# After death = Before being born

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Cyperium, Dec 25, 2010.

1. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,000
I'll just point this out:

• We didn't exist before we were born.
• We don't exist after we are dead.
• It is the same nothing before we were born as after we are dead.
• Time doesn't matter at nothing, it is "outside" (before and after) of time.
• The universe doesn't matter at nothing, it is "outside" (before and after) of the universe.

Science tells us that the universe came from the state of nothing, so "before" the universe there was nothing. So when we die and become nothing we are "before" the universe and "before" we were born as we are in the exact state as "before" we were born (I use "before" only as a clarification that might not have any real value).

So the natural conclusion (result) would then be that we are born "again" (it isn't really again - it is the same birth), we exist simply where we can exist, and our current life is exactly where we can exist so that is what will happen. We will simply be (re)born "again" as ourselves and time will yet "again" have a grip on us until death.

There is more to this but I'll start with this and see what comes up.

Last edited: Dec 25, 2010

3. ### StryderKeeper of "good" ideas.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,101
Actually Science doesn't tell us that, in fact it's "Just a theory", it currently is only used because nothing has yet completely undermined the theory. It doesn't however mean that in the future that some discovery might not overturn the theory.

The problem with your conclusion is that you've already predispositioned yourself to the understanding that "There is only one linear universe". The problem with that is there is greater chance that the "Universe" you perceive, is actually a "Multiverse" with the "Beginning" not actually necessarily being "at the start" but somewhere in the middle.

This means that there are potentially multiple existance's that all exist at the same time (They might be referred to as "Parallels" however a parallel can be staggered in relationship to time points allowing a potential chronological bridge between two different time points or "Time travel".)

I hasten to add that the parallels are likely all the same (Copies) until a point that we (Humanity) can control them but that's a pet theory rather than science.

This would mean by your definition that their would be a multiple of "you" existing and due to the potentially of the chronological bridging, then you would always exist (As the particular plane of staggered parallels could arrange for loops, repeats and infinitesimal subsections of time increments due to "scalar recursion")

As for the subject of Death:
Death is based upon what we (The Observers on this planet) eventually observe. I mean we could observe death as being "Null and void", this is a cheap method since we don't have to do anything to make null or void exist, in fact we "Do nothing". It's a system that is available to young and old, rich and poor, black and white, you can't argue with it's simplicity but you can't argue "That death isn't particularly for you".

We could observe death to be like some fruity religious scripture would tell us. We are given some false promise, a proposed fantasy and live our lives expecting something more. Of course nobody ever comes back from this better place to tell us how it was, why is that? I'll tell you why, it's due to the "Absence of Effort". Believing something exists doesn't make it so, if you want something to exist then you have to get down to brass tacks and make it exist. The Egyptian pyramids didn't appear because people believed a god made them, they appeared because people built them for those they worshipped as gods.

So we could observe death as something that currently is in a "Default" state but something we can "replace" with whatever we desire instead. I mean for instance if we got to the point in transhumanism to splice Artificial Intelligence to a Human via Brain Computer Interfacing at an early age would generate a symbiotic system of man(?) and machine, this would cause an "injection" into observable processing, whereby the man's existence is spread between his biological and symbiotic system. While his biological system in time might fail, his symbiont component can be enhanced and upgraded, just to his observations being iterated through both systems he would become "Transcended". When the body dies, his symbiont would be capable of taking over where the biological failed, allowing Death to be cheated.

The idea above I like, admittedly I've seen the teething problems of early prototypes, so I have a better understanding of how it needs to be done. (and it needs to be retroactively capable, so those that think they might not have a chance to gain a future technology, will have the chance already without knowing it

5. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,000
True, but at the current understanding the universe/multiverse came from nothing.

Even if there are many copies of me I can only exist as me. That's the only option, trust me I've thought about this a lot, admittedly if I was hurt to the point that I would die and a copy survived in a different universe you could say that I became the copy instead. BUT how would the universe select between the various copies that survived? It can't and won't, just as it doesn't select a different copy than you are right now, the original (there are only ONE). Why? Because the universe could just as easily choose a copy which live in a completely different universe, and that just hasn't happened, it could choose a universe where you have completly different friends, but that hasn't happened. You wouldn't know that it hasn't happened because you have the same memories as your copy, but be honest now, surely you have lived your life from the beginning.

So that we would survive in a different universe and start to exist there instead is a falsity. Quantum Immortality doesn't work.

That there are multiple universes doesn't hurt my theory as *nothing* is still a concept within and between those universes which was the state you were before you were born and after you die. It is still the same *nothing* even if something exists or even if multiple existences exist.

What do you mean by "death isn't particularly for you?", is there a seperate nothing for each person just as there is a seperate existence for each person? I was going to get to that later.

How do you know it is false?

The universe doesn't exist because of our efforts, neither do we exist because of our own efforts. Not everything has to be made by us.

There is a possibility that God exists and that heaven exists, if we lived forever due to mechanical means (or through our own efforts) then how could we know what we've missed, would we dare take the chance (I like (love) the natural way, it's amazing!!)? Interesting thoughts you have! (in the voice of Yoda) lol

Last edited: Dec 25, 2010

7. ### StryderKeeper of "good" ideas.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
13,101

We could observe death to be like some fruity religious scripture would tell us. We are given some false promise

Like I stated is due to the Lack of effort. Sitting in a church praying for a reality doesn't make a reality so, in fact attempting to make a reality at least has the attempt and therefore tempts fate a lot further.

Not everything has to be a miracle, or appear by some magic, why can't it be made by us? Too big for some perhaps? At the end of the day we could learn how to not just make a universe but control it if we actually put our efforts towards that task, however it's obviously going to piss on the parade of a few religious wingists.

Have you considered "Not doing things" will generate an even greater chance of missing things?

To sit waiting for something to happen actually suggests there is less chances of something happening, to attempt to do something at least increases the chances of what it is you want to happen happening.

One elaborate (and scifi like) thought on the subject of religion was that if/when we get to the point of being able to observe the past, or even interact with it from a Parallel but different time (5th Dimensional logic), it would be possible for historical scholars (and potentially religious wingists) to observe the very beginning of religions.

If the person, parties or events did not follow an accurate historical depiction, it would only be human nature for some groups to want to manipulate their reality to fit their particular historical depiction. (After all what once was, should be. right?)

It would explain an awful lot in regards to the nature of their posed religions.

8. ### 420JoeySF's Incontestable PimpValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,189
How do you know that we do not exist before we are born or after death?
What "nothing" are you referencing?
By nothing do you mean out of memory?
Is this the same nothing we experience temp. when we sleep?
The universe doesent matter at nothing?
Science tells us that we came from a state of nothing?

We have to define what "nothing" to you is. I assume "nothing" does not have any properties and is the absense of what we call a "thing". So before was nothing? thus when life emerged with our dualist-view on things a paradox was created based on our understanding of nothing and something. Could you tell us why there is "something" instead of "nothing", because science cannot. Since we all agree there is "something" instead of "nothing" we can assume that something was always there - It's atleast more justified than "nothing/something" axiom. Again the definition of nothing is important here. Is energy something? a force something? Are you reffering to just matter?

Science deals with the natural world which exists thus science is the wrong method to address fundamentals like the question you ask. Something to always have been should be the pragmatic conclusion of any scientific person anyways.

Consider what it means to "come from" nothing? Does this not indicate a origin, principle, law does it not mean something otherwise the concept of "Coming from" is void. If you say the universe came from nothing your saying whatever the universe comes from wasnt there in the first place, yet it exists.

Explanation of the origin of the universe is beyond comprehension every theory is going to sound crazy.

9. ### keruxRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
99
everybody IS ENTITLED for his/her own opinion

Are the above statements pro-life or pro-death? Pro-existence of anti-existence?
Remember, existence is a fact but insistence is too much a fact, lexically speaking. When someone philosophize, beware of loopholes and fallacies. There are seeming thought-provoking ideas and ideologies but be not carried away, even by your own mind (if you have), because too many atheists here don;t acknowledge the existence of an abstract mind because they are fond of asking the objective evidence of everything even gravity and magnestism and especially astatine and hydrogen.

Well, nothing means what? Nothing means in my opinion rather a no-state. When someone asks you, what happens, and then you replied NOTHING. so it means what the word stands out NOTHING. if you say NOTHING existed, well it can't but if you say nothing exists, including us, it is absurd to say because we exist and during our lifetime we insist to breathe because if you don't allow the freedom of breathing and you will stop, you pursue death. Death doesn't mean we are nothing already. The fact that we are composed of cells and the universe is composed of mutiverses or pluriverse (if i may say it), then it's true that there is something and it's false that there is nothing.

Grammatically speaking, THERE is not NOTHING. Etymologically speaking THERE IS may MEAN - the(os) and er(os). BUT Eos is a name applied to Greek mythers (dawn). They worshipped (the pagans, I say) dawn or eos. But I as a christian worship the Theos because He is the dawn of everything which exists and the Ere or BEFORE of time and space. Before eternity, He is - a consuming fire, according to the Bible.

I hope you visit www.esoriano.wordpress.com . I am not persuading any philosophizer here to embrace christianism. Just to air my views as a christian, nor I have the intention to convert atheists here, because only they can convert themselves to believe in a god or gods (which of course may not point to the Biblical God or Gods).

10. ### cosmictravelerBe kind to yourself always.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
33,264
I'd agree wityh that for the most part.

I don't have any idea about these statements for even nothing is something.

11. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,000
I have read your replies and the main argument seem to be that *nothing* fundamentally doesn't exist (which I also believe) - or that *nothing* is indeed something (which would again advocate that *nothing* just doesn't exist).

But indeed, we don't need to define nothing as anything. Only as the source of the universe, and ultimately also the source for you and me. You can replace it with God if that is your belief. The "theory" that we can exist again after death is not based on *nothing*, it is based on the idea that we started to exist, it is also based on the idea that spacetime was created at the same time as the universe (which is the current scientifical idea which everything points to).

If the universe has its own spacetime then what created it is outside of time. When we die we become nothing (scientifically), the mind stops existing as it isn't fueled by the brain anymore (you don't have to be a dualist for this to make sense). As such the mind doesn't follow spacetime anymore.

As the mind was nothing before we were born, this is exactly the same state as it is in now and as such it will exist as we are born again.

I say again, but I really mean the same birth at the same time in the universe development as all is reset when we became nothing. We are outside of time (as we don't exist even) and are as such not dependent on the timeframe of the universe, but it will be as if we were before time.

Last edited: Jan 2, 2011
12. ### Alucard89Registered Member

Messages:
3
what if the reason the big bang happened because from single cell animals to multiple cell animals. We had to evolve in order to survive the changes on the planet. Single cells came together for the benefit of all, and now we are doing it again, we keep evolving into larger more complex beings until we evolve with every thing in the universe becoming one with all and in doing so we rip space and time and implode making a new big bang theory !

13. ### Alucard89Registered Member

Messages:
3
Every thing you say makes so much since!

Messages:
22,896
Mod note

Messages:
3

16. ### C CConsular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy"Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,926
Consciousness presents existence as appearances -- a "showing" of visual, aural, tactile, etc phenomena that are also understood / identified / distinguished in terms of memory and concept related activity.

A physicalist or anti-panpsychic worldview conceives the universe at large as non-conscious. Accordingly, there is an absence of that "shown" and "understood" manner of existence (appearances). But "things" are still taken to exist "in the dark" in a way represented by an abstract, coordinate system version of space / time that pins macroscopic objects to locations.

We shouldn't conflate the non-conscious version of "nothing" (absence of appearances / cognition) with the physicalism / anti-panpsychism version of how things exist (which only superficially seems to be "nothing"). The latter's lack of presentation and mental apprehension in its cosmos does not equate to elimination of physical things, properties, and constraints -- or that they are no longer applicable or matter (they still have their "unshown" mode of existing which is only a superficial kind of "nothing").

Kant demoted space and time to being a priori forms which conscious agents (sharing the same "operating system") utilize to represent "things" as relationally co-existing with each other in a natural governing scheme which features them being continuously modified and inter-dependent (serving as causes and effects of each other). The vast bulk of them not represented as existing concurrently but still belonging to that phenomenal continuum or sequence of unfolding occurrences.

But even with the pregeometry trend in physics (which is still kind of fringe), you're never going to get physicalists to accept that space and time are subjective or inter-subjective intuitions crudely akin to what the qualitative meaning of "color" is status-wise. You can only work from a "prior in rank" transcendent worldview that thereby assimilates philosophical naturalism, physicalism, etc without altering / intruding upon their approaches. The end result is only that it "liberates" you from a particular conceptual container, not philosophical naturalists.

Last edited: Jun 1, 2016
17. ### birchValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,077
There is no indication or even hint that there is exact multiples or copies of anything. This is often bizarrely pitched with the multiverse theory but more than likely, if anything, there is no 'you' except existing here. I mean, why would there be? Its a whole different universe.

Besides the fact, if you could change even a minor or trivial detail in the past even in this universe (assuming time travel were possible) a whole different set of people would most likely be in the population instead of us because even a minor change causes a ripple effect altering everything or anything.

You have to consider even just a persons conception with a particular sperm has minutiae variables which affect outcome such as timing, position at the moment, movement etc where even the slightest change would alter outcome and any of us would not be here but a different subset of society creating an somewhat altered or vastly different human, social and earth history to look back on etc.

Its as unlikely and ridiculous like saying there is a copy of you in the bottom of the ocean, africa, china or pluto. Nope. The odds of that are beyond astronomical and highly unlikely in another universe since its not even remotely likely here.

When it comes to alternate 'dimensions' (not universe), however, multiple copies or various forms of you make more sense to apply, possibly.

Last edited: Jun 1, 2016
18. ### C CConsular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy"Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,926
The so-called "flow of time" itself would be akin to visiting one slightly different, alternate version of the universe after another (which thereby includes transitions to those alternate states of "you" which are adhering to a selective theme of gradual, biological development). Perhaps Julian Barbour's approach to merging GR and QM best exemplifies such a continual Darwinian competition of which parallel universe (or which possible configuration of it) is the best fit candidate to be selected as the next moment. Eliminating any "determined" route for either past or future like the block-universe sports (quote directly below). Ergo Barbour's declaration of "The End Of Time", which actually seems to refer to discarding a definite 4D-like framework in favor of the multiple options of a stratified manifold.

"It seems that Einstein's view of the life of an individual was as follows. If the difference between past, present, and the future is an illusion, i.e., the four-dimensional spacetime is a 'block Universe' without motion or change, then each individual is a collection of a myriad of selves, distributed along his history, each occurrence persisting on the world line, experiencing indefinitely the particular event of that moment. Each of these momentary persons, according to our experience, would possess memory of the previous ones, and would therefore believe himself identical with them; yet they would all exist separately, as single pictures in a film. Placing the past, present, and future on the same footing this way, destroys the notion of the unity of the self, rendering it a mere illusion as well." --On the Two Aspects of Time: The Distinction and Its Implications, in Foundations of Physics; Horowitz, Arshansky, & Elitzur

But that asserted lack of unity fails because cognition / consciousness is an extended process that can't be expressed in the ridiculously narrow confines of a single "now" (especially in the ilk of the Planck-time unit). In order for cognition to be the case, each possible brain / body configuration is forced to be relationally integrated with other alternate versions of itself (a sequence of those which best satisfies an overall coherence as opposed to disorganized selection). IOW, consciousness would force your identity to be extended over those distinct "snapshots" of a either a standard block-universe or one conforming to a multiverse falling out of interpretations of quantum theory (or Barbour's odd conception that seems to stray from both).

You seem to be "only here" in this specious period of time rather than all moments / alternate versions at once because it's the nature of awareness to be distinguished into distinct chains of understanding and experience (just as objects themselves are distinguished in vision, sound, etc). The very apprehension of your life in a sensible manner requires that relational order and illusionary feeling of each period of moments taking its turn at being cognized. Whereas in actuality your "identity" might very well be distributed all over the place (both in time and in parallel universes). But the nature of consciousness and understanding, again, does not permit global awareness of that enlarged situation. The brain-state of a particular slice of time lacks information concerning the bigger picture, it only possesses memory and future expectations of the path that is either selected or which it belongs unavoidably to (standard block-universe).

19. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,000
Alucard89:
Thanks! Could you elaborate on your previous post as to what you mean by causing another big bang?

C C:
Agreed.

Do you mean the same way that a word looses it's meaning if you scramble it? The letters still exist and nothing has disappeared but it's meaning?

That's also truly nothingness of that meaning, in that case. The meaning of the word doesn't exist in any form, it is scrambled and thus incomprehensible and useless, devoid of meaning, unless the word is again formed. It's constituent parts are there, but the meaning is truly not there anymore.

If we expand to say that the word and the meaning is actually your consciousness (the brain and the mind) then the brain after death will "scramble" and the mind is no more, the mind isn't scrambled, it is gone, true nothing.

The world still goes on of course, if that particular setup is again formed, then the mind exists again, as if no time has passed, cause unlike the world, the mind didn't go on, it finds itself wherever it may be. If it goes a billion years, a hundred, or even just the next moment (as it is usually is for us) doesn't matter. Time could be seen as going by infinitely fast for it. If there is an end to time the mind will find itself at the first moment that it could be represented, cause time is no more, the state of everything is the same as it was before anything existed. If time is forever, the mind will exist when it can, and if it will never exist will be as if it never existed and thus be at the very first moment it could exist, as it is then truly nothing, as was the condition when it was as if it never existed.

What everything basically is, is information, and that is also the nature of the mind, perhaps a different kind of information, a cruder, macro-like kind of information, but still in essence, information, but nothing to the scientific sense of information, if a point of energy fluctuation or whatever it is, doesn't exist, is still the same nothing as the mind-kind of information, even if the parts are still there but scrambled.

20. ### CyperiumI'm always meValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,000
birch:
In a multiverse, if that multiverse has every possible outcome, then there would be exact copies of you, one copy where you are exactly the same but a single electron in moscow changed place. The multiverse in that regard (and in the regard of the many worlds interpretation) is exactly that way. In that interpretation, if taken to the extreme, every possible outcome of every event exists, effectively making a "all that is possible exists" kind of cosmos. If there is a infinite number of universes all arranged in different ways then that also makes a "all configurations that can possibly exist exists" kind of cosmos. Also if the universe is neverending and matter is uniform throughout, then that also makes for a "all configurations possible exists" cosmos. Only when you put constraints into what a multiverse might be like do you get a cosmos which doesn't feature every possible universe. One such constraint might be that only a certain number of different universes are allowed, for some reason, or only certain kind of configurations are allowed, for some reason. Why would there be a multiverse with such constraints?

Numberphile had a episode of how large the universe had to be when it was bound to repeat itself (if matter is distributed uniformly), the distance was of course ridiculously huge, but not impossible, it does require that such a distance even exists of course.

C C:
I do like the general idea of that, but what conditions determine what moment is best fit?

I like this too. So in this case, the best fit "bulk of moments making you up" is based on coherence, different paths of life can be seen to possibly take place here, which could actually be equally coherent, in essence that my decision making could itself have alternate versions, or "bulks of possible timelines", thus perhaps giving rise to the true nature of free will. In which some path has to be selected and your free will is the sense of the actions taken to select it.

Yes, that seems reasonable. Why illusionary though? It is what it is, a period of moments manifested as they are.

In one way or another, no matter how we put it, we have not only a sense of existing, we intrinsically exist, even if as a collection of moments spread out. There is still a distinct existence. Anyway, according to this philosophy, then the world outside of my comprehension could fluctuate between many worlds, of course taking no regard to my coherence? So that the path the mind takes (so to speak) is only fixed as much as it can comprehend (or be coherent with)? Then the world outside my understanding and coherence, could change, very well randomly between worlds, this would however ultimately lead to conflict with my own coherence as the rest of the world still follows the "best fit candidate", taking no regard to my own coherence, or do I understand it incorrectly?

21. ### ajantaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
611
since 2009 I'm feeling many copies of me around where I go but I can't prove it.

22. ### ajantaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
611
Double post deleted.

23. ### C CConsular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy"Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,926
Something grounded in QM, where among the options the most robust state for the cosmos is selected. The Quantum Darwinism of W. H. Zurek (below) is merely one example of such a selection process, which doesn't necessarily feature a global "now" as Julian's Barbour's approach does. Reality, so to speak, seems to fall out of a patchwork of quantum systems which are mutable and have an information relationship with each other. Zurek's conception is also agnostic about the "many worlds" of the Everett Interpretation which it has affinity with. Doubtless Barbour has his own views, but I'd guess such to revolve around the most fit version of the universe that is also consistent with the history (physical environmental memory) stored in the previous global "state / moment". [Plus, this supposed scenario of "phantom parallel universes battling each other to become real as the next now" may be largely metaphor, as we'll see in Carlo Rovelli's take farther down.]

W. H. Zurek: Selection of preferred states occurs as a result of the selective advertising', a proliferation of the information about the stable pointer states throughout the Universe. This view of the emergence of the classical can be regarded as (a Darwinian) natural selection of the preferred states. Thus, (evolutionary) fitness of the state is defined both by its ability to survive intact in spite of the immersion in the environment (i.e., environment-induced superselection is still important) but also by its propensity to create offspring -- copies of the information describing the state of the system in that environment. I show that this ability to survive and procreate' is central to effective classicality of quantum states. Environment retains its decohering role, but it also becomes a communication channel'' through which the state of the system is found out by the observers. In this sense, indirect acquisition of the information about the system from its environment allows quantum theory to come close to what happens in the classical physics: The information about a classical system can be `dissociated'' from its state. (In the case of an isolated quantum system this is impossible -- what is known about it is inseparably tied to the state it is in.)

If the eternal (static) level of existence doesn't experience itself as a sequence of modifications (the changes are part of its structure rather than being appearing and disappearing "events"), then the personal feeling of transiting from one moment to another is illusory IF treated objectively or as if applying universally. That is, if proposed to be outrunning the perspective of the individual or a society of organisms collectively. Otherwise, it's still arguably just a different level or type of "real" when remaining in its own context of immediate personal importance -- especially in that other minds / people seem to be inter-subjectively sharing one's own sense of what "now" is (coinciding together, anyway).

Plus, even if it was first contended that the world at large was conscious and experienced itself smoothly winking in and out of being (one global discrete moment being replaced by another), the duration of its "now" (circa the Planck time unit) would be incredibly "smaller" than the personal "now" of a human's consciousness (which extends over many milliseconds of brain processing). So the rival theory of eternalism would be forced into play yet again in order to deal with that extra dimensional extension of human cognition (in which a moment for it would cover a vast number of "moments" for the world). Again, the latter is "real" enough if remaining in its own context, but becomes illusory when pretending to be universal.

Carlo Rovelli has "revised" quantum mechanics in a timeless manner (as general relativity seems to require). Using a model that depicts its affairs as a network of organized correlations. Craig Callender: "Physicists are [still] able to [in this new framework] compactly summarize the workings of the universe in terms of physical laws that play out in time. But this convenient fact should not trick us into thinking that time is a fundamental part of the world’s furniture. Money, too, makes life much easier than negotiating a barter transaction every time you want to buy coffee. But it is an invented placeholder for the things we value, not something we value in and of itself. Similarly, time allows us to relate physical systems to one another without trying to figure out exactly how a glacier relates to a baseball. But it, too, is a convenient fiction that no more exists fundamentally in the natural world than money does." --Scientific American; June 2010; 'Is Time An Illusion?"

This apparently leads to something like all the options existing without being selected except in regard to falling out of relationships of one item to another (including an item to itself).

"Getting rid of time has its appeal but inflicts a good deal of collateral damage. For one, it requires quantum mechanics to be thoroughly rethought. Consider the famous case of Schrödinger’s cat. The cat is suspended between life and death, its fate hinging on the state of a quantum particle. In the usual way of thinking, the cat becomes one or the other after a measurement or some equivalent process takes place. Rovelli, though, would argue that the status of the cat is never resolved. The poor thing may be dead with respect to itself, alive relative to a human in the room, dead relative to a second human outside the room, and so on."

Speculation here: Systems that are conscious -- by that very nature and by the limits of their available information -- each have to represent themselves as being in one of those definite states, rather than all of them. If it was part of the inherent preference of an organism to live as long as possible, it as a system might select a route among the options which allows it to survive the longest (even though it might appear dead a lot sooner to other observers, in the course of them likewise selecting their own routes among the so-called "future" [terrain of possibilities]). Much of that selection (if resulting in favorable outcomes) would seem to have been accidental, pure chance, non-deliberate, or beyond control.

Personal perspective of John Smith: "I may be without a leg now, but thanks to that last-minute rescue, you thugs didn't succeed in killing me!" Perspective of one his tormentors: "Now that's one dead, messy dude lying there on the floor. Didn't expect him to go that fast. I hear the sirens in the far distance, so let's get out of here."

Last edited: Jun 17, 2016