Thermal Mass
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:43 am



Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, 
Author Message
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> The tree makes a sound if the procesess and events happen in the universe. The tree is always in the universe from the day it is born to the day it dies and as it turns to dust. It doesn't make a sound if it all happens in the afterlife as the tree has no reason to be made physical in the universe by thought if there is no one there to observe it. <<

Yes, I agree with that.

Indeed, all this shows that we cannot really KNOW what is going on with Schroedingers cat. We can only formulate theories about it, we can make experiments which resemble it, but in the end we cannot really KNOW it.
By the way: Something like a Big Bang must have happened because due to the red light of far galaxies we can see it – not the Big Bang itself but the movement of the galaxies, so a long time ago they all must have been very closely together.
Concerning afterlife again: It must be something biological because life is something biological, too. The one described by you is a physical form of existence – a never-life (without any living existence ever having taken place) instead of an after-life (with such a former living form). Furthermore we do not know if the afterlife also is the beforelife. Usually men think that there is a “place” we just take a little trip from (called life) before we return. This opinion is shown in all religions – meeting a lot of other people there who have died already, and many of the still living ones are contacting this place. As if the world of the dead was a huge ballroom where the phone rings every few minutes, where cabs are always bringing new people and fetching others (“ghosts”), where occultists and so on try to get entrance illegally.
This, of course, results human imagination. Maybe neither this nor the physics are absolutely right. Maybe there´s just nothing because life is life and quits existing when life stops. The atoms of our bodies will keep existing but our “souls” (silly, but I know no better word) will vanish when the energy they are made of is blown apart. Thermodynamic already said somehow the possibility of a real afterlife is very small (To be honest: The idea of a living soul without a body that constantly gives energy to it is bullshit. A perpetuum mobile cannot exist.).

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:16 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 635
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Hi Firebird. Maybe the physical universe is all there is, all energy exists within it, nothing exists outside it, and thought is a by-product of the brain. All I’m doing is sharing my thoughts on the subject, some developed over the years through reading, debate, and thinking about it; but mostly from lying on my sun lounger in the garden with a cold beer on a hot day watching the grass grow. I’m simply offering a plausible case for the existence of an afterlife that is not based on faith.

I cannot know if what I say is true, but working it out is a process; a long step by step slog over millennia, exploring each theory and the branches off it. We are today just beginning to ask questions beyond our universe, and where our universe sits in the great scheme of things. We know as much about the quantum world today as the Greeks knew about Newtonian physics thousands of years ago, but we’ll get there. If the Greeks had not taken those steps forward, then the steps that followed might not have happened and our understanding would still be stuck back there. Sometimes I think the biggest resistance to leaving the cave wall and stepping into the darkness comes from the scientific community, who insist the universe is all there is.

There is a quote from Aristotle which I think is often misinterpreted to mean the opposite to what he meant. The irony is the misinterpretation is what I wish he had said. The actual quote goes;
Quote:
“It is right that we ask others to accept each of the things which are said in the same way: for it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it. For it is similar to expect a mathematician to speak persuasively or for an orator to furnish clear proofs”.
What I think he meant by that was ‘speculate by all means, but not beyond the reason of the subject, and when we move forward in our understanding, let us do so together based on a common theory’, and I think he implied ‘if you are going to speculate, then base it on science and mathematics, not on faith’; and that pretty much sums up the scientists today. If I were to turn it into a snappy saying for physicists today it would be ‘think out of the box, but keep it in the universe’.

The misinterpretation goes;
Quote:
‘“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
and if I were to turn that into a snappy saying for today’s physicists it would be ‘think outside the universe. You don’t have to believe it, but you do have to entertain it’.

Some comments on the points you make

The Doppler Effect doesn’t confirm a big bang created the universe; it confirms galaxies exhibiting a red shift are moving away from us. Some have suggested this is due to an explosion that created the universe and the effect we observe is due to space expanding.

I have stuck with the term ‘afterlife’ because if I had used the term ‘life’, which is what I’m really talking about, it might have caused some confusion without first explaining the concept that thought is life; it exists before it comes to the universe, during its stay, and it continues to exist after it leaves; and the flesh and blood machines that are grown in the universe by energy feeding processes, host life, enabling thought to exist in X,Y,Z,T space.

You have said a couple of times that you think the afterlife would be biologically similar to life in the universe but I don’t understand why you say this? I have suggested the soul is separate from the body and they exist in two different places, if they were one, and confined to the universe, there wouldn’t be an afterlife to be biologically similar with, at least not in the train of logic I've laid out.

I do not believe in the idea of a religious heaven, or place where the dead take turns to live again, but I am willing to entertain them if someone can present logic to lead me there, and doesn’t rely on faith.

I accept that even if we have no memory of our ‘time’ in the afterlife, we might carry the structure of thought and instincts with us when we cross into the universe. We may think and behave the way we do because that is how we thought and behaved in the afterlife. Some philosophers have said our subconscious is our true self and it is made civilised and moral by the conscious. If true then what the afterlife is like, depends on whether the conscious is also part of the afterlife. If it is, then it’s not going to unlike here. If it isn’t and the conscious is created in the physical world as a function of the brain acting like a jammer blocking all the naughty bits, or a filter that stops you going too far, then the afterlife is going to be a scary place. Without a conscious to keep the subconscious in a straight jacket in a padded cell, it’s no wonder thought has created a heavenly universe to go on holiday in; back home it’s Hell.

What the afterlife is like strays from making a case for the afterlife. It is a substantial subject in its own right. If thought in the afterlife mirrors human thought in the universe, then the answer to what the afterlife is like is going to lie in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry.




The Voice of Devil

All bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following errors:

1. that man has two real existing principles: viz: a body and a soul
2. that energy called evil is alone from the body, and that reason, called good, is alone from the soul.
3. that God will torment man in eternity for following his energies.

But following contraries to these are true:

1. man has no body distinct from his soul; for that called body is a portion of soul discern'd by the five senses, the chief inlets of soul in this age.
2. energy is the only life and is from the body and reason is the bound and outward circumference of energy.
3. energy is eternal delight.

_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Fri Jul 17, 2020 12:14 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

First of all, I do not want to offend anyone – if I did, sorry for that.

>> The Doppler Effect doesn’t confirm a big bang created the universe; it confirms galaxies exhibiting a red shift are moving away from us. <<

Indeed, it is no absolute proof, but a very good evidence.

>> You have said a couple of times that you think the afterlife would be biologically similar to life in the universe but I don’t understand why you say this? <<

Well, I do because I think the afterlife of biological objects (as we are) must resemble their former life, as life and afterlife may be just both sides of the same coin.

>> I have suggested the soul is separate from the body and they exist in two different places, if they were one, and confined to the universe, there wouldn’t be an afterlife to be biologically similar with, at least not in the train of logic I've laid out. <<

Okay, this is a very different belief to mine.

>> I do not believe in the idea of a religious heaven, or place where the dead take turns to live again <<

I don´t, too, but the silly those stories may be, some are funny (and sometimes even more exciting than the truth.)

>> we might carry the structure of thought and instincts with us when we cross into the universe. …<<

Obviously I am too much of a biologist to think the same way. Of course holding on to the real world might seem a bit conservative, but who cares.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:09 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 635
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Firebird, no offence taken. Apologies if I gave that impression, it's been a long time since I've posted on the internet and may be a bit rusty in coming across correctly. Besides from which everyone has the right to offend. The offended should prove their offender wrong through argument not censorship. I think I might be unoffendable. I am normally the one doing the offending. :)

_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Fri Jul 17, 2020 4:46 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 635
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

I conclude my practical case for an afterlife with...

Beerman’s Model of Auntie (Afterlife, Universe, Nothing, Time, Infinity and Energy)

A God-free, faith-free, 20 point step by step guide as to what to expect when you kick the bucket

Auntie

1. Imagine an infinitely large roll of black paper. If you can’t find one, then imagine the biggest one you can find.

2. Imagine getting some black, white, red, green and blue card and some bright yellow paint.

3. Imagine cutting out ten 25mm circles from the black, white and red cards. Now imagine cutting out ten 12mm circles from the green and blue card.

4. Imagine painting a thin yellow edge round the circumference of each circle; try not to go more than 1mm wide.

5. Imagine fully rolling out the black paper. This is conceptually represents an infinite dimension containing nothing, made up of energy, antienergy and dimensional skin, all in a state of superposition, waiting to have its probability field collapsed. We don’t know how this happens so let’s do what the mathematicians do and use calculus. If it’s good enough for them, then it’s good enough for us, so no one call it cheating. As nothing approaches infinity, the event that causes an outcome approaches reality, until we get to a point where we say that’s close enough and the probability field collapses. If it collapses into energy or antienergy there would be a really big bang, but like a tree falling in a forest, no one would hear it fall , so it wouldn’t make a sound. Auntie is only concerned with the third outcome of the superposition, that of producing a dimension skin.

The other two outcomes, turning an infinite dimension of nothing into an infinite dimension of energy or antienergy, bring back our old friend infinity. I don’t think such a scenario would result in anything but the complete annihilation of everything, not a big bang theory, but what do I know. I’ll cover this alternative theory when I’ve finished doing Auntie.

6. Imagine throwing the black circles on the black paper to conceptually represent nothing being captured in a yellow dimension skin to form a 0-dimension of nothing, with the yellow dimension skin being in a state of superposition and thus hiding it and its contents from the roll of black paper.

7. Imagine replacing one black circle with a red one, and one black circle with a white one. Something has collapsed the nothing in the black circles converting one to energy represented by the red circle, and one to antienergy represented by a white circle. Let’s say it was the same thing that collapsed the infinity of nothing to produce the skin in the first place, now it’s collapsing the thing inside.

8. Imagine parking the white circle for now, we’ll pick it up in step 15. Concentrating on the red circle which is now full of energy, it’s all dress up with nowhere to go, then it realises it now has the energy to make a space pixel. But a X,Y,Z,T space pixel cannot exist in a red circle because it is dimensionless, so the energy has to create a skin for it and capture the space pixel inside it.

9. Imagine placing a green circle in the middle of a red circle to conceptually represent an embryonic universe of space. Maybe this attracts other red circles to cluster around the one giving birth, maybe there’s enough energy in one red circle to deliver a universe on its own, that’s not important for now so let’s park it.

10. Imagine energy flowing into space at a quantum level, doing its thing, making out it is particles, charm quarks, quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, forming molecules, plants, galaxies, all within that 12mm green circle with a yellow edge.

11. Imagine the size of the universe is limited by its energy nutrition and the movement we observe on galaxies is caused not by a big bang, but by the attraction of the skin that surrounds it.

12. Imagine that the energy flowing into space not only maintains the universe’s physical structures made of atoms, but also into structures capable of receiving and processing thought, like brains.

13. Now imagine thought. If it’s energy based, how did energy evolve into thought and by what process? Do we think the way we do on earth because that’s how we think in the afterlife? Does conscious and subconscious reside in the afterlife, or is conscious part of the physical world? Where does the conscience reside? We know thought develops through the experiences we have in the universe of space. Does thought create a universe to develop itself because it can’t do so in its own dimension, do we accumulate knowledge from the different experiences or is each visit a one-off? Does thought create universes instinctively and only functions in a higher state when it is hosted in a physical brain? If the afterlife only consists of energy and universes are created by process, including thought, then can we still call this dimension an afterlife? The mind and the body would be one, which is not what Auntie is all about, but at least this possibility keeps the energy reservoir outside the universe avoiding the infinity and creator elephants. This one's for parking down a blind alley somewhere and letting Auntie get on with her day, but it illustrates that thought is the remaining big elephant in the room. If we knew the answers to these questions we’d know a lot more about Auntie, but for now let’s just assume thought is life, that it evolved from energy, and it makes universes to play in.

14. Imagine dying. The thought in the brain drains back through each atom, each proton and neutron, each quark, each charm, back into the afterlife to rejoin the collective.

15. Imaging throwing all the red and white circles on the black paper Don’t bother replacing the black ones, this is the big hand small map concept. Place a green circle in the centre of each of the red circles, and a blue circle in the centre of the white circles. Standing back and looking at it, we have an infinity of nothing, with 0-demensions of nothing, energy and antienergy on it, but invisible to it. We have energy universes living inside 0-dimensions of energy and antienergy universes living inside 0-dimesnsions of antienergy.

16. Imagine the flow of energy into the universe getting out of control, flowing faster than space can handle, building up into a pimple and then into a boil, until it busts with a bang. Or imagine the other way, matter collapsing in on itself, concentrating energy into ever smaller volumes of space, unable to escape until you get another bang. All bangs big and small could conceptually be regarded as teenage space acne. If there was enough overload at the beginning of the process, the big bang boil might have been enough to accelerate the process. No one said it was an either or choice between big banging matter out, and oozing it out through the pours on the universe, the two labours, short and long, involved in giving birth to the universe may have complemented each other.

17. Imagine energy and antienergy having twins. If a red circle and a white circle have a space pixel, and for an instant that pixel allowed limited amounts of the +ve and –ve energies to mix, that would go bang big time. There is no shortage of reasons why a big bang could go off.

18. Once the universe balloon has been filled with space pixels, it needs to be looked after. You can't just lay a lawn and not mow it, trim it, feed and water it. Energy flows in at the quantum level, maintaining the particles that form atoms, and feeds the processes that make the suns, planets, animals, vegetables and minerals; and maybe rakes the lawn periodically to get rid of the rubbish.

19. Life flows from the afterlife when we are born, life flow back to the afterlife when we die. We may be born and die many times, on many worlds, in many forms.

20. The soul is separate from the body. Energy is eternal delight


The Alternative Theory – Infinity rears its ugly head

Step 5 of Auntie talked about three possible outcome from collapsing a probability field of an infinite dimension of nothing made up of an infinite supplies of energy and antienergy. Needless to say we are talking about the mother of all bangs, but what would it look like? The reaction would be instant and happen outside time, because there is no time in this dimension. I guess it would be like turning a light on as everything turned to energy (or antienergy), but the conversion would never end because it is there are infinite quantities of nothing to instantly convert.

Applying infinity to nothing worked because nothing didn’t require a creator, and it avoided the physical paradoxes associated with applying it to space. Applying infinity to energy, the creator-less solution is still valid because energy came from nothing which didn’t need a creator, but we now have an infinite amount of energy that would make an infinite number of universes, each presumable with its own little big bang. If string theory is right there’d be 20 types, but there’d still an infinite number of them.

With a never-ending conversion of nothing to energy, the energy would just keep flowing into the universes creating an infinite void of space, which is kind of the big bang theory, but with that comes all the paradoxes of applying infinity to space, which Auntie has spend an almost infinite amount of effort trying to get rid of.

Each universe would receive an infinite amount of energy. An infinite number of universes receiving an infinite amount of energy would mean each universe would receive an impossible infinity divided by infinity amount, or to put it mathematically; 1+1=1.

Could universes be created in a never ending explosion of energy and antienergy? Wouldn’t we be able to detect the continuing never-ending flow of energy into the universe as it continued to push space to infinity? How could the universe sit in an infinite dimension of energy (or antienergy) if the conversion to one or the other can never be completed? There can only be one outcome, but it can never be reached.

If we let Auntie put subsets of nothing into 0-dimensions we can isolate the flame from an infinite ocean of petrol and put infinity on the naughty step.


_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Last edited by Beerman on Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Jul 18, 2020 10:52 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

My definition of A (fterlife)

1. Imagine a big black paper.

2. Imagine it burning to ashes.

Shamefully simple, I know.

My definition of UNTIE

To be honest, I am not really qualified. But…:

Energy/Matter (some say that´s the same) and Anti-Energy/Anti-Matter are supposed to extinct each other: Maybe it is only a lucky break the universe exists. Milliards of years do seem long to us, but it is only a question of habituation. Living beings (like us) need the concept of time because all processes of living need it, but not-living things may not need it.
We only know the universe where life can happen, with atoms and strings and so on, but we cannot really know its alternative. We think some of the rules describing our universe must also describe others, but we do not know.
Science has always been replacing old errors by new ones, so all we really know about the afterlife is that we don´t know anything. I do strongly “believe” in science (> I rather KNOW than just BELIEVE), but I know its limits and that behind them knowing turns into believing.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Sat Jul 18, 2020 1:16 pm
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:34 pm
Posts: 635
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

I once tried to have a conversation about the nature of life with a doctor at a different wine and middle-aged spread party to the one where I cornered the physicist and asked him if physics was a religion. He almost panicked at the thought of discussing life. He said something like "I just fix them" and "I just get involved with the processes". There's nothing wrong with that, someone's got to sort the bodies out; someone’s got to sort the physics of the universe out, but we also need someone to sort the stuff out that lies beyond the X,Y,Z,T as well because it's all linked and part of the same architecture.

I've tried to base Auntie on science and logic to take us beyond the universe of space, but my doomster half says "whatever", as indeed so does my stoner half :D

_________________
Gloom and Doom is dead. Long live Gloom and Doom


Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:54 am
Profile
Forum User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 63
Reply with quote
Post Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life,

>> I've tried to base Auntie on science and logic to take us beyond the universe of space, but my doomster half says "whatever", as indeed so does my stoner half <<



Otherwise we would not be here. To me my doomier half furthermore goes along with the rather disillusionating things I said (or look at my signature). Life sucks, but it looks good while doing so



By the way, the parties you take part of seem to be interesting. Maybe I´m so nihilistic just because I never met anyone interesting on a party.

_________________
Life is a mouth only death can feed.
(J. H. Fabre)


owlonfire on deviantart.com


Sun Jul 19, 2020 5:36 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.