Why so many people–including scientists–suddenly believe in an afterlife

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

It hurts too much to think about, if that tells you anything. And you know how much I like to think...

Learning about the subject doesn't guarantee that I will understand your vocabulary. Text books don't explain it as you do, nor do they necessarily reflect your understanding and inflection.

The only ones I can figure that might vary from standard scientific texts would be data packets. The rest is just a thought experiment on applying known physics to a boundary between two mediums. The main difference is wondering how it would react differently if one of those mediums is not capable of carrying waves, as we currently understand, because of the lack of time and space.

No matter what though, the words one uses will have individual meaning due to interpretation. This applies to discussion and communication across the board.

The idea wasnt to provide something to be "debunked," but to actually explore the mechanisms that might explain these experiences. What do you think those mechanisms are? Because, that is the intent! I was simply showing one way of thinking about it using what we currently know in science and math.

In other words, if a "Merkaba," or even a Tetragrammaton, is a very important shape, then how does it actually integrate with things? How is it formed, and how would it affect the universe or our perspective? What are mechanisms that could allow "life after death," and knowing what we know, how might the experience actually relate to what we experience now, if at all?

You are right though, its not an "easy" subject to speak about. Thats why there is still an enormous amount to learn about it.

reply to post by windword


It is not,

Yet it is,

I have figured out why,

You must needs figure out why still,

God bless on your journey and search for Truth.

Serdgiam

...time as a function of space. Without space, there is no relativity, and without space, there is no movement and therefore no "time" to be relevant.

Here are my own thoughts, not as competing hypotheses, but simply as an alternative view.

Our perception of time is the quale of duration, and duration is our sensory measurement of events. Events can be anything, from the instantaneous creation and destruction of a particle, to the slow motion of an arc's degree by a galaxy, they are motions of physical events. Even our thoughts are events with their own duration. They have a beginning and an end. Duration is what occurs between beginning and end, and as we both consciously and unconsciously perceive durations of multiple overlapping events within a narrow sensory field, we experience them within a quale paradigm which we call time. Time itself has no real existential reality of its own. Time is to duration as wetness is to water, or redness to the colour red.

Space is defined by its content, that which exists within it. Space without content is not space, but void, non-sensory, unfathomable, utterly imperceivable, non-vectorised, and therefore non-dimensional. Only when content is in space are we able to determine that there is space. In fact, there is nothing more immaterial then space, it absolutely has no constituent parts to it, it is not made of anything, and does not in anyway interact with whatever content is in it, and with good reason. Space is not made of matter, but matter exists in space. Space does not determine what matter is, and matter does not determine what space is, but matter's presence brings space into experience.

Space-time is a useful mathematical abstract construction, in that to traverse the lacuna between one event and that of another disparate event, say 'A' to 'B', one has to know the position and motion of 'A' relative to the position and motion of 'B', using our observation location as the frame of reference. Between 'A' and 'B' there is an amount of space that gives us distance, and we know that to travel any distance between two separate disparate points in space takes an amount of duration, dependent upon speed of motion. Therefore, we can combine space and time to give accurate vectoring.

How do these thoughts integrate with your own?

elysiumfire
Here are my own thoughts, not as competing hypotheses, but simply as an alternative view.

To be clear, what I presented wasnt necessarily a hypothesis. Nor is it even how I believe things happen (but its close), it is missing several very important facets. BUT! I was trying to show how to perform thought experiments on shapes, forms, etc. that we may have some sort of unique interest in. That said, I will respond within the context of the the thought experiment. I have been made aware that being able to think this way is not a capability that everyone has.

Our perception of time is the quale of duration, and duration is our sensory measurement of events. Events can be anything, from the instantaneous creation and destruction of a particle, to the slow motion of an arc's degree by a galaxy, they are motions of physical events. Even our thoughts are events with their own duration. They have a beginning and an end. Duration is what occurs between beginning and end, and as we both consciously and unconsciously perceive durations of multiple overlapping events within a narrow sensory field, we experience them within a quale paradigm which we call time. Time itself has no real existential reality of its own. Time is to duration as wetness is to water, or redness to the colour red.

This still fits in completely with the thought experiment, however, it starts to speak towards our perception of it (very nice, btw). Time, as we perceive it, is certainly specific to the human experience. That said, the relationship between two objects, or wave-forms, is defined as the overall function of time. In this, even if there was no "conscious experiencer," the functions of time, entropy, and progress would still occur. And it would still do so according to the "basic" shape of interlocked pyramids.

So, is what you are saying insinuating that time has no relevance outside of the human experience? And just to clarify, when you say "Time is to duration as wetness is to water, or redness to the colour red" are you saying that time is a function/derivative of duration rather than the other way around?

Space is defined by its content, that which exists within it. Space without content is not space, but void, non-sensory, unfathomable, utterly imperceivable, non-vectorised, and therefore non-dimensional. Only when content is in space are we able to determine that there is space. In fact, there is nothing more immaterial then space, it absolutely has no constituent parts to it, it is not made of anything, and does not in anyway interact with whatever content is in it, and with good reason. Space is not made of matter, but matter exists in space. Space does not determine what matter is, and matter does not determine what space is, but matter's presence brings space into experience.

Why the concept of space-time is used is because it can give a grid coordinate framework that can dictate and predict what will happen to any given shape over the course of time. So, this type of perception would be hard to fit into it, and it would also struggle to predict where and when something will be even if we know all of the variables at play. Meaning that in the above thought experiment (TE), even if space was entirely devoid of all matter, there would still be experiential variables at play. And in a multi-versal system, perhaps there even are universes which have no matter whatsoever, but still have "experience." Of course, at this point, it would be quite difficult to actually imagine how it would be coming from a universe where matter pretty much makes up the entirety of the human experience.

That said, "space is not made of matter" is definitely along the lines of the thought experiment. Matter would only be a small constituent of the medium (like small pieces of debris floating in water). The actual properties of space-time as a medium, in the context of the thought experiment, would start to include things like dark energy and dark matter as constituents of space-time. In the TE context, all of these things would simply be derivatives of the original coordinate system set into play by the medium of space-time itself (edit: at least in the specific iteration that we know as our universe).

Space-time is a useful mathematical abstract construction, in that to traverse the lacuna between one event and that of another disparate event, say 'A' to 'B', one has to know the position and motion of 'A' relative to the position and motion of 'B', using our observation location as the frame of reference. Between 'A' and 'B' there is an amount of space that gives us distance, and we know that to travel any distance between two separate disparate points in space takes an amount of duration, dependent upon speed of motion. Therefore, we can combine space and time to give accurate vectoring.

And that is exactly why it was used in the thought experiment. For certain shapes to have great meaning, such as the stellated octahedron and tetragrammaton, it is a requirement to introduce a grid-coordinate system in which this things can be based and make predictable, meaningful movement. In this way, we are also able to show how they might be the base forms that everything follows, with slight differences at different scales of interaction.

How do these thoughts integrate with your own?

As far as the thought experiment, it does quite well, imo. The TE is speaking of the actual process itself, and what you propose is speaking more of the human experience of that process. Which, quite frankly, was really fun to read!

reply to post by Serdgiam

In other words, if a "Merkaba," or even a Tetragrammaton, is a very important shape, then how does it actually integrate with things? How is it formed, and how would it affect the universe or our perspective? What are mechanisms that could allow "life after death," and knowing what we know, how might the experience actually relate to what we experience now, if at all?

Theoretically, the "Merkaba" is an electrostatic pocket generated through a shift in organic electromagnetic communication. It affects the universe in that it sort of allows you to slip backstage, so to speak.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You have successfully described the "what," but how do you think it works? What processes do you think are involved that would at least partly align with what we currently understand about the world?

If you were actually going to experiment on that very principle, how would you do it? What model would you create as your hypothesis?

The entire thought experiment is exactly that, one TE (thought experiment) on how something like a stellated octahedron could allow one to "slip backstage." Or, at the very least, allow us to perceive that that is what we are doing.

reply to post by Serdgiam


I don't know. If I knew, I would be able to create one, or find someone who can. But I don't know, nor have I ever claimed to know. I only know a few scraps of theory. Fortunately.

Serdgiam:

So, is what you are saying (is) that time has no relevance outside of the human experience?

Exactly that. Time is a perceived referential arising out of our observations on durations of events...your wave-form, for instance, is an event. The shape of the wave is not determined by the force that causes the wave, but by the medium which constrains the expression (spread of energy) of and away from the point of where the 'impact' occurs. In other words, the medium determines how the energy spreading away from the point of impact is perceived in terms of shape. Of course, there is a lot more going on at the point of impact, and less so as the energy wave moves through the medium towards zero kinetic energy and dissipation.

...are you saying that 'time' is a function/derivative of duration rather than the other way around?

No. I am saying that time is a perceived quale of the duration of an event. This is why in perceptual terms, time is not fixed. The more you observe your perception of time, the slower it is perceived to pass. When you do not observe your perception of time, if your attention is concerned with some other activity, time seems to pass more rapidly. Time is not a fundamental aspect of nature, it is a fundamental aspect of perception whilst observing events.

Seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, etc, are simply abstract mathematical constructs we impose upon nature's motions for purposes of measurement, and are just as illusory as time itself.

...even if space was entirely devoid of all matter, there would still be experiential variables at play.

This where we differ. If space was entirely devoid of all matter, no experiential variable would be present. By all means, pick one experiential variable that would be at play, any one of your choosing?

...perhaps, there even are universes which have no matter whatsoever, but still have "experience."

Perhaps, but I don't agree there are. Even in a multi-verse of layered or bubble universes, a universe without matter would be an utter void. The only object I believe that might be able to traverse through the void would be a force-carrier particle, and that would be dependent upon its energy value, its velocity, its limited mass, and more importantly, whether force-carrier particles require a medium through which to propagate?

Hypothetically, voids would provide the fastest means of travel, because if there is no matter content, there is nothing available to act upon and constrain the speed of the vehicle or object. There would be no inertial resistance and no gravitational interactions: there would be no Newtonian 3rd law at play. Travel would be almost, if not, instantaneous. However, controlling speed would be a huge obstacle, as you would in effect accelerate to infinity. I suppose you could apply a shield of resistance around your vehicle which would apply a braking function as you approached the outer fringes of the next 'matter' universe. Anyway, I digress.

...derivatives of the original coordinate system set into play by the medium of space-time itself

I have to disagree with this. Space-time cannot have any form of affective relationship with anything, because space-time is not a medium at all, but merely an abstract construct of mathematics. Space-time is not a reality, but an abstraction.

I know Einstein talks about 'curved' space and time, or curved space-time due to the gravitational mass of objects, but neither space, nor time, nor space-time actually curve, because curvature cannot occur to expressions that are simply abstractions of thought. They are not real conditional properties in nature.

AfterInfinity:

Theoretically, the "Merkaba" is an electrostatic pocket generated through a shift in organic electromagnetic communication. It affects the universe in that it sort of allows you to slip backstage, so to speak.

Interesting statement. Your description of the 'Merkaba' as an electrostatic pocket is an interesting idea, but I would apply the description more to a definition of memory and its storage. Of course, if the Merkaba is an electrostatic pocket, it would require a power source to remain in existence and in cohesion, or it would simply dissipate. What is the Merkaba's power source when the organic body has been destroyed?

reply to post by elysiumfire


If i knew that, i could revolutionize the electronics industry.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by elysiumfire

 

If i knew that, i could revolutionize the electronics industry.

You could always use your imagination!

There are a ton of steps in between labeling such a power source, explaining/exploring it, verifying it as true/false, and actually making it into a power supply for electronics. Frequently, these steps are divided among completely different people and even completely different departments and locations. Its not a hop-step from explaining it as "x" and all of a sudden having an electronic revolution.

The answer could even be that it doesnt have a power source outside of an organic system!

reply to post by Serdgiam


I don't think so. I think the right technology could pull a steady stream of power from the air itself.

elysiumfire
The shape of the wave is not determined by the force that causes the wave, but by the medium which constrains the expression (spread of energy) of and away from the point of where the 'impact' occurs.

That is an interesting perspective. To understand what you are proposing a bit better, do you feel that matter itself can perceive these things, or only organic beings like humans? In my perspective, I feel that the energy contained even before the impact into a medium is just as important of a factor as the medium itself. So, before a bullet is fired out of a barrel of a gun, through the air, and into a block of ballistic gel.. We can change how that wave-form will manifest according to changing the variables in the inert bullet (i.e. grain, load, construction, etc). All of these things will change the shape that manifests in the gel, sometimes drastically. How does this work in your perspective?

The more you observe your perception of time, the slower it is perceived to pass. When you do not observe your perception of time, if your attention is concerned with some other activity, time seems to pass more rapidly. Time is not a fundamental aspect of nature, it is a fundamental aspect of perception whilst observing events.

My experience is the opposite, but that only speaks to our individual perception of the events at hand. When I observe time, say in a focused meditation on the subject, hours will pass without me even noticing. Do you feel if nothing is there to perceive events, then nothing moves? If so, what do you feel is doing the perceiving in areas of the universe where there are no organisms?

Seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, etc, are simply abstract mathematical constructs we impose upon nature's motions for purposes of measurement, and are just as illusory as time itself.

You wont find much disagreement from me on that. Math, physics, science, time, etc are all human representations of the forces at play. But, I remain uncertain on how that could equate to what those patterns represent being just as illusory as the human perception of them. Would you mind explaining that a bit more? It seems to me, at its most basic, that when we reached a certain point of understanding we were able to label the variables at play whether or not we perceived them. Up until that point, it was the "gods" making the sun go down and moon rise. Now, we understand it is different forces that are likely responsible. The actual behavior never changed, but our perception of it did. So, if our perception of such things can change into something which was previously incomprehensible (physics to a caveman), how does one make the jump into saying that what is being perceived is as illusory as the perception itself? It would seem that what is being perceived is not only less illusory (at least to some degree), but has actually followed the "rules" that we have only recently begun to understand (at least as we perceive).

This where we differ. If space was entirely devoid of all matter, no experiential variable would be present. By all means, pick one experiential variable that would be at play, any one of your choosing?

Before we go into that, how do you define "experience?" We might have a fundamental difference in understanding on the topic!

and more importantly, whether force-carrier particles require a medium through which to propagate?

I think that is a very, very important question. And one that we are only scratching the surface of with modern science. There are several hypotheses on how a medium could be different than what we understand, and yet, still carry fundamental information cohesively. This is the foundation behind some of the projects that NASA is working on (albeit with a more limited budget nowadays).

Anyway, I digress.

Yeah, it starts to go more into space travel than the topic at hand. Or, I suppose there is the possibility they arent as far removed from each other as we currently perceive..

I know Einstein talks about 'curved' space and time, or curved space-time due to the gravitational mass of objects, but neither space, nor time, nor space-time actually curve, because curvature cannot occur to expressions that are simply abstractions of thought. They are not real conditional properties in nature.

A bit off topic and out-of-line with the idea of a thought experiment, but do you have the math that shows this? On the philosophical front, math and our overall perception of the universe around/within us is a human abstraction of thought on patterns that we see. It would lead one to believe that any perception we have of this could never lead to absolute assertions (which is why science exists at all, and why we are not omniscient). All we can do is explore it through contexts and abstractions that we understand, but I still struggle to understand the jump to that meaning that what we are pointing to does not exist anymore than our perception. It would seem there is a fundamental difference between the two, shown by the fact that our perception of these patterns change over time, and yet, the patterns themselves do not. That said, these perception would also be included in the patterns themselves, as they are merely results of the forces at play. In that, the conditional properties of our perspectives would seem to exist just as much as what they are perceiving. Though, that doesnt mean the content of the perception could be applied unconditionally.

In a conversation such as this, it is difficult to understand anothers perspective unconditionally. It has to happen through the perceivers brain functions and previous bias. So, even in one perspective to another, we seem to have conditional properties that, regardless of interpretation, exist unconditionally in one form or another.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I think the right technology could pull a steady stream of power from the air itself.

Agreed, and this is pointed towards by everything from some of Tesla's experiments to the behavior of some NP junctions (diodes). "Where" this power comes from, imo, is everything from the constant movement of the Earths magentic field to a photo-voltaic type effect. At this point, we havent really explored combining all of these things into one unit, but I think that will come eventually. Most people exploring it, however, are of the "alternative science" variety. Because of that, they do not define them in the same way as "mainstream science." Zero point energy, things like that.

I think there is untapped energy, but it doesnt have to negate laws of thermodynamics. I think it is just the product of a growing human context on how to utilize the world around us. Who would have thought 500 years ago that molten salt would be used to store energy like a battery?

I think the one stumbling block right now is the typical exchange we use is steam into electrical energy. Understanding that further, as well as coming up with more efficient means, will be a huge step. If that is coupled with more efficient utilization at the user-end, small little changes to efficiency across the board REALLY start to add up.

I think that in another 500 years (if we make it that long), we will much better understand these interactions and perhaps even life after death. We have already started to use the human body, and various by-products, to produce sources of energy. It will be pretty incredible where all of this technology stands in the future. And even then, another 500 years into the future, things will be even further along. Boggles the mind a bit.

Perhaps at some point, science will also include growing our individual experience of the universe to better perform science itself. That subject isnt even approached, really, but perhaps it is one of the most important keys to a jump in our understanding of not only science, but what we know as "spirituality."

reply to post by Serdgiam


A buddy of mine said time is the river and we are the stones. He also said its an illusion, but I said motion proves him wrong. Without time, nothing can change. Then again...how would you imagine the world to be without time?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I think the issue with time is that the common understanding comes from minutes, seconds, hours, days, etc. While these are what we use in our context, because it fits our needs, it kind of jumps over what they are supposed to represent. Time is just the relative movement between two objects. So, one "Earth-year" is one revolution of Earth around the sun. This does not apply universally, but the concept does.

To my mind, its like saying that rock in your shoe simply doesnt exist until you step on it.

The context is entirely human, but as far as we know, the overall concept is in play from the Planck scale on up to.. well, that scale hasnt really been "found" yet.

Its really interesting stuff though. The different applications of the quantification we use (hours, years, etc) change according to "perspective," but what they represent does not appear to change. The pattern and behavior is there for every thing. While our perspective of it may be "illusory" (I prefer the term limited), we are pointing to something that is beyond ourselves and yet we are inextricably a part of it.

The interesting question to me is, if all of "this" is an illusion it insinuates that there is something that is "real." And that somehow, this "illusion" is completely separate and individual. This also implicates that what is "real" is limited enough that an "illusion" is not capable of being included in what is "real." Which begs the question; How does one know, from a limited perspective, which is which? This seems to be the conclusion of many of the new age interpretations of ancient teachings as well. There is a distinct separation and division, rather than independent parts of a whole. In my mind, whatever patterns we deduce, are just parts of the whole. And if there is life after death, spirituality, etc. then these are just independent parts of the whole too. The "whole" in this case, would be one over-riding equation that can explain the interaction of all that we know, both "spiritually" and "physically."

reply to post by Serdgiam


Fantastic questions!...my head hurts now.

Serdgiam

...do you feel that matter itself can perceive these things...

It all depends on the configuration of matter. The energy resonance that I posit being the foundational energy that places organisms (having the right matter configuration) into their conscious state, is present, but in non-biological structures, matter does not perceive, but reacts. The conscious state in organisms allows them to both perceive and react...the conscious state is itself a reaction.

How does this work in your perspective?

I think your use of a bullet in your analogy is too large an object to illustrate a quantum process. The wave form is a packet of informational energy that is somehow transposed into actual daily experience of the world. It is this mystery that we have to solve, what Chalmers calls the 'hard problem' of consciousness, the puzzle of how sensory stimulation is turned into experience of the real world? I can give a plausible hypothesis for how the conscious state is generated, but the 'hard problem' is something my energy resonance hypothesis cannot hope to get anywhere near. The energy resonance is a data packet carrying information about the interaction, but how this data is transposed into real world experience is beyond me.

Do you feel if nothing is there to perceive events, then nothing moves?

I do not believe this. The universe will exist whether or not an observer is present. Energy interaction is what brings the world into existence, and maintains that existence through vibration at all frequencies. Your question echoes that of a tree falling in a forest. If there is no observer present, does the fall of the tree make a sound? The answer is yes, because all the mechanisms are present for a sound to be heard; the snaps, the creaks, the rustles of leaves and branches, all the motions of air disturbance. Observer presence is irrelevant, it is the mechanisms that stimulate the senses that are important. Two observers in a forest, one deaf, one blind, will share in some of the stimuli mechanisms, but neither of them will detect both cues of visual and auditory stimuli at the same time.

I remain uncertain on how that could equate to what those patterns represent being just as illusory as the human perception of them.

The patterns are illusory because of their abstraction, they are simply impositions of human imagination upon what is real, and we impose them for purposes of measurement to gain coordinates of understanding about reality. With these devices we are able to bring the obfuscated aspects of reality into the narrow field of our perceptions. In doing this, we have discovered that we cannot take our perceptions as conveyors of true reality.

...how do you define "experience"?

Experience is the end product of stimulation. It contains all the qualia of which experience of the real world is comprised. Sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch (all external stimuli) are all comprised of packets of qualia data (vibrational frequencies and energy values), that along with proprioceptive data, present a real world experience of reality.

elysiumfire
I think your use of a bullet in your analogy is too large an object to illustrate a quantum process. The wave form is a packet of informational energy that is somehow transposed into actual daily experience of the world. It is this mystery that we have to solve, what Chalmers calls the 'hard problem' of consciousness, the puzzle of how sensory stimulation is turned into experience of the real world? I can give a plausible hypothesis for how the conscious state is generated, but the 'hard problem' is something my energy resonance hypothesis cannot hope to get anywhere near. The energy resonance is a data packet carrying information about the interaction, but how this data is transposed into real world experience is beyond me.

I actually tried to approach this very question in a thread I made, but did not really get the responses I was hoping for. It was discussing the first moment that matter was suddenly able to act instead of simply react to the forces at play. Of course, we are not sure of what this moment might be, but I thought it was an interesting philosophical query. I think that due to our innate limitations, we can conceive of a "how," but once we start asking the question "why," then things start to get a bit fuzzy. Would you mind going further in-depth about your "energy resonance hypothesis?"

The patterns are illusory because of their abstraction, they are simply impositions of human imagination upon what is real, and we impose them for purposes of measurement to gain coordinates of understanding about reality. With these devices we are able to bring the obfuscated aspects of reality into the narrow field of our perceptions. In doing this, we have discovered that we cannot take our perceptions as conveyors of true reality.

Do you feel that our perceptions are a part of "true reality?" And, what do you feel we are actually perceiving? I am of the mind that while our conclusions are inherently limited, they are of something that actually exists. While a non omniscient perspective is incapable of understanding things in their totality, we are a part of it inevitably, and what we "point towards" with our theories are representative of movements that are happening in a very real sense. In other words, we are all experiencing the same data, but it is interpreted through different methods. And yet, these methods also follow the same patterns and frameworks that construct what is perceived as they are all a part of the same interacting system.

Experience is the end product of stimulation. It contains all the qualia of which experience of the real world is comprised. Sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch (all external stimuli) are all comprised of packets of qualia data (vibrational frequencies and energy values), that along with proprioceptive data, present a real world experience of reality.

Thanks for giving a better picture of your perspective on that.

reply to post by Serdgiam

I actually tried to approach this very question in a thread I made, but did not really get the responses I was hoping for. It was discussing the first moment that matter was suddenly able to act instead of simply react to the forces at play.

I told you, there was no good answer to that question. There was only a "favorite line of speculation", and it sounds as though you had chosen one before the discussion even started. How was that supposed to help?