Option 12: What Happens After Death?

[alexsok]

Option 11: I'd rather not think about it
Option 12: _________ (fill in the blank)

The options above influence our expectations of everlasting life in this world; those options that presume to hold any promise of life beyond death weaken the motivation to seek effective solutions to (1) optimal health, (2) "successful" aging, and (3) dramatic life and health extension. The assumption of oblivion after we die is, for many, a tough one to swallow. And yet, a belief or conviction in the value of life shaped by this assumption is much stronger for having been shaped by it. If you feel there's another option worthy of mention, please indicate it, but give us a sense of where you think you're going, or what you think will happen, when (or after) you die.

I saw a similar thread on another forum and most people were voting for "oblivion" which is not too surprising, seeing as that is the most natural response once would elicit from himself if he looks deep enough into the mystery...

Let's see how it stacks up here.

 

[bchmtnedisto]

is this a continuation of your "why am i here question"?

 

[mubashirmansoor]

I've chosen the option for 'The gateway to another realm' but I believe that we are not living in the reality in this world hence a gateway to the realm...

 

[rsd]

option 12: I have an idea and i don't care.

 

[X-43D]

If you define death as cessation of brain activity then there is nothing after death. After death there is total blackness, just as before we were born. However i do believe in an afterlife. Reincarnation seems believable to me. The world isn't all science, science can't even explain some things such as what started the universe before the big bang and where the universe came from. The original particles couldn't have just been there. Matter can't come from nowhere, it must be created. So either God who is eternal created matter or it was always there so matter is eternal.

 

[cristo]

The world isn't all science

What do you mean by that?

, science can't even explain some things such as what started the universe before the big bang and where the universe came from.

Well, the current models of the universe cannot explain this, no.

Why do you insist on pushing this "afterlife" theory of yours? There's a reason all your threads on it get deleted!

 

[russ_watters]

Since this is a science forum, I'm surprised you didn't include the science answer: an end to life. As X-43D says, it is measured as from where brain activity stops.

 

[baywax]

Lucky option 11: "other"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Death is... Never having to say your sorry.

As an agnostic I lean towards the idea that worm food is what I will be when I die, no soul, no after life.

However it doesn't bother me, it simply teaches me to appreciate the life I have now and make the most of it, because this is the show, and there are no repeat performances

If anyone's interested in learning the absurdity of meaning of existence and the futility of religion in explaining life and how to cope with the pointlessness that is existence, they should read Camus: The Myth of Sysiphus

Great piece of philosophy, the atheists guide to life and death

I shall tell you a great secret, my friend. Do not wait for the last judgment, it takes place every day

If there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.

Albert Camus

 

[rewebster]

Death is...

the Great Equalizer


(well, that's what Houdini told me the other day)

 

[octelcogopod]

Currently I hold that life, consciousness and self awareness changes its energy form when we die.
There's currently no agreed upon scientific theory that states that consciousness carries on or that there is something more after death, but I'm not one to say that this means something more than just that, but I'm open for suggestions.

In other words; oblivion.

 

[setAI]

I would have voted oblivion- but that isn't possible according to the implications of the Quantum Immortality conjecture and the Simulation Hypothesis- as long as an organism is a finite construct of matter- no matter how complex- it must be archeologically reconstructed eventually in a multiverse or spatially infinite universe- http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302131 - and artificial simulations must statistically outnumber 'natural'/accidental worlds http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html- so I voted for transition to another simulation- although that is necissarily vague- you might as well say I don't know- except that non-existence is not logically possible unless an observer's state is not a physically realizable state of matter- but then there would be no observer in the first place

 

[berkeman]

Currently, oblivion. But I believe that if we are smart enough, we may be able to extend our intellectual life beyond our bilogical death. We have to figure out a lot about how the brain works, though, before we can try to figure out how to make "backups" of our individual brains, and how then to give those backups intellectual lifes of their own.

What was the science fiction book that talked about this? Dang, it's been forever since I read it. Don't think I finished it, actually...

 

[setAI]

What was the science fiction book that talked about this? Dang, it's been forever since I read it. Don't think I finished it, actually...

nearly every book/story on this list deals with the many implications of uploading/copies/immortality/augemtation/etc: https://www.amazon.com/post-singularity-space-opera/lm/R1F24YYEVSIZOH/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full/002-5298118-5107202

 

[berkeman]

nearly every book/story on this list deals with the many implications of uploading/copies/immortality/augemtation/etc: https://www.amazon.com/post-singularity-space-opera/lm/R1F24YYEVSIZOH/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_title_full/002-5298118-5107202

Hmmm. Interesting genre, but not what I was referring to. Now I'm going to have to go look for that book that I started...

 

[Werg22]

I am a careful agnostic, so I will say that I do not know. Believing in the certainty anything is faith; atheism is faith.

 

[SRode]

Why isn't there a "scaring the hell out of me" option?

 

[Evo]

I am a careful agnostic, so I will say that I do not know. Believing in the certainty anything is faith; atheism is faith.

Atheism isn't faith. It's a term made up to label people that don't buy into religion or gods. For exmple, Joe believes invisible creatures roam the planet, I ignore Joe's belief, it doesn't take any faith to ignore something I don't care about.

 

[Moridin]

I am a careful agnostic, so I will say that I do not know. Believing in the certainty anything is faith; atheism is faith.

The general definition of agnosticism is that one is sure that 'one can never find out anything about the reality of x'. That, if anything, requires faith. Of course you can label it as 'weak agnosticism' which is basically 'I don't know right now'.

 

[Werg22]

Atheism isn't faith. It's a term made up to label people that don't buy into religion or gods. For exmple, Joe believes invisible creatures roam the planet, I ignore Joe's belief, it doesn't take any faith to ignore something I don't care about.

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

 

[Werg22]

The general definition of agnosticism is that one is sure that 'one can never find out anything about the reality of x'. That, if anything, requires faith. Of course you can label it as 'weak agnosticism' which is basically 'I don't know right now'.

I guess it's worth pointing out the nuance; I deem myself as one who dosen't know if any after-life exists nor if it is possible to know.

 

[Moridin]

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

Atheism is Not a Denial of 'God'

Atheism is the lack of faith in deities (or arbitrary thing x), not the denial of deities (or arbitrary thing x).

Just because I have a lack of taste in chocolate ice cream, does not mean that I embrace the taste of vanilla. I could have the lack of taste in both, I could say that I do not care about the flavor or that I like another flavor.

 

[JoeDawg]

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

Taking a position on something is not equivalent to having faith in it. Having faith in something generally refers to a belief either 'without evidence' or even 'in spite of evidence to the contrary'.

I don't believe in Odin, for lots of reasons. I find that the description of Odin, that is generally given, is so unlikely and so unsupportable, that I have no problem denying that he exits. Odin-belief is ridiculous. That doesn't take faith... if its a matter of examining evidence and coming to a conclusion based on the evidence. This is an important distinction, because if new evidence was supplied to me, something so overwhelmingly in support of Odin's existense, then I would need to re-evaluate my position.

If I had faith in the non-existense of Odin, evidence, for or against, wouldn't matter even a bit.

Oh and death is... the last thing I ever want to do.

 

[Werg22]

Atheism is Not a Denial of 'God'

Atheism is the lack of faith in deities (or arbitrary thing x), not the denial of deities (or arbitrary thing x).

Just because I have a lack of taste in chocolate ice cream, does not mean that I embrace the taste of vanilla. I could have the lack of taste in both, I could say that I do not care about the flavor or that I like another flavor.

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=atheism&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

According to the Oxford Dictionary, I am going along the correct definition.

Taking a position on something is not equivalent to having faith in it. Having faith in something generally refers to a belief either 'without evidence' or even 'in spite of evidence to the contrary'.

I don't believe in Odin, for lots of reasons. I find that the description of Odin, that is generally given, is so unlikely and so unsupportable, that I have no problem denying that he exits. Odin-belief is ridiculous. That doesn't take faith... if its a matter of examining evidence and coming to a conclusion based on the evidence. This is an important distinction, because if new evidence was supplied to me, something so overwhelmingly in support of Odin's existense, then I would need to re-evaluate my position.

If I had faith in the non-existense of Odin, evidence, for or against, wouldn't matter even a bit.

Oh and death is... the last thing I ever want to do.

Disambiguation between faith and the taking of a position is not relevant here. What is relevant is that in many cases they are quite equivalent in terms of lack, or abundance thereof, support. For instance, if I were to invent a religion whose only assertion is God Exists, both acceptance and denial would be ultimately unjustifiable.

 

[JoeDawg]

Disambiguation between faith and the taking of a position is not relevant here. What is relevant is that in many cases they are quite equivalent in terms of lack, or abundance thereof, support. For instance, if I were to invent a religion whose only assertion is God Exists, both acceptance and denial would be ultimately unjustifiable.

Unless 'God exists' is a contradiction.

If all you say is that 'God exists', you are not really saying much of anything. What is a god? Which god? What makes him God? Where can you find this god? How do you know this is true?

I can say: "ewlfnavieiwfanfwelifwonwwfnaf exists". But to know if its true or not I would have to define it, and then, this is where you would need evidence, or faith.

If you said: "ewlfnavieiwfanfwelifwonwwfnaf exists", but refused to say more, or to justify your statement, its simply an unsubstantiated claim, with no worth, its either just sounds or scribbles.

 

[Moridin]

According to the Oxford Dictionary, I am going along the correct definition.

According to a few other dictionaries and texts, I am going to correct your faulty definition:

ATheist Myth: Isn’t not believing in any gods the same as believing there are no gods?
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard.htm
Online Dictionary Definitions of Atheism
Reference Book Definitions of Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/freethinkers.htm
Definition of Atheism for Modern Atheists

There is a huge difference between strong and weak atheism.

The word atheist is redundant. No one has ever needed to define themselves as non-astrologer, or non-voodoo priest.

 

[Werg22]

Unless 'God exists' is a contradiction.

If all you say is that 'God exists', you are not really saying much of anything. What is a god? Which god? What makes him God? Where can you find this god? How do you know this is true?

I can say: "ewlfnavieiwfanfwelifwonwwfnaf exists". But to know if its true or not I would have to define it, and then, this is where you would need evidence, or faith.

If you said: "ewlfnavieiwfanfwelifwonwwfnaf exists", but refused to say more, or to justify your statement, its simply an unsubstantiated claim, with no worth, its either just sounds or scribbles.

This is not my point; I could have defined God however I wanted to make the claim substantial with everything I said still applying.

According to a few other dictionaries and texts, I am going to correct your faulty definition:

ATheist Myth: Isn’t not believing in any gods the same as believing there are no gods?
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/dict_standard.htm
Online Dictionary Definitions of Atheism
Reference Book Definitions of Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/freethinkers.htm
Definition of Atheism for Modern Atheists

There is a huge difference between strong and weak atheism.

The word atheist is redundant. No one has ever needed to define themselves as non-astrologer, or non-voodoo priest.

I understand.

 

[JoeDawg]

This is not my point; I could have defined God however I wanted to make the claim substantial with everything I said still applying.

Then do so. I guarantee your everything will not apply, because I will demand proof that what you attribute to your god is true.

 

[Werg22]

Then do so. I guarantee your everything will not apply, because I will demand proof that what you attribute to your god is true.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[JoeDawg]

Proof is in the eye of the beholder.

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.

So now I've stated my biases...
If you have such a conception of god, I'd love to hear it.

 

[laurelelizabeth]

I honestly don't know, although I'd like to believe it's not oblivion. I think it might be something like reincarnation -- either you get reborn as another person/animal or in an entirely different world.

 

[VikingF]

"I honestly don't know", however if time and/or space (multiverse?) is infinite, then anything with a probability above zero should happen an infinite number of times, including the exact circumstances that lead to my existence.

 

[Moridin]

"I honestly don't know", however if time and/or space (multiverse?) is infinite, then anything with a probability above zero should happen an infinite number of times, including the exact circumstances that lead to my existence.

That is a big if. What makes you think that

i.) Multiverse idea is valid?
ii.) The existence of an afterlife is above 0?

 

[VikingF]

What makes you think that
i.) Multiverse idea is valid?

One thing is that it has explanatory power. The anthropic principle is a good example of this. It is easier to explain why the universe is as fine-tuned as it is if we accept the multiverse idea to be a possible solution. If our universe is only one of infinitely many, or atleast one amongst a vast amount of universes, and the probability of a universe like our to exist is nonzero, then it would appear somewhere sooner or later, and we would be bound to find ourselves in such a universe. It is also a respected idea which is included in many cosmological models, e.g. inflationary cosmology and LQC.

ii.) The existence of an afterlife is above 0?

I never said that. The reason why you live today, is because the history of the universe happened the way it did from the beginning of it, and until the moment of your existence, right? And that history must have a nonzero probability of happening, since it actually did happen.

 

[JoeDawg]

One thing is that it has explanatory power. The anthropic principle is a good example of this. It is easier to explain why the universe is as fine-tuned as it is if we accept the multiverse idea to be a possible solution. If our universe is only one of infinitely many, or atleast one amongst a vast amount of universes, and the probability of a universe like our to exist is nonzero, then it would appear somewhere sooner or later, and we would be bound to find ourselves in such a universe. It is also a respected idea which is included in many cosmological models, e.g. inflationary cosmology and LQC.

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.

 

[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
[/color]

 

[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) ?

(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?