Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Killas[SiN]]

Recently, I've been broaching the topic of death and the afterlife more and more often when talking about stuff, and I haven't seen any threads on B12 forums talk about this subject, so I felt compulsed to bring it up.

What are your thoughts on death, the greatest mystery we have in life?
Are we reincarnated? Do we go to hell or heaven? Or do we just fizzle out like a dead star?

Please don't derail this into an argument about whether God exists or not.

What do you guys think about death? All answers welcome, don't have to be no philosopher to muse about this.

[Il Palazzo]

Is there even a single way in which this can be discussed without involving religion?

[MrWiggles]

Sure!

Death is the end. Once the neurons stop firing, producing meaningful interactions in the materiel universe that it.

You cease be. As you have none existence for billions as you billions now.  One hundred percent secular, and variable.

[Killas[SiN]]

Is there even a single way in which this can be discussed without involving religion?

Ah, you miss understood me. I sure, we can discuss this with religion, but not like, MY GOD IS THE REAL GOD YOURS IS NOT!! Kind of thing.

[redacted123]

-

[Il Palazzo]

Is there even a single way in which this can be discussed without involving religion?

Ah, you miss understood me. I sure, we can discuss this with religion, but not like, MY GOD IS THE REAL GOD YOURS IS NOT!! Kind of thing.

And you missed my point: if you take the existentialist's stance, like MrWiggles did, you side with atheists, 'cause this viewpoint is typical of a no-god take. The type of argumentation required to back it up, is also the same one which is used in favour of atheism, i.e. Occam's razor and Pink Unicorn. On the other hand, afterlife, as a concept, is an integral part of every religion, or can be considered religion in itself.
In the end, the discussion will look exactly the same like those in e.g.Atheism thread, in which some people will stalwartly defend their right to believe in stuff, while others will ridicule them for believing in such stuff.
Prove me wrong.

[redacted123]

-

[Armok]

I have a way of geting this topic away from religeon:

Point one: quantum immortality.

Point two: what if, after the singularity, some entity decides to bring back and simulate every sapient that has ever died, perhaps even specifically to address this point.

[Emperor_Jonathan]

Buddhist over here.

Reincarnated until enlightenment, then precede to Nirvana upon death in that life. That's what I believe in a nutshell, it gets way way more complicated. But I have a headache.

[Il Palazzo]

Well, Armok, this is somewhat derailment-like, but what the hell.

Point one: quantum immortality doesn't really touch upon life after death. On an unrelated note, I find it hard to accep the infintely-splitting universe, as it seems to contradict the law of conservation of energy. Ofcourse you can say, that quantum physics(philosophy?) is in it's nature counterintuitive, but then, such a statement lets you say pretty much anything and back it up so. Which is very much like the Pink Unicorn argument.

Point two: is it even plausible? There's no information about our brain's internal structure stored in the world after we die. Where would you take the input data for simulation from?

[Armok]

Point 1: The difference between the pink unicorn (god) and quantum immortality is that while YOU don't understand either, there are plenty of specialists that DO understand quantum mechanics and there are scientific evidence of similar things hapening on a microscopic scale etc, while the religions simpy argue that it is beyond the understanding of any human beeing. You might not curently understand quantum mechanics, but spend a few years reading and you will.
Mind you, nobody actualy claim that quantum imortality spesificaly does work, only that it might or might not, and that it is fair chance that it does. As far as I can rmember that is.

Point 2: Again it might or might not be posible, but I find it quite plausible that it shuld be posible to fech the data if one has the infinite intelegence and power and science of  post singularity entity. If nothing else than by some time travel-related method. (there are numerus posible reasons why it might be plausible to have a method of timetravel capable of observing the past, placing some sub atomic sensor in each neuron or something, or something completly different, but not able or not wanting to change it.) In any case, I find it decantly plausible that the past could be reconstructed if one had infinite-evrything, remember that it might be done even if it reuires the resoures of the entire universe for billions of years. By defenition the singularity after wich we can predict litle or nothing.

[Il Palazzo]

I believe that there is a difference between understanding basics of quantum physics and understanding it enough to be able to prove multiple-universes scenario. As you might know, even among quantum physicists there's a disagreement concerning the subject. At this point, theories such as the one in question are but a thought experiment, a fantasy.

[Emperor_Jonathan]

-snip-
Mind you, nobody actualy claim that quantum imortality spesificaly does work, only that it might or might not, and that it is fair chance that it does. As far as I can rmember that is.

Still, it doesn't touch upon life after death.

Bolded Bit:

And that's only if you assume ALOT of things.

[redacted123]

-

[Strife26]

I've got my normal Christian-esque outlook on the afterlife, with the addition of Fiddler's Green.