Option 12: What Happens After Death?

[setAI]

The problem with this idea is that cause/effect is something we observe in our universe, but as soon as you expand your ideas beyond 'our universe' to some kind of theoretical multiverse, talking about probabilities becomes meaningless, since we really have nothing to compare our universe to. All we can really say is that our universe exists and try and model a theory based on what we observe. As far as I can see the 'multiverse' isn't really any less of a 'cheat', at least with current understanding, than saying 'god did it'. Also note that time is a function of 'this' universe, so infinite time... for our universe to happen... doesn't really make sense, unless time exists outside our universe, which we couldn't possibly know and really, it might have completely different properties even if it did.

to deny the Multiverse would require some new and absurd physics which posits an omnicient demon that magically destroys the very computations and sub-computations that allow the observed universe to have consistant physics and exist itself-it would be rather like a magical computer which can factor any number by simply 'guessing' the correct factors the first time instead of searching the products of every combination until it finds the answer- this search process is a fundamental property of all causal systems-


The physical laws that we have discovered provide great means of data compression, since they make it sufficient to store the initial data at some time together with the equations and an integration routine... the initial data might be extremely simple: quantum field theory states such as the Hawking-Hartle wave function or the inflationary Bunch-Davies vacuum have very low algorithmic complexity (since they can be de-fined in quite brief physics papers), yet simulating their time evolution would simulate not merely one universe like ours, but a vast decohering ensemble corresponding to the [Quantum] multiverse.

Max Tegmark
from http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646


All Universes are Cheaper Than Just One

In general, computing all evolutions of all universes is much cheaper in terms of information requirements than computing just one particular, arbitrarily chosen evolution. Why? Because the Great Programmer's algorithm that systematically enumerates and runs all universes (with all imaginable types of physical laws, wave functions, noise etc.) is very short (although it takes time). On the other hand, computing just one particular universe's evolution (with, say, one particular instance of noise), without computing the others, tends to be very expensive, because almost all individual universes are incompressible, as has been shown above. More is less!

Many worlds

Suppose there is true (incompressible) noise in state transitions of our particular world evolution. The noise conveys additional information besides the one for initial state and physical laws. But from the Great Programmer's point of view, almost no extra information (nor, equivalently, a random generator) is required. Instead of computing just one of the many possible evolutions of a probabilistic universe with fixed laws but random noise of a certain (e.g., Gaussian) type, the Great Programmer's simple program computes them all. An automatic by-product of the Great Programmer's set-up is the well-known ``many worlds hypothesis'', ©Everett III. According to it, whenever our universe's quantum mechanics allows for alternative next paths, all are taken and the world splits into separate universes. From the Great Programmer's view, however, there are no real splits -- there are just a bunch of different algorithms which yield identical results for some time, until they start computing different outputs corresponding to different noise in different universes.

From an esthetical point of view that favors simple explanations of everything, a set-up in which all possible universes are computed instead of just ours is more attractive. It is simpler.

Juergen Schmidhuber
from http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9904050

 

[JoeDawg]

It is simpler.

And yet there are some huge holes in what we know, and filling those holes might lead to an even simpler theory.

I'm not denying anything. Occam's razor isn't about truth though, its about making a decision when you don't have all the facts, and we don't.

The point being made is that currently its unverifiable. 'God did it' assuming one believes in eternal beings is simple too. Believing that what's outside our universe is consistent with what's inside our universe is a reasonable assumption, but its still an assumption. Quantum mechanics seemed absurd to quite a lot of people when it was first being developed.

We can extrapolate all we like from what we can measure, but if its unverifiable, the perceived elegance of the theory doesn't equal truth.

 

[setAI]

We can extrapolate all we like from what we can measure, but if its unverifiable, the perceived elegance of the theory doesn't equal truth.

ah- but it is verifiable- and technology should allow it to be verified in the very near future [many quantum computer scientists already claim it has begun]- to the extent that what we now call reality will be entirely redifined- the 'virtual' in virtual reality will be revealed as redundant when the difference between simulation and reality is not just imperceptible- but imperceptible even in principle

the implications of ideas seemingly too 'out-therre' to matter to us- like the Simulation Hypothesis become quite dramatic and personal when realizing that several diiferent approaches to hypercomputation possibly capable of hacking root reality will be ubiquitous on this planet by the time todays toddlers are in college [if they even have college then]

 

[JoeDawg]

ah- but it is verifiable- and technology should allow it to be verifed in the very near future...

LOL

Its not verifiable now. Claiming it will be in the future doesn't change that.

Like I said, I didn't say it was wrong, but its not verifiable.. (fine) with any current technology... and although it might be verifiable in the future with better techology, it might also be shown to be wrong, or continue to be unverifiable. We just don't know.
Which brings us back to noted 'big if'.

 

[Rade]

Death as a "thing" does not exist. Thus, death is "no"thing.

 

[Dragonfall]

Death is when your organs can no longer support your body, and you literally and slowly fall apart.

 

[Loren Booda]

Similar to Rade's contention, I would say that death is nonexistent.

 

[JoeDawg]

Similar to Rade's contention, I would say that death is nonexistent.

Death is the end condition of life.

I agree its not a 'thing'. Its the lack of a thing, life.
Unfortunately, linguistically, we can create a 'thing' simply by referring to it as a noun, which adds a lot of confusion.

 

[rewebster]

But an atheist asserts that deities do not exist. The atheist takes a position, just like the believer.

yeah, it seems like a lot of people (well, some anyway) have 'TOTAL FAITH' in the atheism belief

------------------------

is the word 'death' , short for de' ath(er) ?:tongue:

(old french: of the aether?)

--------------------------------------

and then, could a person who is an 'atheist' also be called an 'aetherist' ?

 

[JoeDawg]

yeah, it seems like a lot of people (well, some anyway) have 'TOTAL FAITH' in the atheism belief

Atheism = without belief in god(s)

Saying someone believes (or has faith: believing without evidence) in 'not believing' is nonsense.
Its like saying no-apple is type of apple.

Atheists can and do 'believe' lots of things, and some of them are not supported by evidence, but not believing something is not a type of believing, that's just a word game believers use to relativistically justify their own belief.

 

[Evo]

But an atheist asserts that deities do not exist. The atheist takes a position, just like the believer.

No, they don't take a position. Just because I don't believe in the tooth fairy or purple flying elephants, doesn't mean I take a position on it. I just ignore it as the religious wishing that others take them seriously.

That's what I can't get. Why do religious people think that people that haven't bought into their "belief" are in some way fighting it? Why can't they understand that most people just ignore them?

 

[turbo]

There is a strong atheism in which the non-believer denies the existence of a god (though proving a negative is not a winning strategy and gives the religious people a perfect opening for setting up straw-men), and a weak atheism in which the non-believer just doesn't buy into the god argument and ignores the question. There is also agnosticism, in which the non-believer takes the position that we not only do not know if a god can exist, but cannot know. I prefer "door #3", though when the proselytizers come knocking on the door, I'll cop to #2 just to get them to go away. I'm not about to get into a philosophical argument about agnosticism with someone incapable of understanding the concept.

 

[JoeDawg]

There is a strong atheism in which the non-believer denies the existence of a god (though proving a negative is not a winning strategy and gives the religious people a perfect opening for setting up straw-men), and a weak atheism in which the non-believer just doesn't buy into the god argument and ignores the question. There is also agnosticism, in which the non-believer takes the position that we not only do not know if a god can exist, but cannot know. I prefer "door #3", though when the proselytizers come knocking on the door, I'll cop to #2 just to get them to go away. I'm not about to get into a philosophical argument about agnosticism with someone incapable of understanding the concept.

Thats also a pretty good description of even most strong atheists, in my experience, who don't deny the unlikely possibility... in the conceptual way, of 'some kind' of creator existing...

... but who are sick to death of hearing about and therefore DENY the specific existence of specific gods, like Yahweh, etc... all of which have been proved nonsensical and contradictory... in various ways over the years.

Just like the existence of gravity isn't 'proved'... we just have a **** load of evidence to support the idea. So denying it would be stupid, the complete lack of reliable evidence for gods leads one to the reasonable denial of such things.

So while its impossible to prove a negative, the more simple explanation for 'gods', that being human psychology, tends to win out, as opposed to contradictory and completely fantastical supernatural father figure descriptions that most religious people cling to.

 

[rewebster]

There are 'religions'/(groups) that reject technology too----someone someplace will form a group to 'reject' any idea.

Where in the bell shaped curve do you (anyone) fit---I accept all religions--I accept no religions (which is different than 'rejecting' and the different than spirituality) ?


--and if you (anyone) accept one religion/(ideology) only, where do you fit in it--do you accept it totally without argument? -- do you accept it totally but with some hesitation? or do you accept it but still think it's all wrong?

 

[kam213]

Anyone think eternal life will be possible in the future about 300 years from now?

 

[JoeDawg]

Anyone think eternal life will be possible in the future about 300 years from now?

Depends if the universe has an ending.

 

[Moridin]

There is a strong atheism in which the non-believer denies the existence of a god (though proving a negative is not a winning strategy and gives the religious people a perfect opening for setting up straw-men), and a weak atheism in which the non-believer just doesn't buy into the god argument and ignores the question. There is also agnosticism, in which the non-believer takes the position that we not only do not know if a god can exist, but cannot know. I prefer "door #3", though when the proselytizers come knocking on the door, I'll cop to #2 just to get them to go away. I'm not about to get into a philosophical argument about agnosticism with someone incapable of understanding the concept.

However, there are many different forms of agnosticism; weak, strong, apathetic, ignosticism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism and so on.

The trouble with strong agnosticism (the one you have advocated) is that it is contradictory. By saying that nothing of the existence of 'God' can be known, one is actually claiming to know something about the existence of 'God' (that is, that knowledge is impossible). It also makes an absolute statement without evidence, and is therefore as irrational as strong atheism or theism. Weak agnosticism on the other hand, is a more reasonable position.

 

[JoeDawg]

By saying that nothing of the existence of 'God' can be known, one is actually claiming to know something about the existence of 'God' (that is, that knowledge is impossible). It also makes an absolute statement without evidence, and is therefore as irrational as strong atheism or theism. Weak agnosticism on the other hand, is a more reasonable position.

Actually you are playing a word game here, which really has nothing to do with the reasonableness of agnosticism... You are using the word 'nothing' as a noun, which works quite well in english, but is a logical contradiction, since 'no thing' is not really a thing.

Since it is generally claimed that 'god' doesn't exist within time and space as we do, said god doesn't have attributes that we can refer to, and thus no evidence we can refer to. This is why religious people, when pressed, will fall back on 'you just need to have faith'. God is basically a empty term, a 'nothing concept' with no real values to it. So what you are really saying is that nothing can be known about nothing, since by definition 'nothing' has no discernible attributes, and 'knowledge of things' is based on things having attributes.

 

[Moridin]

Since it is generally claimed that 'god' doesn't exist within time and space as we do, said god doesn't have attributes that we can refer to, and thus no evidence we can refer to.

Abrahamic theism refers to a 'God' that is makes active contributions to his Creation by answering prayer, saving people etc. That would classify as within time and space.

That also carries the hidden assumption that humans cannot acquire another epistemology that is applicable beyond space and time, which is an absolute statement without evidence.

 

[setAI]

Anyone think eternal life will be possible in the future about 300 years from now?

one of the neuroscientists I work with http://www.ucsf.edu/neurosc/faculty/neuro_kenyon.html says immortality will be available by 2020- and she is a leading expert on aging and has already extended the lifespans of nematodes by a factor of six

 

[JoeDawg]

Abrahamic theism refers to a 'God' that is makes active contributions to his Creation by answering prayer, saving people etc. That would classify as within time and space.

Actually they still claim he is out of time, based on the notion that he was needed to 'create' the universe, set things in motion. When one asks them to address this apparent contradiction of being in time and not, they go back to 'having faith', back to the empty concept. It certainly requires mental gymnastics, but what you're pointing out here is a contradiction in their theology.

That also carries the hidden assumption that humans cannot acquire another epistemology that is applicable beyond space and time, which is an absolute statement without evidence.

You would have to abuse the definition of the word 'knowledge', that is, completely redefine it, and our current understanding of it, so profoundly, in order to create this fantasy epistemology. You might as well create a new word. It simply would not be the same concept.

You're basically saying here that redefining something to be its opposite, or something completely different, is possible, well sure. Of course you can do that. But its not really addressing the issue. Again you're playing a game of linguistics. What is the definition of knowledge? The most common human understanding of it, however, requires connections to be made between things, over time within a context, ie the universe.

Infinite knowledge is another empty concept since it really doesn't mean anything. Its applying the idea of an infinity, a mathematical concept, outside its abstract relevance.

 

[Moridin]

God has created time and space and therefore is not governed by it. Since he is not governed by it he can either choose to take part in it or not. There is no contradiction in Christian theology regarding time and space.

If 'God' is outside time and space, he would not be able to take an active part in the natural world, because that would be inside of time and space. That is a massive contradiction in any theology.

 

[j777]

I never said that God is outside of time and space only that he is not governed by it.

 

[Moridin]

I never said that God is outside of time and space only that he is not governed by it.

That would be the same. Perhaps I should say outside the effects of time and space. It doesn't really matter. The contradiction is still active.

 

[Astronuc]

Death is...

the last thing I plan on doing in this life.

Meanwhile, I plan on having a h*** of a good time.


Besides, I'm so far behind, I'll never die. :uhh:

 

[Esnas]

Just as birth is a gateway into life as a being with a specific focused awareness (called ego in the case of humans), death is a gateway into the diffusion or dispersion of this particular awareness. Consciousness might still exist in some dispersed form but not the particular awareness experienced when we are in the state that we call “being alive”. (I own this as my conjecture at this time.) In this way, death is a gateway into a mystery. It is mystery because it is an unknown. Birth, life, and death are all mysteries. When we see a child being born there is mystery. When we truly look at the life in front of us we see mystery. When life ends and we are witness to the dissolution and decay of what was once something growing and animated this too is a mystery. Our impending death is one of our greatest motivating factors. ¡Dame la muerte que me falta!

 

[MediumBang]

IMO: Death is simply "more of the same."

We are what we are, and have always been what we are.

All we really KNOW about what we are is that we experience consciousness and that FROM CONSCIOUSNESS we create varying levels of perception, reason and conclusion, thereby creating the illusion of matter and/or reality. This is how things can exist and not exist at the same time.

As Doctor Phil says, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." So, since Dr. Phil is very wise it is safe to conclude we will continue to experience existence after "death" the same as we have always experienced existence in the "past" (the "past" also being merely a concept with which we organize our perceptions and collectively create "reality.")

(P.S. I'll bet I'm the first person in these forums to quote Dr. Phil in order to substantiate a theory.)

 

[Luke987]

So go ahead, show me what you have. If you can supply a concept of god that is not self-contradicting, many philosophers have tried, and verifiable evidence to support your claim that such a god could and does exist, then your claim does not require faith, otherwise believing in it requires faith by definition - faith is defined as belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Until you support your claim, it requires either faith in the claim or at the very least in your ability to discern the truth of the statement: God exists.

I personally have never encountered a God definition that wasn't self contradicting, vague to the point of uselessness, and completely without evidence.

I'd just like to ask; are you referring to a God which is not self-contradicting and has verifiable evidence? If the former, X, is only a necessity then you are spitting in the face of Deism. A belief in God based on reason itself.

 

[JoeDawg]

I'd just like to ask; are you referring to a God which is not self-contradicting and has verifiable evidence? If the former, X, is only a necessity then you are spitting in the face of Deism. A belief in God based on reason itself.

Belief in god is based on fear and ignorance. Deism is based on rationalization of that fear and lack of knowledge, not reason. It suffers no less from contradiction. Claims that an 'eternal' (a truly nonsensical concept) creator exists, based on the idea that causality demands a cause for every effect, simply shows how contradictory the idea of a creator god is. Deism begs the question of gods existence, it doesn't address it.

 

[setAI]

an 'eternal' (a truly nonsensical concept) creator exists,

an eternal intelligent system is not nonsensical in that forms of hypercomputation can compute eternal histories- infinite-state Turing Machines can store the Hilbert space of all possible finite and infinite histories- infinite-time TMs can evolve all possible finite and infinite histories- infinite state Turing machines may be possible with quantum computation- and rather modest quantum computation if the histories are from LOCAL and causal universes like ours- infinite time TMs are physically realizable by embedding classical computers in Malament-Hogarth spacetime-

if you have infinite state/time machines then eternal intelligent information processing is quite possible- such information structures could easily perform sub-computations of physical simulations and process the states it computes- that allows for every silly little theistic concept Man has ever envisaged to be simulated: essentially a 'creator' deity- however calling it creation is a cheat because it would really just be exploring other paths the universe has already taken- extracting possible histories from a matrix of all possible causal states and relationships-

this should not be surprising because ideas about God are novelties of the possible relationships between intelligence and environment that Mankind can dream up- it should be no surprise that the Universe already explores these types relationships of information and every other possible type-

 

[rewebster]

if you have infinite state/time machines then eternal intelligent information processing is quite possible- such information structures could easily perform sub-computations of physical simulations and process the states it computes- that allows for every silly little theistic concept Man has ever envisaged to be simulated: essentially a 'creator' deity- however calling it creation is a cheat because it would really just be exploring other paths the universe has already taken- extracting possible histories from a matrix of all possible causal states and relationships-

this should not be surprising because ideas about God are novelties of the possible relationships between intelligence and environment that Mankind can dream up- it should be no surprise that the Universe already explores these types relationships of information and every other possible type-

"I know I had a few more 'bits' and 'bytes' around here someplace---I wonder where they went?"

 

[JoeDawg]

an eternal intelligent system is not nonsensical in that forms of hypercomputation can compute eternal histories- infinite-state Turing Machines can store the Hilbert space of all possible finite and infinite histories

Infinite and eternal are not the same thing.
Infinite is a mathematical concept which deals with extending something indefinitely.
Eternal refers to something outside of, and unaffected by, time.

The whole point behind arguing an 'eternal' god, is that you remove him/her/it from any calculations (except with regards to the prime mover, or first cause.) as the eternal god is supposedly unaffected by the passage of time, and created the universe, so is external to space as well. This is not a scientific conception, since if a god exists outside of time and space it is essentially unobservable. Eternal is a completely empty concept, which is basically a divide by zero idea.

Deism is an attempt, by those who don't like the idea of a god not existing, to justify it rationally, even though it has no rational basis.

 

[laurelelizabeth]

This is a nerdy thought, so where else would it go than on a nerdy forum :) (I mean nerdy in the nicest way possible)

I'm thinking about how TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch -- ignore the double negatives, that is a colloquialism. I just like to say big words.) You can't create or destroy mass, energy, momentum, whatever else... It should be the same thing with people's souls. I don't know how that would figure in with the Earth's population expanding, unless there is somewhere in the universe where the population is decreasing. So death is being reincarnated into another form. hopefully you learn more each time you are reborn...

 

[MediumBang]

I originally came to these forums to research scientific facts in order to see how they might support a concept I was planning to base a play on. However, the main fact I learned here is that people, such as myself, annoy scientists.

So, I've decided to pass on writing a play which would have been based on the premise:

Scientists have recently done much to prove the existence of God, only they refer to God as "A Singularity" and have renamed Creation, "The Big Bang."*

Since this string is about death, I decided it might be as good a place as any to allow my project to die, while passing the concept along to those who might find it interesting.

*I thank Marcus for a newer definition of God (well he was defining Singularity -- but, to folks like me, no real difference...) as follows:

----------------
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Singularity.html

The primary meaning is a place (point or region) where a function blows up and fails to give meaningful results. This was taken over into physics: a place where a man-made mathematical model blows up and fails to give meaningful results.
----------------

My own personal definition of God is: "The sum total, as well as the lowest common denominator, of all that is," (which will probably piss off scientists, mathematicians, theologists and a whole bunch of other people -- but, hey, all that whacky stuff THEY do doesn't piss ME off!)

Well, then, bye! I'm off to a forum about farts or something -- you know, gaseous phenomena I can understand.

M.B.

P.S. If anyone decides to attack me on this, I'm going to just close my eyes, clasp my hands together and ask Singularity to forgive you.

 

[Duck1987]

We don't know what comes after death, but we have a pretty good reason to believe that there is nothing. I believe in God, but most of the time I just can't help but think about the nothingness that follows after my death