On Life After Death

  • Thread starter Sikz
  • Start date
  • #1
237
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Let us assume temporarily that when we die we cease to exist.

A nonexistent thing cannot be affected by anything. For example, it is impossible to kill a nonexistant chicken, move a nonexistant piece of matter, or eat a nonexistant pizza.

We did not exist before we were borne.
We were borne (we came into existence).
We ceased to exist when we died.

Since nothing can effect a nonexistant thing, the only variable for something nonexistent is its existence (which we shall designate as "e"). Now Here are the above three steps in terms of e:

e=0
e=1
e=0

The object came into existence. Before this the only variable the object had was e, which was equal to zero. Therefore that variable has to be the cause of the change (since it is the ONLY variable). So:

IF e=0 THEN e=1

Since time is not a variable that matters to this equation, the transition from e=0 to e=1 takes no time. "IF e=0 THEN e=1" really means "e cannot equal 0". This time rule does not hold true for e=1, however, because existing things ARE influenced by exterior things. Our equation only looks at the e variable, but when e=1 there are an infinite number of other variables that come into play. When e=0, however, e is the only variable.

So, applying our rule (IF e=0 THEN e=1) we get:

e=0
e=1
e=0
*Since e=0, THEN e=1
e=1

Therefore if we cease to exist after we die, we come into existence again. Wheather or not the non-e variables are the same each time is not something we can find from this equation.

So the fact that we exist now is proof that we will always exist.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
2,225
0
Of course we never truly "did not exist" in the first place, but began with the "lineage" of what our parents -- through procreation --have handed down to us, including the emergent properties of consciousness which, is instilled in us as "a soul."
 
  • #3
3,762
2
Sikz, that's a fine attempt, but I think there's something very wrong with it: it assigns a value of "e" to something that doesn't exist. Yes, you were right that "e cannot equal 0" relative to anything, but something that doesn't exist isn't anything, and thus cannot even have an "e" value attached to it.
 
  • #4
FZ+
1,561
2
A nonexistent thing cannot be affected by anything.
I think this is inconsistent with your idea that non-existent objects have variables. Rather, I think you are forced to choose:

each non-existent variables existing somehow in an universe of concepts, and thus open to influence and transformation
OR
a non-existent object is no object, and so we do not have the switching of values of e, but perhaps the transformation of an elementary entity (eg. matter, energy, information, law etc) from one type of existence to another that we as observers identify.

Other possibilities may exist.
 
  • #5
2,225
0
It's a funny thing. If we understood that there was an afterlife, that indeed all "the evidence" supports this (what else could it support?), then we would be approaching this from a completely opposite view. In which case our reasoning would be directed at "why" it works (including those things which support it), instead of looking for any available opportunity to shoot it down.
 
  • #6
146
0
You'll find out :wink: , why not spend your time finding out stuff you might never find out.
 
  • #7
skyblueff0
Originally posted by Sikz
Let us assume temporarily that when we die we cease to exist.

A nonexistent thing cannot be affected by anything. For example, it is impossible to kill a nonexistant chicken, move a nonexistant piece of matter, or eat a nonexistant pizza.

We did not exist before we were borne.
We were borne (we came into existence).
We ceased to exist when we died.

Since nothing can effect a nonexistant thing, the only variable for something nonexistent is its existence (which we shall designate as "e"). Now Here are the above three steps in terms of e:

e=0
e=1
e=0

The object came into existence. Before this the only variable the object had was e, which was equal to zero. Therefore that variable has to be the cause of the change (since it is the ONLY variable). So:

IF e=0 THEN e=1

Since time is not a variable that matters to this equation, the transition from e=0 to e=1 takes no time. "IF e=0 THEN e=1" really means "e cannot equal 0". This time rule does not hold true for e=1, however, because existing things ARE influenced by exterior things. Our equation only looks at the e variable, but when e=1 there are an infinite number of other variables that come into play. When e=0, however, e is the only variable.

So, applying our rule (IF e=0 THEN e=1) we get:

e=0
e=1
e=0
*Since e=0, THEN e=1
e=1

Therefore if we cease to exist after we die, we come into existence again. Wheather or not the non-e variables are the same each time is not something we can find from this equation.

So the fact that we exist now is proof that we will always exist.

whoahh some freaky stuff going around here!! Of course we exist, but its the fact that when the brain dies, we are nothing more than nothingness.....which mean, as long as we mind lives, to our eyes and selves we exist, but when our mind dies, we our just a mere images, that will rot aways as those who remember you die....i dont know what will be of us when we die, but im hoping christianity is right, and there is a heaven. This is just one of my what if...thing..


hey nonexistance pizza theory of yours........lol lies..all lies...how come lil susie from next door drink non-existance tea...its "mind over matter" j/k but hey what if!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
87
0
Originally posted by Sikz
So the fact that we exist now is proof that we will always exist.
It could be better argued that the fact that we exist is proof that we have always existed and will always exist...

Of course, we'll change forms (i.e. star dust, humans, dirt) until eventually the universe dies in a cold empty void of irreversible entropy... but it wont be that bad now will it...
 
  • #9
55
0
Mentat said:
Sikz, that's a fine attempt, but I think there's something very wrong with it: it assigns a value of "e" to something that doesn't exist. Yes, you were right that "e cannot equal 0" relative to anything, but something that doesn't exist isn't anything, and thus cannot even have an "e" value attached to it.

I understand what Sikz means, because even if "I" didn't exist before my existence, I was a potential human though. Since I know that I exist today, that is an evidence for that. If I wasn't potential, I would not have existed today - or ever...

The question that we should ask before making any hypothesis is really: What am "I"? Can we define "I" as "the result of all the coincidents that happened from the BigBang until nine month before my birth"? Or am "I" my DNA?

It's hard to be scientific in this case... :rolleyes:
 
  • #10
Rade
Sikz said:
Let us assume temporarily that when we die we cease to exist....Therefore if we cease to exist after we die, we come into existence again....So the fact that we exist now is proof that we will always exist.
. Death is not a thing, an existent--in short, death as a "thing" does not exist, only existence exists as many different "things". Now, in order for an existent to "come into existence again" after death, death would need to be a "thing" from which some "thing" could come out of--but this is logically impossible because death is not such a "thing" that can play this middle-man role that you suggest. Thus your argument is falsified--you have not provided proof that the fact that we exist now demands that we will always exist.

Get over it--"death" will be the end of your existence--it is no-thing to fear because it does not exist.
 
  • #11
70
0
Sikz is absolutely correct, but not in the way he thinks.
e can never be 0, why? Because the atoms that make up our body, will change into other energies.
We have and always will be, a part of the constant energy that is the universe.
Just not as conscious human beings, but the particles that make us up will move on to other ventures.

So I conclude that his calculation is correct.
 
  • #12
55
0
bola said:
Sikz is absolutely correct, but not in the way he thinks.
e can never be 0, why? Because the atoms that make up our body, will change into other energies.
We have and always will be, a part of the constant energy that is the universe.
Just not as conscious human beings, but the particles that make us up will move on to other ventures.

So I conclude that his calculation is correct.

What makes me ME? The fact that I see the world through MY eyes and through MY brain (and senses), and not through yours? Of course, this is more a philosophical question than a scientific one, but the answer to the problem posted in this thread depends on us defining the question above.

If "I" am that exact pattern of neurons that makes up exact MY brain, then that exact pattern will appear an infinite amount of times iff time is infinite. (An example: If you throw 1,000,000 dices an infinite amount of times (=every throw leads to another throw), the pattern consisting of 999,999 "ones" and 1 with the result "three" will appear infinite times, just as any other potential pattern).

There might be [tex] 10^{1000000000} [/tex] years between the pattern exists, but "I" (the non-existant) won't be bored, because it is the brain that experiences time.

I don't know if this is true or not, it's only an idea, but as I said above, it depends on exactly how we define the mysterious "I"... :bugeye:
 
Last edited:
  • #13
28
0
I think we believe of existence after life because of our biological clock. We unconsciously feel time moving ahead of us .So we feel we exist here and deduce we exist there (after death) .
 
  • #14
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,561
2,029
"Before this the only variable the object had was e, which was equal to zero. Therefore that variable has to be the cause of the change (since it is the ONLY variable). So:
IF e=0 THEN e=1"

Bzzt. Flawed assumption: You assume that the cause for coming into existence is internal. It is not; it is external.
 
  • #15
VikingF said:
What makes me ME? The fact that I see the world through MY eyes and through MY brain (and senses), and not through yours? Of course, this is more a philosophical question than a scientific one, but the answer to the problem posted in this thread depends on us defining the question above.

If "I" am that exact pattern of neurons that makes up exact MY brain, then that exact pattern will appear an infinite amount of times iff time is infinite. (An example: If you throw 1,000,000 dices an infinite amount of times (=every throw leads to another throw), the pattern consisting of 999,999 "ones" and 1 with the result "three" will appear infinite times, just as any other potential pattern).

There might be [tex] 10^{1000000000} [/tex] years between the pattern exists, but "I" (the non-existant) won't be bored, because it is the brain that experiences time.

I don't know if this is true or not, it's only an idea, but as I said above, it depends on exactly how we define the mysterious "I"... :bugeye:
you say it is the brain that experiences time, as to say without a brain, time does not exist? even stars experience time, all things in the universe experience time, living or not, they just do not perceptualize it in th same way you do. And when we die, our reality ceases to exist, our particles may go on to form other things, but there is no after"life". Ever heard of someone dieing and being brought back to lif even hours later? their reality ceasd to exist for that period.... ask them what thy experienced, this happened to my grandma... and i can tell you, it's quite interesting.
 
  • #16
55
0
dgoodpasture2005 said:
you say it is the brain that experiences time, as to say without a brain, time does not exist?
Time does exist, but someone without a functioning brain won't experience it. (..probably, but maybe..) :confused:

dgoodpasture2005 said:
even stars experience time, all things in the universe experience time, living or not, they just do not perceptualize it in th same way you do.
OK, as "experiencing", I meant experiencing the way we do. :smile:

dgoodpasture2005 said:
And when we die, our reality ceases to exist, our particles may go on to form other things, but there is no after"life".
We don't know that, but since it's something that neither can be proved nor disproved, it won't go under the "science flag".


dgoodpasture2005 said:
Ever heard of someone dieing and being brought back to life even hours later? their reality ceasd to exist for that period.... ask them what thy experienced, this happened to my grandma... and i can tell you, it's quite interesting.
If you mean Near Death Experiences, I have read a lot about it, and it's very interesting. :wink:

As I said above, this isn't really science, so I keep an open mind about this topic.
 
  • #17
55
0
Mithal said:
I think we believe of existence after life because of our biological clock. We unconsciously feel time moving ahead of us .So we feel we exist here and deduce we exist there (after death) .

Maybe, but it may also be because people loves to speculate about things they don't know much about. :rolleyes:

The state of non-existing sounds mysterious to most people, and they are therefore wondering if the answer may be something else.
 
  • #18
314
1
On nonexitence

You can only "assume" that "nonexistence" exist since all we know is existence. You can never prove nonexistence because it requires some type of existence to witness it. It is the same issue as trying to prove that "nothing" exist which is about the same thing as nonexistence.
 
  • #19
237
0
Man... This thing's still floating around after two and a half years?

bola said:
Sikz is absolutely correct, but not in the way he thinks.
e can never be 0, why? Because the atoms that make up our body, will change into other energies.
We have and always will be, a part of the constant energy that is the universe.
Just not as conscious human beings, but the particles that make us up will move on to other ventures.

So I conclude that his calculation is correct
I agree, now, with what you're saying. I still think that the idea I posted here holds (although my spelling when I posted it doesn't ><);

DaveC426913 said: "Bzzt. Flawed assumption: You assume that the cause for coming into existence is internal. It is not; it is external."

I did not assume that; it has to be internal if a nonexistent thing cannot be affected by anything. Either
a) It is external, in which something that does not exist can be affected by exterior things; but by any reasonable definition of existence, something that interacts with the exterior world must be said to exist.
b) Or it is internal. Which is what I proposed, based on the postulate (or maybe the definition) that nonexistent things cannot be affected by anything.



In any case, my point with this post is that I agree with bola. If this existence equation thing is valid...:

1) a) Either time must be infinite, and all patterns/systems will exist again (although I would have to question whether it's possible for time to pass between a passing out of and into existence), or
b) This law does not hold for systems/patterns, but only for elementary particles/energies/etc. In which case the implication would be that systems and patterns do not actually exist, and that only objects exist; in essence, that would mean that information is not a "real" thing in any sense.

2) In the case of 1b, it only applies to human consciousness if that consciousness can be proven to be elementary and indivisible. In the case of 1b, it applies to human consciousness whether it is a system or not; either time must be infinite, and every pattern will reemerge eventually... Or time AND space are infinite, and every pattern reemerges instantaneously in another location.
 
  • #20
maybe we could prove life after birth?

Just a brief hello from a new comer to this forum,hope to post some more
topics later.there is much evidence for the continuence of life after death,there was a long research project here in england,at southampton hostpital,where those who died on the operating table,and from heart failure
gave accounts of the afterlife.there is also much more evidence if we want to feally look for it.
also I have met many people who have seen long dead relatives appear to them,and none of these were mentally ill.or unbalanced.just normal folk going about their business.
kindest regards,michael.
 

Related Threads for: On Life After Death

  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
135
Views
48K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
32
Views
4K
Top