When you die, I suspect you wake up crying.

[Aeschines]

This post isn't about the paranormal or whether there is, in fact, life after death. Rather, it's about the mistaken philosophical conclusions to which atheists sometimes come. In fact, for the sake of this thread, we're going to assume that when you die, there is no afterlife, and you are dead forever.

There are two versions of the Incorrect Interpretation of What It Is Like to Die, as I call it here: the Mean Version and the Nice Version. Both are mistaken in that it is implied or stated that one experiences death after one loses all ability to experience anything.

The Mean Version
You dead, m*th*f***a! And you dead forever! Ain't no sweet chariot coming down to sweep you up to Abraham's bosom. No sir. Just you in your grave, all trapped in there--rotting piteously! The seasons will come and go, the earth itself will be swallowed up by the sun a few billion years from now, and all you'll be is cinders in a dying star. You dead, m*th*f***a!

The Nice Version
Lay your burden down, sweet friend; let the reaper take you easily. When you close at last those heavy lids, all duties, all troubles, all sources of stress or consternation will dissolve like mist--and all that will remain are eons of peaceful rest. The seasons will come and go, the birds twitter in the oaks, and you shall be returned to nature, one with all, at rest for eternity.
-----

I think we've all read or heard sentiments like the ones above. It all depends on the type of non-believer. Some want to taunt you because you believe naively in the Resurrection. Some want to comfort because you think that fear and loathing of death must accompany the atheist worldview. But either approach is incorrect, if we take seriously the tenets of Modern Science.

Here are the facts. If any of these is unscientific, let me know. I'll recant!

1. No region of space-time is any real or more actual than any other. 500 years ago in Africa has just as much being as tomorrow near Beta Centauri.

Why do we think or feel otherwise? Simply because we occupy one patch of space-time and not another. But this perspective in no wise alters what was, is, or will be. In fact, the future is *already* just as real as today appears to us right now.

2. The passage of time is NOT a process. Similarly, the passage of times does NOT turn the present into the future.

With a little thought, the truth of the above is readily apparent. While it is true that all processes take time, time itself is not a process nor the product of a process. Consider a chemical reaction. We dump sodium bicarbonate into vinegar, and the process of neutralization occurs. If we dump it, it does occur; if we don't, it does not. The process is contingent on our actions and the chemical and physical properties involved.

But time is not contingent on any actions. Would the years stop if the earth stopped revolving around the sun? No. Can we speed time up or slow it down? No. We cannot influence it, catalyze it, encourage it or discourage it. It is not a process; rather, it is a location.
-----

Let's put these facts together with the reality of death. We die; we're gone. What happens?

We wake up as squawling newborn babies.

The reason is simple: We occupy a certain region of spacetime; that region never goes away (Fact 1), is never ground by time's grounder into oblivion, as time is a location, not a process (Fact 2).

Of course, we do not remember our future, and our future is the same as it ever was or ever will be. The same life events within the same space-time.

Likewise there is no oblivion, pleasant or un-, to be experienced. We are not there in space-time to experience it. Just as I experienced no unpleasantness when supernovae eons ago exploded and thereby formed the iron running in my blood this moment, I will experience nothing positive or negative when the sun withers in the future. I will, however, experience my experiences within my patch of space-time, and nothing can ever undo that ("The writing finger having writ...").
-----

We must, however, consider the question of how merciful all the above facts truly are. I would hold that the negativity we experienced in the past *continues* to be experienced in that piece of space-time (that is, the passage of time does not obliviate it), and likewise all the good we experiened *continues* to be so experienced.

This is quite unfair, perhaps, to those who experienced more negative than positive. It may, in fact, be that, for some, the Mean Version of an experienced oblivion is preferable to an unpleasant life within space-time that *continues* to persist.

What do YOU think?

[Meatros]

I could swear that Nietche (sp?) posited something similar. I vaguely remember him writing something about you better live life good the first time because you'll be repeating it forever.

Then again, I could be horribly wrong. In any event, I've heard this idea before and it's an interesting one. I'd like to think it was true on some level, but I don't.

Is there any reason for us to assume space/time would act the way you say?

[II Gyan II]

Both are mistaken in that it is implied or stated that one experiences death after one loses all ability to experience anything.

This statement is self-contradictory. I don't know of any serious atheist who believes that one experiences being dead.

[Sam Stone]

The way it seems to me is that since all we can perceive is conscious existance, then from our standpoint that's all that exists. I'm immortal, for the simple reason that the universe that I can perceive begins and ends with my birth and death. Nothing else is relevant. I won't claw at the inside of my coffin, or live in eternal torment or bliss, or anything else. I'll simply be gone. And it won't matter to me.

That's comforting to me, because it has happened billions of times already. People come, live in a little bubble universe of their own consciousness, and then it pops and it's gone. But someone else comes along. Your notion that 'we die and then wake up crying' is close to that notion, except that it implies a continuous chain from one event to the other, which I don't think is reasonable.

Modern science leaves open all kinds of other possibilities. For example, if the universe is truly infinite, then perhaps my consciousness will rise again in the sense of a random event creating the same memories I have now and continuing on. I think Frank Tipler covered this in 'The Physics of immortality'. His argument was the eventually we will all be 'resurrected' in the sense that our continuing ability to harness the universe and model information in computers will lead to the point where we can recreate everything that ever existed, including all the people who ever lived. Or something like that. It's been years and years since I read the book, and it was fairly thick going at the time.

That leads to an existential question about what truly makes a consciousness. If I die, and a million years from now someone creates all my memories in a computer and turns it on, will I 'wake up' and feel exactly as I do now? Are we all headed for this form of immortality? Or are we doomed to flicker in and out of various states of consciousness as the endless patterns of an infinite universe come together and fly apart?

I think I'm rambling now.

[Sam Stone]

Here's a fascinating link which covers some of this material.

[BlackKnight]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Can we speed time up or slow it down? No. We cannot influence it, catalyze it, encourage it or discourage it.

You are incorrect here. We can indeed influence time. Relativity says that by warping space one can influence time. Granted, as a practical matter we can't affect much. However, it is indeed possible to speed up or slow down time in some circumstances.

Also, I don't understand why one would wake up as a screaming baby. Babies are not conscious. (At least, I have no reason to believe that a newborn is any more conscious than an animal.) Wouldn't it make more sense to "wake up" a few years old? Of course, becoming conscious isn't a simple switch. So you'd sorta become gradually more "awake".

Also, what Gyan said.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Meatros

Is there any reason for us to assume space/time would act the way you say?

Sure, because that's exactly how they act and how Science accepts them as acting.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by II Gyan II

I don't know of any serious atheist who believes that one experiences being dead.

Of course they don't. But what they can often implies things that are not. It's the presentation of how-one-dies at the emotional level.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Meatros

I could swear that Nietche (sp?) posited something similar. I vaguely remember him writing something about you better live life good the first time because you'll be repeating it forever.

Naaah, it was Kevin Spacey

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by BlackKnight

You are incorrect here. We can indeed influence time. Relativity says that by warping space one can influence time. Granted, as a practical matter we can't affect much. However, it is indeed possible to speed up or slow down time in some circumstances.

I'll grant you this, but it's a subtle point. Can we *warp* the space-time of USA year 1983? Of course not. Once a location in space-time is fixed (and they all seem fixed to us except those in the present or future), it cannot be altered.

By the same token, I am "influencing" time in the Einsteinian sense just by moving my arm or driving my car (because of the principles of relativity), but this is not "influencing" time in the sense I meant in the post, and neither would the larger influence you mention here. It would simply choosing a particular reality within the laws of space-time.

Also, I don't understand why one would wake up as a screaming baby. Babies are not conscious. (At least, I have no reason to believe that a newborn is any more conscious than an animal.) Wouldn't it make more sense to "wake up" a few years old? Of course, becoming conscious isn't a simple switch. So you'd sorta become gradually more "awake".

Yep, you're correct. The baby thing is just one way of looking at it. Consciousness does flow into and through us from the void; quite an unusual thing, but there it is.

[Aeschines]

[quote=Sam Stone]I'm immortal, for the simple reason that the universe that I can perceive begins and ends with my birth and death.[quote]
Yeah, we're limitedly immortal.

Your notion that 'we die and then wake up crying' is close to that notion, except that it implies a continuous chain from one event to the other, which I don't think is reasonable.

And yet, we can wrestle with these insights even within this limited sphere of immortality that we possess. Personally, I feel that these insights point to Something Greater. Many disagree.

That leads to an existential question about what truly makes a consciousness. If I die, and a million years from now someone creates all my memories in a computer and turns it on, will I 'wake up' and feel exactly as I do now? Are we all headed for this form of immortality? Or are we doomed to flicker in and out of various states of consciousness as the endless patterns of an infinite universe come together and fly apart?

I think that's the insight: continuous evolution within Whatever We Are.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Meatros

I could swear that Nietche (sp?) posited something similar. I vaguely remember him writing something about you better live life good the first time because you'll be repeating it forever.

And how are you to know which is (was) the first time around? Am I living my first incarnation now, or have I been here before, and this life is merely an echo of things that have gone before?

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Here are the facts. If any of these is unscientific, let me know. I'll recant!

1. No region of space-time is any real or more actual than any other. 500 years ago in Africa has just as much being as tomorrow near Beta Centauri.

This does not really mean anything. I think what you are trying to say is that all space-time exists at once or something. I have hears such theories but they have certainly not been proven as scientific fact. In fact, it does seem unlikely that you could travel to 500 years ago Africa like you were traveling to another physical place.

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Why do we think or feel otherwise? Simply because we occupy one patch of space-time and not another. But this perspective in no wise alters what was, is, or will be. In fact, the future is *already* just as real as today appears to us right now.

See above.

Originally Posted by Aeschines

2. The passage of time is NOT a process. Similarly, the passage of times does NOT turn the present into the future.

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Can we speed time up or slow it down? No. We cannot influence it, catalyze it, encourage it or discourage it. It is not a process; rather, it is a location.

Actually, Einstein theorized and experiements have proven that we can slow time down.

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Let's put these facts together with the reality of death. We die; we're gone. What happens?

We wake up as squawling newborn babies.

You are missing a few logical steps. Assuming all these facts are correct ( a big stretch) they still do not support your conclusion.

Also, the baby is likely made from parts from a lot of folks.

Originally Posted by Aeschines

The reason is simple: We occupy a certain region of spacetime; that region never goes away (Fact 1), is never ground by time's grounder into oblivion, as time is a location, not a process (Fact 2).

Of course, we do not remember our future, and our future is the same as it ever was or ever will be. The same life events within the same space-time.

If we do not remember anything about our future or past for that matter, how do "we" wake up as anything? One our memories and what makes us "us" ceases to be, we cease to be.

Originally Posted by Aeschines

What do YOU think?

I think you need to look up the definition of "scientific"

[Saltire]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

The Mean Version
You dead, m*th*f***a! And you dead forever! Ain't no sweet chariot coming down to sweep you up to Abraham's bosom. No sir. Just you in your grave, all trapped in there--rotting piteously! The seasons will come and go, the earth itself will be swallowed up by the sun a few billion years from now, and all you'll be is cinders in a dying star. You dead, m*th*f***a!

The Nice Version
Lay your burden down, sweet friend; let the reaper take you easily. When you close at last those heavy lids, all duties, all troubles, all sources of stress or consternation will dissolve like mist--and all that will remain are eons of peaceful rest. The seasons will come and go, the birds twitter in the oaks, and you shall be returned to nature, one with all, at rest for eternity.

These two and The Aeschines Version seem to all be logically the same thing. Some find one or the other more comforting or more honest or whatever, but they don't seem to differ in particulars.

I don't see why anyone who didn't believe in an after-life would need to elaborate on things any further than, "Each consciousness gets one life, and when it's over, they get nothing else."

To quote the great philosopher and literalist Opus T. Penguin, "You're born, you live, you go on some diets, you die."

[Terrifel]

I hope no one minds if I throw a few uninformed observations out regarding the OP:

Originally Posted by Aeschines

There are two versions of the Incorrect Interpretation of What It Is Like to Die, as I call it here: the Mean Version and the Nice Version. Both are mistaken in that it is implied or stated that one experiences death after one loses all ability to experience anything.

I've heard sentiments like these before, but I never really took them to mean anything more than expressions of the speaker's attitude toward death, rather than any attempt to seriously describe the "experience" of death itself. Isn't the relative "harshness" of death really just a mirror reflection of the value of mortal existence, or are there schools of philosophy that give more literal significance to these viewpoints?

Here are the facts. If any of these is unscientific, let me know. I'll recant!

1. No region of space-time is any real or more actual than any other. 500 years ago in Africa has just as much being as tomorrow near Beta Centauri.

Why do we think or feel otherwise? Simply because we occupy one patch of space-time and not another. But this perspective in no wise alters what was, is, or will be. In fact, the future is *already* just as real as today appears to us right now.

I was under the lay impression that this sort of strict determinism was not taken seriously in modern physics, and that future events can only be described in terms of probability. Doesn't this make them less "real" than past events? If past events in spacetime are equivalent to future events, then where does our perception of time as a continuum originate? How is it that I can't percieve future events and past events identically from my position in spacetime, as I can percieve opposing spatial dimensions?

More tangentially...if the futuredoes have multiple possible resolutions, then even if I do somehow "relive" my experiences from birth in some sense, could they not be different experiences? Alternative potential futures branching from a common starting frame of reference?

2. The passage of time is NOT a process. Similarly, the passage of times does NOT turn the present into the future.

With a little thought, the truth of the above is readily apparent. While it is true that all processes take time, time itself is not a process nor the product of a process. Consider a chemical reaction. We dump sodium bicarbonate into vinegar, and the process of neutralization occurs. If we dump it, it does occur; if we don't, it does not. The process is contingent on our actions and the chemical and physical properties involved.

But time is not contingent on any actions. Would the years stop if the earth stopped revolving around the sun? No. Can we speed time up or slow it down? No. We cannot influence it, catalyze it, encourage it or discourage it. It is not a process; rather, it is a location.

However, consciousness does seem to be a process, or at least associated with a process not too different from the chemical reaction cited above. If our consciousness is contingent on our actions, then even if time is invariant, our experiences through time could be variable, just as the bicarb/vinegar reaction process has multiple possible resolutions based on past actions.

Let's put these facts together with the reality of death. We die; we're gone. What happens?

We wake up as squawling newborn babies.

If this interpretation is correct, then it would seem to me to have an interesting implied corollary: if death is defined as the end of personal experience, and there is only one possible timeline that can be percieved, then each of us must individually experience the maximum lifespan possible for our own existence: a "best of all possible worlds" scenario where the only criterion is how long our experiences persist after death. In a deterministic universe, this is no problem; the baby that dies an hour after birth will only ever have that tiny fraction of experiences, because universal conditions dictate that there is no possibility for that frame of reference to persist further in time. However, if there is an alternative possible future where the child lives for an additional hour, then those experiences will inevitably take precedence, because those events can be percieved by the child as "experiences" whereas the spacetime in which the child dies cannot. The longest continuum of experiences wins out by default.

The above ramblings were underwritten in part by the Roddenberry Foundation for Spacetime Research.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

(...) if death is defined as the end of personal experience, and there is only one possible timeline that can be percieved, then each of us must individually experience the maximum lifespan possible for our own existence: a "best of all possible worlds" scenario where the only criterion is how long our experiences persist after death.

This phrase should conclude, "...how long our experiences persist after birth."

The idea may or may not make any more sense that way, but at any rate that's what I meant to say.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Saltire

These two and The Aeschines Version seem to all be logically the same thing. Some find one or the other more comforting or more honest or whatever, but they don't seem to differ in particulars.

I don't see why anyone who didn't believe in an after-life would need to elaborate on things any further than, "Each consciousness gets one life, and when it's over, they get nothing else."

No disagreement here.

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by Meatros

I could swear that Nietche (sp?) posited something similar. I vaguely remember him writing something about you better live life good the first time because you'll be repeating it forever.

You're thinking of Thus Spake Zarathustra and Eternal Recurrence. It's debatable whether Nietzsche actually believed that we repeat our lives forever, but he did present the idea as a guide for living. Live your life so that if you had to do it all over again, you wouldn't want to change a thing.

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

I was under the lay impression that this sort of strict determinism was not taken seriously in modern physics, and that future events can only be described in terms of probability.

An interesting point, but I think that that's a different matter entirely. The only "reason" that the future is the future is our existence in the present. As I said in the OP, time is not a process that turns the future into the past, as though they were two different substances.

That said, the question as to whether events happen deterministically can be posed equally in regard to past events AND future events.

We perceive past events as unchangeable, but nevertheless as contingent: Had we done otherwise, the past we remember and record had been otherwise. The same is true of the future, which we anticipate but cannot yet remember or record: It will vary based on our actions.

It may well be the case that the future cannot be predicted deterministically, that there are only probabilities. But if that is true of the future, then it is also true of the past when it was perceived as the future.

Doesn't this make them less "real" than past events? If past events in spacetime are equivalent to future events, then where does our perception of time as a continuum originate?

A good question! Here is how I put it: Life in this universe is adapted to its varying environments: the gravity of the planet, the elements of which it can be constructed, the levels of heat and cold. But life is also adapted to the reality of TIME, whatever that may be.

Time obviously involves change and has a direction (past to future). We exist within that flow. I would conjecture that our sense of time passing comes from events in the brain and their relation to other material forces around us. It is all a matter of ratio. The earth revolves around the sun at a certain rate, which is in turn defined simply in relation to other rates of change (the decay of unstable atoms, the rate at which gravity accelerates objects, etc.).

The only reason that now seems to be NOW is that we, as physical objects, are located in this region of space-time.

How is it that I can't percieve future events and past events identically from my position in spacetime, as I can percieve opposing spatial dimensions?

I would say--and here I am not necessarily referring to Orthodox Science--that time is not a dimension in the same sense as the three dimensions of space are dimensions. Actually, there may be more than one dimension of time, just as there are more than one dimension of space; and, for that matter, there may be more than three dimensions in space.

It would be getting into the paranormal, but some believe that we CAN perceive the future to some degree. Animals may have evolved the ability to see just a wee bit into the future to avoid dangers and whatnot. www.boundaryinstitute.org has done experiments regarding this.

Seeing into the future isn't really a problem, logically. In any case, we do anticipate the future (the sun will rise tomorrow, etc., the ball will hit the floor after I release it, etc.), and we can often do so with 100% accuracy, so I would disagree that we are completely intellectually disconnected from future events.

More tangentially...if the futuredoes have multiple possible resolutions, then even if I do somehow "relive" my experiences from birth in some sense, could they not be different experiences? Alternative potential futures branching from a common starting frame of reference?

It seems entirely possible to me. With such questions we're getting into rock-bottom questions about how Reality *works.* I once did a post in GD in which I asked "What fixes Reality? Why is the past unchangeable?" I didn't get much other than standard answer-non-answers, but I can't really blame anyone, since we just don't know the reasons for a lot of this stuff.

However, consciousness does seem to be a process, or at least associated with a process not too different from the chemical reaction cited above. If our consciousness is contingent on our actions, then even if time is invariant, our experiences through time could be variable, just as the bicarb/vinegar reaction process has multiple possible resolutions based on past actions.

Makes sense to me.

If this interpretation is correct, then it would seem to me to have an interesting implied corollary: if death is defined as the end of personal experience, and there is only one possible timeline that can be percieved, then each of us must individually experience the maximum lifespan possible for our own existence: a "best of all possible worlds" scenario where the only criterion is how long our experiences persist after death. In a deterministic universe, this is no problem; the baby that dies an hour after birth will only ever have that tiny fraction of experiences, because universal conditions dictate that there is no possibility for that frame of reference to persist further in time. However, if there is an alternative possible future where the child lives for an additional hour, then those experiences will inevitably take precedence, because those events can be percieved by the child as "experiences" whereas the spacetime in which the child dies cannot. The longest continuum of experiences wins out by default.

I don't quite get the reasoning here, but it is quite interesting. Can you elaborate?

[II Gyan II]

Originally Posted by Lamia

You're thinking of Thus Spake Zarathustra and Eternal Recurrence. It's debatable whether Nietzsche actually believed that we repeat our lives forever, but he did present the idea as a guide for living. Live your life so that if you had to do it all over again, you wouldn't want to change a thing.

If Nietzche's idea is true, then wouldn't we not have free will? After all, how do I know this life isn't a repeat?

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

I don't quite get the reasoning here, but it is quite interesting. Can you elaborate?

I certainly hope so. I was musing on your observation about how we perceive the passage of time by observing processes in action, and what the implications are if consciousness itself is treated as a process. If our existence is defined by how our experiences play out through time, and if it makes sense to treat alternative potential futures as "real" in some sense, then the timeline in which your consciousness persists for the longest time will be the most "real," in that it will allow your experiences to continue for the maximum possible duration. To put it another way: from my vantage point in the present, there's a chance that I will wake up and experience tomorrow, and a chance that I won't. If I die tonight, then my experiences come to an end and my existence terminates. Therefore, the alternative where I wake up and my consciousness persists further through time takes precedence: given that both alternatives are "real" from my frame of reference in the present, and I can't directly percieve a future in which I'm not alive, then the only alternative is the reality in which my consciousness continues for another day. This process of selection continues until there are no viable timelines left in which my consciousness can possibly continue any further.

We can experience the deaths of others, but we cannot experience the reality of our own nonexistence. Thus, if spacetime admits to multiple resolutions, we each experience individual frames of reference that are biased toward the perpetuation of our own consciousness. For example, say there's a chance that I might have a fatal aneurysm tonight (or get hit by a meteor, or whatever). This will not shorten your experiential lifespan, so there's nothing to prevent you from hearing about my death tomorrow. However, clearly the only options that I myself could experience are those that don't involve a fatal aneurysm, so my consciousness can only continue along a timeline where such an event doesn't occur.

On the other hand, given that the spacetime region I'm currently occupying is "very late at night," I estimate the probability to be quite high indeed that tomorrow morning I'll experience a timeline where I find this post to be complete gibberish. If so, I'll take another stab at an explanation then.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Both are mistaken in that it is implied or stated that one experiences death after one loses all ability to experience anything.

Your reading of other people's thinking is 100% mistaken. I would have to be an idiot to think what you're ascribing to me.

What do YOU think?

Nothing personal, but I think it's is total nonsense. You've assumed a grand number of things and then picked a conclusion.

Let's put these facts together with the reality of death. We die; we're gone. What happens?

We wake up as squawling newborn babies.

The reason is simple: We occupy a certain region of spacetime; that region never goes away (Fact 1), is never ground by time's grounder into oblivion, as time is a location, not a process (Fact 2).

Consciousness is in the brain. I assume this is what you mean when you're talking about what "we" are. If it's not, feel free to prove it. How would a consciousness move from one person to another? You have proven neither of these "facts." You'd at least need to prove that "we" exist in some kind of beyond-corporal way. Consciousness outside of the brain or something. Even then that would only be step one. Good luck with that.

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by II Gyan II

If Nietzche's idea is true, then wouldn't we not have free will?

As I said, it's not clear that even Nietzsche believed that lives repeated at all. Thus Spake Zarathustra is a creative, fictional work designed to express his ideas. It was not meant to be taken literally in every detail.

After all, how do I know this life isn't a repeat?

You don't, but if you are repeating the same life again then you're just reliving the choices you made the first time around. Nietzsche's point was that when faced with a decision, you had better make the one you'll be happy with. You won't get to change it later. You've got one chance, so make the best of it. This doesn't contradict free will.

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

We can experience the deaths of others, but we cannot experience the reality of our own nonexistence. Thus, if spacetime admits to multiple resolutions, we each experience individual frames of reference that are biased toward the perpetuation of our own consciousness. For example, say there's a chance that I might have a fatal aneurysm tonight (or get hit by a meteor, or whatever). This will not shorten your experiential lifespan, so there's nothing to prevent you from hearing about my death tomorrow. However, clearly the only options that I myself could experience are those that don't involve a fatal aneurysm, so my consciousness can only continue along a timeline where such an event doesn't occur.

Years ago, a classmate of mine said he wasn't religious but he thought he must have some kind of a guardian angel. He'd been in bad situations before where he thought he'd die, but somehow he got through them all. He'd been lucky every time.

As he said that, I realized that his experience was nothing special. Everyone could say the same thing...because those who find themselves in bad situations where they think they'll die but don't get through it are dead and can't say anything. We can know about other people that haven't been lucky, but we cannot experience a world in which we ourselves have not successfully cheated death every time.

I don't know how profound that is, but I wanted you to know that you weren't alone on a limb with these thoughts.

[II Gyan II]

Originally Posted by Lamia

You've got one chance, so make the best of it. This doesn't contradict free will.

Exactly. How do I know I'm currently living that 'chance' instead of a replay? I only undergo an illusion of making choices if this current life is a replay.

[Dr. Love]

Originally Posted by II Gyan II

Exactly. How do I know I'm currently living that 'chance' instead of a replay? I only undergo an illusion of making choices if this current life is a replay.

Why would your choices only be an illusion? If you're not making the choices, who's making them? I would submit that free will still exists, even if the effects of that choice are temporally distant from the choice itself.

[Lamia]

Originally Posted by II Gyan II

Exactly. How do I know I'm currently living that 'chance' instead of a replay?

You do not, but nor do you know that replays even exist. If you'd like to waste what may be your only chance to choose your fate by worrying about whether you've actually got any choice at all, well...that's free will for ya.

I only undergo an illusion of making choices if this current life is a replay.

If it's a replay of the choices you made, what greater freedom could you ask for? You might as well say you don't have free will because you can't travel back in time and change what you did yesterday. Free will doesn't mean you don't have to lie in the bed you've made. Quite the opposite, in fact.

But this is missing Nietzsche's main point, which is that it is best to make every decision as if you knew you'd have to relive it again forever. Whether or not you actually do relive it again forever is unknowable, and doesn't make much difference if you're living the way you would if it were true anyway.

[II Gyan II]

Originally Posted by Dr. Love

If you're not making the choices, who's making them?.

Irrelevant. So I can't think of an agent. Does not compute to existence of free will.

Originally Posted by Lamia

You might as well say you don't have free will because you can't travel back in time and change what you did yesterday. Free will doesn't mean you don't have to lie in the bed you've made.

Then the will's not very free. Personally, it seems to me that 'free will' tends to get reinterpreted so as to maintain it as valid within the philosophical framework du jour. The concept's very vague and distant for analysis. Anyway, this discussion is tangential to this thread.

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

There are two versions of the Incorrect Interpretation of What It Is Like to Die, as I call it here: the Mean Version and the Nice Version. Both are mistaken in that it is implied or stated that one experiences death after one loses all ability to experience anything.

The Mean Version
You dead, m*th*f***a! And you dead forever! [cut]

The Nice Version
Lay your burden down, sweet friend; let the reaper take you easily. [cut]

I think your fundamental premise is incorrect. Neither of the two perspectives above involves "feeling" or "thinking" anything after the point of death. They deal with your feelings today about the meaning of your absence in the future.

You also don't really seem to get beyond the whole concept of a transcending soul... in your summaries above, they sound less like ceasing to exist than continuing to exist but being trapped in a grave. That's not what atheists believe. I can be worried today about what my non-existence will mean in the future, but that ends when I die. Either of your above scenarios could be true, but it means nothing to me because I no longer exist.

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by Lamia

You're thinking of Thus Spake Zarathustra and Eternal Recurrence. It's debatable whether Nietzsche actually believed that we repeat our lives forever, but he did present the idea as a guide for living. Live your life so that if you had to do it all over again, you wouldn't want to change a thing.

So how would George Washington be endlessly repeating his life?

[Futile Gesture]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Let's put these facts together with the reality of death. We die; we're gone. What happens?

We wake up as squawling newborn babies.

The reason is simple: We occupy a certain region of spacetime; that region never goes away (Fact 1), is never ground by time's grounder into oblivion, as time is a location, not a process (Fact 2).

Of course, we do not remember our future, and our future is the same as it ever was or ever will be. The same life events within the same space-time.

[snip]

What do YOU think?

I think the premise of your theory fails at the above point.

What you are really is asking is "What happens after your death", but at the same argument you have already removed the concept of time being a process, it's just our preceptions. So how then can there be a 'happening' for a dead person with no preceptions? And how can that 'happening' be in any way said to follow our death without there being a something that orders the process? It can't be time itself looping back, remember; it's a location, not a process.

And why must we return to point of birth. Why can't we remain frozen at the point of death? It's just as real a point as any other. Or return to any other point in the middle?

[uglybeech]

Originally Posted by Futile Gesture

And why must we return to point of birth. Why can't we remain frozen at the point of death? It's just as real a point as any other. Or return to any other point in the middle?

Ooh that gives me a chance to dredge up my old mad obsession (Life after death - the ultrapessimistic take. )

Basically I believe the last moment in "endless" because there is no following moment. Which I put best probably this way: "...because our consciousness does not continue on the timeline - from our perspective we do not end - time ends."

[Lobsang]

I think I want my 5 minutes back.

_{Oh wait. there it is.}

[smiling bandit]

For example, if the universe is truly infinite, then perhaps my consciousness will rise again in the sense of a random event creating the same memories I have now and continuing on.

According to several physics theories, you will come back to life. Eventually, given a long enough time period to manifest the unlikely probabilties, energy will spontaneously come into existence. usually this ocurs on a ridicuously small scale, a single positive or negative electrons coming into existence. Given a long enough wait period there's no reason whole complex atoms will appear, briefly reversing entropy by virtue of raw chaos. This could create whole galaxies or even a hole new universe. It presumably will eventually include you and every possible version of you, including you as another species. Given a long enough period it will also reform your own memories.

So you are, effectively, immortal. Of course, you'll also get to experience a trillion painful deaths for every real shot at life. Have fun.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by smiling bandit

According to several physics theories, you will come back to life. Eventually, given a long enough time period to manifest the unlikely probabilties, energy will spontaneously come into existence.

I'm trying, but I can't see how the heck these two ideas are connected. "You" aren't a discrete quantity of energy. You're a physical being. Yes, you run on electrical impulses. Your consciousness is not electricity. Anyway the particles that can come into existence - and we're talking about particles here, not people - exist for tiny fractions of seconds. And as I remember it, the larger the particles are the less time they exist for.

This thread seems like a great example of what happens when people try to make quantum mechanics justify their spirituality.

[blowero]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

We must, however, consider the question of how merciful all the above facts truly are. I would hold that the negativity we experienced in the past *continues* to be experienced in that piece of space-time (that is, the passage of time does not obliviate it), and likewise all the good we experiened *continues* to be so experienced.

The word "continue" is a function of time. You can't use that word outside the context of time. No sooner do you get through saying time is a location, you turn around and imply that events in one region of time would somehow inexplicably be true for other regions of time. It's like saying, "The living room and the kitchen are locations, therefore there are dishes, a sink, a refrigerator, and a stove in the living room." You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to embrace the modern mathematical view of time as a dimension, while simultaneously keeping the older view of time as an immutable force. But those two ways of picturing time are mutually exclusive. They cannot both hold simultaneously. If time is a dimension, then when you move into the future, there is no longer any "you" in the past; therefore your experiences are not there either - just like when you walk into the kitchen, you are no longer in the living room.

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

I would hold that the negativity we experienced in the past *continues* to be experienced in that piece of space-time (that is, the passage of time does not obliviate it), and likewise all the good we experiened *continues* to be so experienced.

So, how we feel at any given time is how we feel, and that we feel/felt like that at that time is true for all time?

Well ... yeah.

I don't quite understand the idea of a 'replay'. One time (and the associated configuration of our sense-memory computer, or indeed the entire universe) is inaccessible to another: two different configurations cannot be the same. The 8th February 2005 configuration is next to the 7th and 9th February 2005 configurations, not next to the 25th September 1973 configuration labelled 'my birth', nor the configuration labelled 'my death', when the cells comprising the biological structure holding my memories will undergo necrosis and begin the chemical process of decay.

Why should I "wake up screaming?", as opposed to waking up on my 14th birthday, waking up on someone else's 14th birthday, or 'waking up' in the non-existent state which comprised the 13.7 billion years before my birth?

[HMS Irruncible]

Originally Posted by Marley23

This thread seems like a great example of what happens when people try to make quantum mechanics justify their spirituality.

Exactly. But the mental exercise is sometimes useful, if ultimately incorrect. I see what the OP is saying but I disagree with his implicitly trying to use it to justify christian theology.

As he said, there is continuity between the present, the past, and the future. There was a great sci-fi story that described the 4-dimensional human as a "long pink worm" stretching from one's birth to one's death, with the head end having the cross section of an infant and the tail end having the cross section of an elderly person. Of course if you extend that logically to all of our physical being, we start out as atoms in the beginning and atoms at the end.

We don't know what time actually looks like... it may be a line beginning at the big bang and ending in the big crunch, or it may be some kind of torus, a static circular form. The question then would be, what is consciousness and human life? Are we giant donut-shaped entities with one small arc dipped in the sprinkles that we call consciousness, with our presence being a wave function that propagates continually around the donut?

I don't know. From a practical standpoint it's bullshit, of course. For all practical purposes, we begin existing at birth and we cease existing at death. Sometimes we drink too much, as I do now. Anything that happens outside those boundaries may be true, but it's outside of our event horizon. The living can never know what happens outside of that. But it's fun to think about.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by NattoGuy

We don't know what time actually looks like... it may be a line beginning at the big bang and ending in the big crunch, or it may be some kind of torus, a static circular form.

Nah, we know there's no Big Crunch coming. Perhaps you missed the memo. The universe is open-ended.

[smiling bandit]

I'm trying, but I can't see how the heck these two ideas are connected. "You" aren't a discrete quantity of energy. You're a physical being. Yes, you run on electrical impulses. Your consciousness is not electricity.

Matter is nothing, literarlly, except little balls of energy spun quickly. Energy works much the same way. Enough energy in a sifficiently dense and unlikely form could give rise to matter.

Anyway the particles that can come into existence - and we're talking about particles here, not people - exist for tiny fractions of seconds. And as I remember it, the larger the particles are the less time they exist for.

Usually, yes. But with a sufficiently unlikely event, it's possible for them them to remain on a more permanent basis. Now, the odds of this happening are indescribably small. Given enough time, however, it would presumably happen.

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by bandit

Given enough time, however, it would presumably happen.

I think the actual probabilities are such that even the entire lifetime of the universe doesn't leave enough time for such one-in-a-googleplex-type probabilities. In any case, you would then be talking about the existence of someone else who had 'your' memories: that is still another entity in a different temporal location to the 2005 Straight Doper.

[antechinus]

I will not and cannot possibly experience my own death. I am eternal. I agree with Sam Stone on this one. Oblivion cannot be experienced. If it cannot be experienced then it does not exist.

Conciousness does not suddenly happen. It grows, fluctuates, then it wanes to nothing. A new born baby has less conciousness than a 1 year old, but has more than a feteus, which has next to nothing.

Not sure about free will, but the more I read on the subject, the more it seems like an illusion. But thats another story.

[bizzwire]

Aeschines, You wouldn't be related to Archimedes Plutonium by any chance, would you?

[Terrifel]

That's just mean, bizzwire.

Aeschines clearly stated that the premise of the OP is:

You will not be saved by the Holy Ghost.

You will not be saved by the god Plutonium.

In fact................................................
YOU WILL NOT BE SAVED!!!

[uglybeech]

Originally Posted by antechinus

...I am eternal. I agree with Sam Stone on this one. Oblivion cannot be experienced. If it cannot be experienced then it does not exist.

I third this.

Originally Posted by antechinus

Conciousness does not suddenly happen. It grows, fluctuates, then it wanes to nothing.

I still think the boundary is troublesome. It troubles me, anyway. It's easier to put to rest in your mind if you envision slowly losing consciousness. But what if you die suddenly? Is a moment that isn't followed by another the same as all the others?

When I had the flu I told myself - this will pass, and in a few days I'll feel better. But what if I'd died? Would if the flu have never passed? I couldn't have passed into "oblivion" as you agree. I wouldn't wake up crying, I'm pretty sure. So from my perspective would I have had the flu forever?

If time only exists to the extent that our consciousness is able to perceive it isn't it problematic to say that we just "end?" We can't end from our own perspective.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by uglybeech

So from my perspective would I have had the flu forever?

No, you'd have stopped having the flu. You'd stop having anything.

[uglybeech]

Originally Posted by Marley23

No, you'd have stopped having the flu. You'd stop having anything.

Only from your perspective. I'd never experience a flu-less moment again.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by uglybeech

Only from your perspective. I'd never experience a flu-less moment again.

You'd also never experience a flu-filled moment again. You wouldn't experience anything again.

[uglybeech]

Originally Posted by Marley23

You'd also never experience a flu-filled moment again. You wouldn't experience anything again.

Again, only from your perspective do I cease to experience. From my perspective I only have one last flu-filled moment. No end. No oblivion. These just don't exist in my timeline. So, I think it's flu without end.

[Marley23]

I get it, I just think this is an odd way of expressing it.