations of existence there are over time. In infinite time, all possible things will occur. Our universe is possible, and we are possible, no matter what universe actually is. That much we know. Therefore it has to happen in certain limited variations with a certain statistical probability, the probability is indeterminable at this moment. > Assumption. No, if 1) is satisfied. There would be infinite series of "universes", because it wouldn't be possible to stop. It can be derived, that complexity on the level of human beings requires more specific set of physical constants. (I'll find you paper on this if you'll insist. I do not, because it is a philosophical forum, not theoretical physics) Therefore the portion of "empty" universe (C set) will be prevalent. Moreover it can be statistically proven, that it is (drastically) less likely for all the possible states of universe to occur in a specific configuration than in any other. (B > A) > No you didn't. You glossed over it with assumptions. All I can give you is few possible explanations. This won't occur in our universe. It will occur in one of infinite number of them. I can't give you the exact list of what happens to whom. First I don't want to, and second I don't know how. For example (excuse the cliché): a) He can die while hunting. Be frozen in an ice. Then dig up, starred upon by our current date scientists. Then few hundreds years later actually reconstructed with "magical" technology of the future 01. b) Some scientist can simulate brains in (for example) 25th century. To determine, all healthy possible states of the brain. It will be traversing all the states. One of them will be brain of our caveman. Possibilities are actually almost endless. Each of them has many variations. I don't really see how these examples are relevant, but for illustration.. possibly. > There is zero evidence for your contention. As of course there is zero evidence on all of the major (mostly untestable) hypotheses on things after death. I on the other hand present testable suggestion. I'm not presenting a scientific theory on a given theme. I merely wanted a feedback, which you started to provide after being a bit bitchy. The test being, scan real human brain (or simulate a brain of the human) to a computer in the future I guess. Wait hundred years or so, then turn him on again, if he thinks no time has occurred during this period. Success. If you move him in space, on a different medium, modify him very so slightly to determine the borders when it won't actually be him. I mean to a point, when loses the connection with his previous 'self' and will be showing signs of being other human being completely. > Try reading my posts: I'm not being rude to YOU I'm being rude to your unsupported assumptions. The "bugs in your thinking" refer to the contradictions in the two quotes given. I meant "Maybe you should have picked a different username."
Yet you persist in referring to them. Oh dear: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761 http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html Distributed? Self-awareness is where there's a conscious brain/ mind. Irrelevant. And again you're playing with words. The "nothing" after death is the cessation of awareness. It's that simple. How so? Really? Another assumption. And again. Assumption again. If he's dead the brain activity has ceased. How do you know that "jump-starting" a brain after cessation of activity will "reboot" into the same "identity"? Ah right. So you're not only postulating that we'll be able to simulate brains but you're also postulating infinite capacity and running every possible iteration that ever was/ could have been and then saying that one of them IS our caveman, as opposed to it being a simulation (not to mention that you're dismissing all of the variations (e.g. our caveman's "possibles" where he ate meat on one day of his life instead of going hungry, went swimming instead of cleaning out the cave, etc etc). How do you distinguish this "revival" of the caveman as the genuine article while deciding that the very close simulations are merely simulations? Yeah, more unfounded assumptions and speculation. It's testable? How so? Not a test of "no death". All you'd be doing is putting a copy into "hibernation". And, again, your claimed "test" relies on something we cannot do and possibly may never be able to do. How "scientific" is that? Exactly. You call yourself smart and don't even realise you contradicted yourself.
> Yet you persist in referring to them. I assumed, that reader can recognize that it's meant either parallel universe (btw. even though it is an assumption at this time, it still is plausible), or current universe. > Oh dear: > sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761 > colorado.edu/philosophy/v...ess/Origin.pdf > colorado.edu/philosophy/v...r/nothing.html All the links refer to a same book/guy. And doesn't disagree with with requirement. Is this your way of agreeing with me ? > Distributed? Self-awareness is where there's a conscious brain/ mind. It's a more general statement, it basically means it is distributed in the brain. If somebody found out, that also tiny bits of yourself also depends on guts, detectors or something. Some people doesn't feel pain, maybe that fact is indirect part of their 'self'. > Irrelevant. I just pointed it out. There still might somebody who can argue, that it would change the situation somehow, but in this conversation it is, I guess. > And again you're playing with words. The "nothing" after death is the cessation of awareness. It's that simple. As you say: assumption. It is not that obvious. In reality the 'cessation of awareness' exist only in a form of explanation after the fact you regained the awareness. So the existing examples points rather to the fact, that self-awareness is continual. Your standpoint is on the other hand that 'of majority' (is it ? it probably isn't even of majority, because most people are sadly religious on this planet) which I doesn't consider proof. So those are both assumptions, but hints or similar situations are supporting rather my assumption then yours (cease of self-awareness). > Another assumption. > And again. > Assumption again. It's the same thing said in another words. It is statistically obvious, or is statistics also an assumption to you ? You can maybe shred it to some relativistic philosophical hell, but it will be still valid. It even doesn't require infinity for all the possible states to arise, but in infinity they will not only occur they will occur infinite time. Only the states with probability zero won't occur, that's why I said 'possible' that implies probability bigger than zero. That's not an assumption, it's statistics. > If he's dead the brain activity has ceased. How do you know that "jump-starting" a brain after cessation of activity will "reboot" into the same "identity"? > Not a test of "no death". All you'd be doing is putting a copy into "hibernation". Is it "hibernation" really ? You contradict yourself here a bit. I don't know it will "jump-start". I argue that it is so. I can be proven wrong, by the experiment I proposed. Which is to reboot that state, and as you said determine whether the identity is the same, or to what extent. Should be of course asked various questions first (thousands possibly). > So you're not only postulating that we'll be able to simulate brains I'm not postulating that you'll be able to simulate brains. It was an EXAMPLE (not a postulation of anything, and I stated so) of possible future. At this moment it is possible to simulate brains of less complex animals, it is not that far fetched, but I'm far from 'postulating' that. > but you're also postulating infinite capacity and running every possible iteration that I'm not talking about 'infinite' capacity, merely all possible states of brain. Not infinite at all, but a huge number, sure. > ever was/ could have been and then saying that one of them IS our caveman, as I just missed some words probably. I meant one state (more like a set) that corresponds to a simulation of this particular cavemen, exactly after he died. I argue that 'self-awareness' arise whenever the machinery is there. The word 'simulation' implies it has to be sufficient enough to underpin the original complexity. The 'emulation' is also possible. > opposed to it being a simulation (not to mention that you're dismissing all of the > variations (e.g. our caveman's "possibles" where he ate meat on one day of his life > instead of going hungry, went swimming instead of cleaning out the cave, etc etc). I didn't dismissed them, I just picked one or two examples (wasn't that obvious ?). I can of course dream up an example for being hungry or swimming. If you think that it is possible, that there are states from which can't exist a 'continual' transition to some reasonable explanation of why he survived. > And, again, your claimed "test" relies on something we cannot do and possibly may never be able to do. How "scientific" is that? It's OK. It doesn't have to be testable at this moment. I'm still fine with that. Not the first time in science, really, and this doesn't even aspire to be a scientific theory. If I was about to make to a scientific paper, then I would specify the experiment more thoroughly of course. No need here, it's just a forum - people chatting basically.
The reader is left to assume you don't mean parallel universe when you specifically use the term? :shrug: I see you didn't bother reading the links. The guy shows that "nothing" can exist. How is that agreeing with you? "If somebody found out"? You're piling speculation on speculation here... Nope. Assumption again. Really? Hints that support your contention? Do tell. Similar situations? All the evidence we have is that we're dead when we're dead. No consciousness. Ah, statistics. Depends on what data you select, doesn't it? And how you interpret that data. No. Go away and learn something before spouting nonsense. Re-read what I wrote. There is no contradiction. So you're still working on an unsupported assumption and using a currently (and possibly always) impossible "experiment" to verify it? Really? Let's see: Is that not a postulation? :shrug: Wrong. And how would you know that THIS one is the "real" article? Still stuck...
> The reader is left to assume you don't mean parallel universe when you specifically use the term? My fault, I was lazy to write down everywhere both possibilities. It's either parallel universes, or if they turn out to not exist, it still can be within the same reality (reality != universe). > I see you didn't bother reading the links. The guy shows that "nothing" can exist. How is that agreeing with you? Of course I did read it. And you're mixing two sentences together. I said the article, doesn't disagree which is not the same as agree. I asked if YOU are manifesting agreement. Don't shuffle the meanings. About the article, it is flawed on so many levels. Even the others shredded this to pieces. You cannot destroy energy in a closed system. Even in a proposed symmetry there was still potential energy (definitely not nothingness but energy, elementary physics for god sake). The evidence is existence of our universe. I'm not refuting that symmetry is possible, it simply doesn't matter. Sooner or later (which mind doesn't care about because it has no sense of time), the probability of certain quantum states will erode this symmetry, and something (we call it universe) will emerge, as it did with our universe. If it indeed was >perfect< symmetry it wouldn't collapse to either positive, or negative existence in the first place. As you pointed out elsewhere, so do I here, go and learn something about quantum fluctuations first. > "If somebody found out"? You're piling speculation on speculation here... Yes I do, I've given a broad definition to be on a safe side, because we don't know exactly at this point, what 'self' consists of (I'm not implying soul or anything, alright ?). To simplify this for you, let's say brain only. > All the evidence we have is that we're dead when we're dead. No consciousness. No we don't. This is simply untrue. Yes, dead is dead (let's ignore the semantics) I agree, but what it has to do with having no consciousness ? How do you know that ? Somebody told you ? You're making assumption here, widely held, but still an assumption. > Ah, statistics. Depends on what data you select, doesn't it? And how you interpret > that data. You obviously don't know what you talking about. There are no data here. This is not Al Gore manufacturing hockey stick. These are principles of statistics. These can't be manipulated. You're just repeating sentence told by many, but in a wrong situation. > No. Go away and learn something before spouting nonsense. Now I know you don't understand. Go and ponder about these (links): prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v64/i7/p705_1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probability_distributions#With_infinite_support > Re-read what I wrote. There is no contradiction. You said, that test of 'rebooting' is not test at all, while asking how do I know that 'rebooting' will be possible. By testing it. As I said, I'm NOT describing complete experiment. There is none devised yet, and I'm not planning on publishing scientific paper, so there is no need to do so. I'm merely describing some vague points about this experiment. > So you're still working on an unsupported assumption and using a currently (and > possibly always) impossible "experiment" to verify it? Unsupported by evidence, yes. Evidence is good, but not really required to form a hypothesis. It is actually the usual way to do it. First you formulate a hypothesis, and then you test it (in some cases many years later). The only requirement is its testability (not sure about this word). But I'm not even formulating a hypothesis. I do examine this situation from a logical perspective. Also it is assumption on your part that this experiment will be always impossible. > Is that not a postulation? No, you took it out of context. It was an example. Why aren't you bothered with 25th century ? Not everything has to postulate something. Calm down. > Tomahto, tomayto. There is a difference between infinite and finite number. > And how would you know that THIS one is the "real" article? I'm not saying it is the 'real' article, it is not really important. The proof is that it (self) recognizes the continuity with its prior self. You can tested by arbitrary number of clever questions, or measurements.
Um, okay. And your single universe assumption is still an unsupported assumption. Yet the article DOES disagree. Specifically. Do you get the impression I'm agreeing AT ALL with you? And your qualifications in physics would be...? And how many of those were physicists? Damn few. Strawman. Funny, I did that at university, years ago. Still doesn't alter the fact that you're speculating on top of supposing. Really? Where's the consciousness when we're dead? Like I said: the EVIDENCE is that it's gone. Ho ho. If there's no data then, by definition, you can't have any statistics. And you claim I don't know what I'm talking about! See above - no data: no statistics. Ah, and now you're mincing words. Really? Hypotheses are based on evidence. Hypotheses are formed to support and explain evidence/ observation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wrong. You form an hypothesis after making observations (which are, usually, regarded as evidence). So now you're saying we won't be able to simulate brains? Oops, I edited. Also wrong. Since we're simulating them then EACH AND EVERY possible iteration will recognise itself as itself.
