It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No need for an afterlife? The paradox of the afterlife.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
*This is just a mind-stretching thought experiment. This thread is (for the moment) void of belief and dogma.

When a pet dies, does all life end with it? We can assume that it doesn’t, and life continues in us and before our very eyes. Has life ever ended? It would be safer to concede that life has not yet ended because life continues everywhere. Despite the death of our pet, we, and everything else that would be considered alive on this planet, continue to live. Life goes on—if I’m permitted to use such a tired cliché.

If there is no end to life, how are we able to conceive of an after-life?

edit on 10-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Some are able to conceive of an afterlife because that's what they want. They want to live on..



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
If there is no end to life, how are we able to conceive of an after-life?


That presupposes that the afterlife depends on everything being dead, not an individual piece of it. If we were all (us, dogs, plants, aliens, whatever is alive) were part of a collective, that might be the case, but there isn't anything to indicate this.

I'll turn it around -- if the "Many Worlds" quantum theory is correct, someone who was dying would just jump to another reality in which they survived whatever was killing them, in order to be the observer of the action. In this case, quantum immortality is conceivable (the notion that, in order for the world to go on, the individual must survive,) and is supported by physics (admittedly, some pretty whack physics, but it's there, nonetheless.)

Of course, this could be the most torturous thing imaginable, possibly -- if you were, say, dying of cancer, were you to jump to a reality where you didn't have cancer in the first place, that might be okay, but what if you jumped to a reality where you had cancer, but just didn't happen to die that particular second. One would spend all eternity dying of cancer, second by second.

The result would be no afterlife, but I can't imagine a worse hell than that...

Quantum mechanics and immortality



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
If there is no end to life, how are we able to conceive of an after-life?


That presupposes that the afterlife depends on everything being dead, not an individual piece of it. If we were all (us, dogs, plants, aliens, whatever is alive) were part of a collective, that might be the case, but there isn't anything to indicate this.

I'll turn it around -- if the "Many Worlds" quantum theory is correct, someone who was dying would just jump to another reality in which they survived whatever was killing them, in order to be the observer of the action. In this case, quantum immortality is conceivable (the notion that, in order for the world to go on, the individual must survive,) and is supported by physics (admittedly, some pretty whack physics, but it's there, nonetheless.)

Of course, this could be the most torturous thing imaginable, possibly -- if you were, say, dying of cancer, were you to jump to a reality where you didn't have cancer in the first place, that might be okay, but what if you jumped to a reality where you had cancer, but just didn't happen to die that particular second. One would spend all eternity dying of cancer, second by second.

The result would be no afterlife, but I can't imagine a worse hell than that...

Quantum mechanics and immortality


Yes you're right. There is nothing that presupposes that we are connected in any way, that there is nothing eternal within all of us. Nonetheless, we have given a word to symbolize what we would consider life, and it is apparent that the force or event we are describing has never ended yet. Thus no need for an afterlife.

The problem seems to be a linguistic one.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Your question assumes firstly that life needs a physical body to exist, and secondly that inanimate things such as rocks, dirt or air are completely void of life energy...



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


if there is no end to life,,, yet life continues to keep going and going,..,,..,.,wouldnt that mean that reality which includes the phenomenon of life,,,, is a process of,,, life after life, after life, after life, after life,,,, therefore,, semantically existing an "after life'?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Doesnt anyone at least agree the "afterlife" is whatever remains when the body and mind die:

perhaps the spirit? As in a part of all universal energy, if you will.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
See the problem is, people call this an after LIFE. LIFE is relative as we know it. we perciece everything in a 3D world and universe, LIFE is like a temporary passing. When we understand the power of sound frequencies, we will be able to understand that this LIFE is nothing but a virtual projection of conscious mind.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Your question assumes firstly that life needs a physical body to exist, and secondly that inanimate things such as rocks, dirt or air are completely void of life energy...


Yes, this is assumed. If energy is life, and energy doesn't end, then we can still safely say that life continues. I think this would still show that an afterlife is unnecessary and paradoxical. What do you think?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
what if life is nothing more but the result of complex interactions of particles,, given time to create complex structures..,,.,. and then objectively through this universal event of many events changing and evolving with time.,.,.,. life is nothing more then an amplification.,.,., as certain particles or atoms come together to make a pair and allow for whatever they form to do to happen.,,.,. two people in time,,, come together and reproduce,,,,



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


if there is no end to life,,, yet life continues to keep going and going,..,,..,.,wouldnt that mean that reality which includes the phenomenon of life,,,, is a process of,,, life after life, after life, after life, after life,,,, therefore,, semantically existing an "after life'?


Very good. But if we say life doesn't stop, it would still be life; continuous life because it hasn't stopped yet.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
The dream escapes the prison of mind when we die. Becoming like a fluttering thing that learns to fly.

The universe creates an opening to allow the fresh new lies to escape the hell of space time.

Fresh new lies to infect a free mind, a rogue dream, whispering it's meaning through black holes that end up in

someone elses geometric pattern of the all seeing mind's eye.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by linknumbernine
See the problem is, people call this an after LIFE. LIFE is relative as we know it. we perciece everything in a 3D world and universe, LIFE is like a temporary passing. When we understand the power of sound frequencies, we will be able to understand that this LIFE is nothing but a virtual projection of conscious mind.


I disagree with this. I am not discounting the power of sound frequencies, I mean I love music with a passion, but those sound frequencies are still the result of something, not the conscious mind.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoveU
Doesnt anyone at least agree the "afterlife" is whatever remains when the body and mind die:

perhaps the spirit? As in a part of all universal energy, if you will.


But when one dies, everything else that can be considered alive is still living, thus life hasn't ended.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by linknumbernine
See the problem is, people call this an after LIFE. LIFE is relative as we know it. we perciece everything in a 3D world and universe, LIFE is like a temporary passing. When we understand the power of sound frequencies, we will be able to understand that this LIFE is nothing but a virtual projection of conscious mind.


Hmmm interesting. But even in a 4D world with time a constant, its hard to perceive. Maybe 5D and we can grasp that our essense doesnt suddenly just stop to exist when we die? I mean, when we are alive we weigh the same as when we die, yet something is obviously missing in the afterlife as far as the body mass, so what "left" really and to where?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


if there is no end to life,,, yet life continues to keep going and going,..,,..,.,wouldnt that mean that reality which includes the phenomenon of life,,,, is a process of,,, life after life, after life, after life, after life,,,, therefore,, semantically existing an "after life'?


Very good. But if we say life doesn't stop, it would still be life; continuous life because it hasn't stopped yet.


in my original post to you,,,,, i meant to throw in there the fact that life is continuos,, but as you pointed out,,, the individual points out of the infinite diverse life forms at any time,,,die,,.,,, and this brings us into the contemplation of what will come for me,, my individuality,, all ive known,, all ive grown accustomed too,, my biggest responsibility,,, what will i become,,,, to live life makes you love itself,,, it makes you not want to leave,, for that thought is handy for survival,,.,.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


if there is no end to life,,, yet life continues to keep going and going,..,,..,.,wouldnt that mean that reality which includes the phenomenon of life,,,, is a process of,,, life after life, after life, after life, after life,,,, therefore,, semantically existing an "after life'?


Very good. But if we say life doesn't stop, it would still be life; continuous life because it hasn't stopped yet.


in my original post to you,,,,, i meant to throw in there the fact that life is continuos,, but as you pointed out,,, the individual points out of the infinite diverse life forms at any time,,,die,,.,,, and this brings us into the contemplation of what will come for me,, my individuality,, all ive known,, all ive grown accustomed too,, my biggest responsibility,,, what will i become,,,, to live life makes you love itself,,, it makes you not want to leave,, for that thought is handy for survival,,.,.


Of course; it is a scary thought, but one that should at least be explored. It does seem like every memory, thought and the whole linguistic structure we've built should go somewhere. But if we apply Occam's razor and a little common sense, we should at least recognize our own self-centeredness, and the possibility that we aren't what we think we are, we aren't the eternal beings in physical shrouds we hope we are.

Like you said, this simplifies everything and makes life more exquisite and dear, it makes one cherish what can be cherished—anything in this life. I think if people realized this, they would love life, and love the life in others. But—let's not get all mushy.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


I think life is a continuous process. We have a skewed view of ourselves and our consciousness as somehow being the highest expression of life- the end of our ego seems like the end of all things to us, and we can project that onto things that we are in close contact with and relate to closely. For whatever reason that breaks down for us when we change focus too much, but it shouldn't.

Consider a dung beetle; while we're thinking of our own purpose in terms of buildings and institutions and conflicts, there are all kinds of living things which don't seem to do much but eat filth and die. Is this soley for their own purposes, and we're just lucky that they fill an important role (like stopping us from gradually being buried up to our necks in dung) or running out of organic matter to assimilate into ourselves (whichever happens first)?

The every animal in the world does not exist to support man, but rather man and every animal exist to support the world, in which we are not so much organisms as organs (particularly clear in the case of worms beetles plants etc but equally true of us).

When you consider yourself as an organ within a larger creature, and realize that your matter and energy never leave the confines of that creature's body, it follows that in the physical sense you do not die so much as spread out and reorganize. I imagine that if you could see along the 4th dimensional axis (seeing not just where everything is now, but seeing the path of everywhere every atom ever was and ever will be) it would probably form a complex web that might look something like a neural system.

So what about your consciousness.... well, if there is a fully 4 dimensional neural structure composed of us, which our mental subroutines affect the performance of, then our consciousness could be argued to be one voice in the mind of god, not unlike the voices which debate whether you are going to become an artist or a corporate raider (if you have really diverse interests and some unresolved questions about morality that is). So again you might not really die in respect to consciousness anymore than you die when a fleeting thought has passed.

So, we are permanent, yet we take these fleeting forms which are not an end unto themselves, and it doesn't have anything to do with leaving the system and going to heaven... so what's the point? Well if we are indeed a subset of a larger "mind of god" we may be a smaller scale fractal representation of it- so learning is the point. If there is a higher state- an afterlife or heaven or nirvana or whatever- that is probably eons away, and we will probably all do it together in some form or another- you could make the argument that it scales up beyond the planet to include solar systems and black holes etc etc... which brings singularity into the picture and what that process might be about. Hard to say how far it goes or just how long it will take, but it would suggest that the whole universe can attain happiness- spiritual enough?



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


if there is no end to life,,, yet life continues to keep going and going,..,,..,.,wouldnt that mean that reality which includes the phenomenon of life,,,, is a process of,,, life after life, after life, after life, after life,,,, therefore,, semantically existing an "after life'?


Very good. But if we say life doesn't stop, it would still be life; continuous life because it hasn't stopped yet.


in my original post to you,,,,, i meant to throw in there the fact that life is continuos,, but as you pointed out,,, the individual points out of the infinite diverse life forms at any time,,,die,,.,,, and this brings us into the contemplation of what will come for me,, my individuality,, all ive known,, all ive grown accustomed too,, my biggest responsibility,,, what will i become,,,, to live life makes you love itself,,, it makes you not want to leave,, for that thought is handy for survival,,.,.


Of course; it is a scary thought, but one that should at least be explored. It does seem like every memory, thought and the whole linguistic structure we've built should go somewhere. But if we apply Occam's razor and a little common sense, we should at least recognize our own self-centeredness, and the possibility that we aren't what we think we are, we aren't the eternal beings in physical shrouds we hope we are.

Like you said, this simplifies everything and makes life more exquisite and dear, it makes one cherish what can be cherished—anything in this life. I think if people realized this, they would love life, and love the life in others. But—let's not get all mushy.




oh totally agree.,.., those thoughts wheather you like it or not,,, is pretty much the basis for new age and maybe some eastern philosophy of ego death,..,,. to realise that you are a force of nature,,,, birthed from the whole,,, you feel completely separate and unique but your only as seperate and unique as every bird, bee, flower, tree.., who were birthed into this process in a time and place relatively near your own for the moment,, to realise that your individuality you have created since birth does not preceded the history and creation of All things, by a long shot,.,.., you are a very complex equation, and the most significant thing in reality,.,.,. but unseeable in the reality which exists of infinite infinities,,



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


I think life is a continuous process. We have a skewed view of ourselves and our consciousness as somehow being the highest expression of life- the end of our ego seems like the end of all things to us, and we can project that onto things that we are in close contact with and relate to closely. For whatever reason that breaks down for us when we change focus too much, but it shouldn't.

Consider a dung beetle; while we're thinking of our own purpose in terms of buildings and institutions and conflicts, there are all kinds of living things which don't seem to do much but eat filth and die. Is this soley for their own purposes, and we're just lucky that they fill an important role (like stopping us from gradually being buried up to our necks in dung) or running out of organic matter to assimilate into ourselves (whichever happens first)?

The every animal in the world does not exist to support man, but rather man and every animal exist to support the world, in which we are not so much organisms as organs (particularly clear in the case of worms beetles plants etc but equally true of us).

When you consider yourself as an organ within a larger creature, and realize that your matter and energy never leave the confines of that creature's body, it follows that in the physical sense you do not die so much as spread out and reorganize. I imagine that if you could see along the 4th dimensional axis (seeing not just where everything is now, but seeing the path of everywhere every atom ever was and ever will be) it would probably form a complex web that might look something like a neural system.

So what about your consciousness.... well, if there is a fully 4 dimensional neural structure composed of us, which our mental subroutines affect the performance of, then our consciousness could be argued to be one voice in the mind of god, not unlike the voices which debate whether you are going to become an artist or a corporate raider (if you have really diverse interests and some unresolved questions about morality that is). So again you might not really die in respect to consciousness anymore than you die when a fleeting thought has passed.

So, we are permanent, yet we take these fleeting forms which are not an end unto themselves, and it doesn't have anything to do with leaving the system and going to heaven... so what's the point? Well if we are indeed a subset of a larger "mind of god" we may be a smaller scale fractal representation of it- so learning is the point. If there is a higher state- an afterlife or heaven or nirvana or whatever- that is probably eons away, and we will probably all do it together in some form or another- you could make the argument that it scales up beyond the planet to include solar systems and black holes etc etc... which brings singularity into the picture and what that process might be about. Hard to say how far it goes or just how long it will take, but it would suggest that the whole universe can attain happiness- spiritual enough?


Spirituality is merely contemplation, there should be no new age stigma about it. What you wrote was great and I read it all. The idea that life is one giant organism is something I think about often, and it's not something that can be easily refuted or at least found to be illogical. Like you mentioned, we prefer solipsism to the thought that we share this universe with other things, which gets to me sometimes.

I also find comfort in the thought that learning is the purpose. Humanity must be pivotal in Life's development, as we can now carry it off the planet.




new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join