-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
What happens after you die and should I be scared about it?
- Thread starter deadendgame
- Start date
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Nixiam
Bluelighter
^Afternoon, sir.
Kittycat5
Bluelighter
Im not so sure I agree with other universes not being relevant. For instance, there is an idea that the weakness of gravity can be explained by it "leaking" into other dimensions or universes, and there are experiments trying to confirm at least some of this going on at the LHC. Also our universe at some point may have collided with another bubble universe in the inflationary period which may have caused profound changes to the physics of our universe. Currently, cosmologists are pouring through CMB data to see if there is a telltale signal of such a collision. And last, the value of lambda itself makes a strong case for multiverses being essential for those that survive to the point that conscious life can form to observe them. Sure, ours could have been first as b_d said, but without a huge and possible infinite number of other universes, there is no way to explain why that number is so small and varies so greatly from the expected value.
Assume everything is an assumption. More understandable logic often times contains assumed truthful falsehoods.
I have a suspicious feeling if someone knew everything that could be known in ideas that can be known as an idea, they would say even if you have to assume certain ideas are true, wherever possible ere on the side of caution that they are not.
I have a suspicious feeling if someone knew everything that could be known in ideas that can be known as an idea, they would say even if you have to assume certain ideas are true, wherever possible ere on the side of caution that they are not.
Last edited:
Nixiam
Bluelighter
What are you talking about^?
I find it entertaining that whenever you post your mind has wondered so far off topic that the post almost seems random, then I sit here for 10 minutes going through what I presume would be the evolution of your thought in posting the comment.
What am I talking about^?
I find it entertaining that whenever you post your mind has wondered so far off topic that the post almost seems random, then I sit here for 10 minutes going through what I presume would be the evolution of your thought in posting the comment.
What am I talking about^?
Are ideas even real? Is the idea you associate idea with the truth of what an idea is?
Some probably are, but the idea is don't assume any ideas are true.
Just trying to get at the idea that you shouldn't assume absolute truth in anything and should just instead assume you're using the best idea you could find.
Especially when it comes to your own safety.
This applies to what comes next, which is basically now "we don't know". Because you can't assume any idea true you can't assume what comes next can even be known.
What I mean is even if this universe were just a game and all souls were being kept alive by the computer they are, and even if you simulated fate with physics and a quantum computer and it says they're going to live forever, it would be kept as knowledge forever that everything could still die or trade places at any moment.
My grammar may not convey the full evolution of thought to others. Whatever. Another reason not to trust anything.
Nixiam
Bluelighter
Ah, I understand now. What do you feel might occur after death, MB?
A lot could happen.
It is not likely that death from this kind of universe would take you to a non-living state in terms of "body death".
That which built it keeps everything safe. The most likely occurrences if something does go wrong:
Systems must perform a structure rebuild
Reincarnative event (trading places)
Rogue AI that escapes the true system
Matter (and it's soul parts, related to matter body synchronization timing) getting removed from knowable spacetime
Separate spacial dimensions or time dimensions colliding
Matter stability
Nature space stability
Time volume stability
From a potentially trying to be immortal perspective, these are the main ideas related to death being caused. There's a lot of different effects this could have on perception, so what really happens after death if there is one is for sure "unknown".
Last edited:
swilow
Bluelight Crew
My comment was more in regards to ksa's assertion that 'nothing in nature is a first'. In that context, events outside are universe, such as the formation of particles, don't technically count. In our universe, there probably would have been a first particle or first star or first planet. There probably was a first self-replicating lifeform on earth if abiogenesis is the 'truth'.
Universe is weird. I'm glad I live in it
belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
I'm not sure why everyone all of a sudden noticed the "our universe could be a first" like I'm claiming that's how it happened. It most likely didn't, I was just stating that, for the sake of argument, you can't make probabilities equal to reality. If something is incredibly improbable, it still doesn't mean it can't happen. Likewise, if something is incredibly probable, it still doesn't automatically mean it will happen.
Nixiam
Bluelighter
Hehe, wondered why myself. But it was more to prove that firsts being different than he suggested and less of the idea that this is the first universe (which it more than likely isn't which has been beaten dumb). A first can occur relative to this universe and not necessarily a first out of an infinite amount of universes preceding and superceding in both directions, chronologically or simultaneously, parallell or perpendicular. It is relative to the the space we subjectively experience, observe, predict and conclude.
Touching on the point turk brought up about gravity. Yes, gravity is indeed a weak force possibly being stretched over a multiverse or maybe even just a finite set of dimensions, but the amount of dimensions is just speculation right now. I'm no super scientist (or even a sophmore in HS for that matter) so I wouldn't know how to calculate gravity's diluted nature, but I can't help feel we are incredibly lucky somehow, like our kind couldn't survive hardly (at least not in the form we are now in, I suppose), unless our density and size/strength could compensate if gravity were pulling on us with say twice (or three times) what it is now. Not if it all of a sudden changed, but that is kindergarten thinking and is to be expected. What I meant to suggest by that is how we would have evolved if the force of gravity were much greater, if it were not being stretched (possibly) over multiple dimensions? We have finally seen water in ice form and liquid on Mars, but no alien life. This hardly suggests gravity in its entirety and is more or less enviornmental, but enviornment would be a consequence of gravity would it not?
Some of that thinking however is probably invalid. Gravity is afterall simply a consequence, as Einstein put it. "Caused by the curvature of space time by uneven distribution of mass/energy".
What this has to do with what happens after death, I do not know.
I would now like to summon our very own Quantum Physicist/Philosopher/Astrophysicist to the table.
(b_d, that's you bud.)
Touching on the point turk brought up about gravity. Yes, gravity is indeed a weak force possibly being stretched over a multiverse or maybe even just a finite set of dimensions, but the amount of dimensions is just speculation right now. I'm no super scientist (or even a sophmore in HS for that matter) so I wouldn't know how to calculate gravity's diluted nature, but I can't help feel we are incredibly lucky somehow, like our kind couldn't survive hardly (at least not in the form we are now in, I suppose), unless our density and size/strength could compensate if gravity were pulling on us with say twice (or three times) what it is now. Not if it all of a sudden changed, but that is kindergarten thinking and is to be expected. What I meant to suggest by that is how we would have evolved if the force of gravity were much greater, if it were not being stretched (possibly) over multiple dimensions? We have finally seen water in ice form and liquid on Mars, but no alien life. This hardly suggests gravity in its entirety and is more or less enviornmental, but enviornment would be a consequence of gravity would it not?
Some of that thinking however is probably invalid. Gravity is afterall simply a consequence, as Einstein put it. "Caused by the curvature of space time by uneven distribution of mass/energy".
What this has to do with what happens after death, I do not know.
I would now like to summon our very own Quantum Physicist/Philosopher/Astrophysicist to the table.
(b_d, that's you bud.)
Last edited:
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Its interesting how threads evolve in P&S. They tend to veer from on topic to astrophysics really rapidly these days. I like it, the philosophical implications of physics/science is interesting to me...
B_g I think ksa picked basically the one bit of your post that was improbable (which u said yourself) because the rest was pretty airtight. There's some kind of fallacy in his selective rebuttal, don't know which...
Firsts are probably a human perspective but so is saying our universe is evidence of something going "wrong".
'The universe is just something that happens from time to time' said somebody at some point.
B_g I think ksa picked basically the one bit of your post that was improbable (which u said yourself) because the rest was pretty airtight. There's some kind of fallacy in his selective rebuttal, don't know which...
Firsts are probably a human perspective but so is saying our universe is evidence of something going "wrong".
'The universe is just something that happens from time to time' said somebody at some point.
belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
If there is a finite beginning, then there will be firsts. Yes, it's a human concept, but it's used to describe reality. Unless the concept of time as we know it stops working at some level, perhaps outside our universe, then we can't really propose chronology, but inside our universe it works pretty well.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think I can fully agree with it. The difference between Ksa's argument/issue with something going wrong in our universe and there being firsts is that the first (how punny) is a completely subjective opinion that is not even based on observations. It's not a coherent idea. The latter, however, is just a tool we use to describe reality - personal feelings are irrelevant in this context.
For example, I may go outside and look at people walking down the street and propose that "it suggests that the flying spaghetti monster is angry with the proto-chickens" because I *feeeel* that way. Describing reality, however, should be independent of personal feelings. So if we observe something to be a first, it's going to be a first whether you like it or not. I hope you see what I mean.
E: and I hope I've not derailed the thread too much. My apologies.
I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think I can fully agree with it. The difference between Ksa's argument/issue with something going wrong in our universe and there being firsts is that the first (how punny) is a completely subjective opinion that is not even based on observations. It's not a coherent idea. The latter, however, is just a tool we use to describe reality - personal feelings are irrelevant in this context.
For example, I may go outside and look at people walking down the street and propose that "it suggests that the flying spaghetti monster is angry with the proto-chickens" because I *feeeel* that way. Describing reality, however, should be independent of personal feelings. So if we observe something to be a first, it's going to be a first whether you like it or not. I hope you see what I mean.
E: and I hope I've not derailed the thread too much. My apologies.
Last edited:
Nixiam
Bluelighter
BD am I glad 2 see u or wot bud go read my post up 2 and educate us all pls thx and hi willow.
Really and truly it all relates back to what happens after we die anyway. To seek explanation, we have to first detail phenomena that we already know of.
Philosophers didn't stay in one place when ideas came about.
An egg doesn't stay cold when it starts to fry.
Really and truly it all relates back to what happens after we die anyway. To seek explanation, we have to first detail phenomena that we already know of.
Philosophers didn't stay in one place when ideas came about.
An egg doesn't stay cold when it starts to fry.
Last edited:
belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
Well, I read that post and I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for, honestly. Sadly I'm not an astrophysicist by trade, my knowledge on the subject is fairly limited and extends only as far as my reading goes (and some university physics, but who the hell can remember that right?). Chemistry is my specialty, however that doesn't help much here.
The point about us being "lucky" that our universe is the way it is can be explained by the anthropic principle. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and there are numerous (or perhaps infinite) universes with varying fundamental properties, including gravity, then it's no surprise that we live in a universe where the properties are such that allow life. Looking at it the other way round - you wouldn't expect to find life in a universe where life cannot exist. So it's more a result of the environment than pure luck. It's like saying we're lucky to have been born on Earth because it is suitable for life. Well, we were born on Earth because it's suitable for life, otherwise we wouldn't have been born here, right? I guess the only "luck" that can be spoken of here is saying "we're lucky that there is an Earth to start with" and analogously that there is a universe like ours to start with.
Another point about gravity is that I wouldn't be so sure that we couldn't exist in a universe where gravity is 2-3 times different than in ours. Purely biologically, gravity is pretty much irrelevant. That's because the electromagnetic force is some 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Chemistry is not influenced by gravity - many biochemical models and calculations do not account for gravity and the predictions are still accurate. I guess the only place where gravity may be relevant is mechanics of biological systems. Like motion of the whole organism, motion of its parts and so on. But then again if we're talking about a 2-3x difference, then I wouldn't be surprised if evolution could tackle that obstacle easily.
The point about us being "lucky" that our universe is the way it is can be explained by the anthropic principle. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and there are numerous (or perhaps infinite) universes with varying fundamental properties, including gravity, then it's no surprise that we live in a universe where the properties are such that allow life. Looking at it the other way round - you wouldn't expect to find life in a universe where life cannot exist. So it's more a result of the environment than pure luck. It's like saying we're lucky to have been born on Earth because it is suitable for life. Well, we were born on Earth because it's suitable for life, otherwise we wouldn't have been born here, right? I guess the only "luck" that can be spoken of here is saying "we're lucky that there is an Earth to start with" and analogously that there is a universe like ours to start with.
Another point about gravity is that I wouldn't be so sure that we couldn't exist in a universe where gravity is 2-3 times different than in ours. Purely biologically, gravity is pretty much irrelevant. That's because the electromagnetic force is some 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. Chemistry is not influenced by gravity - many biochemical models and calculations do not account for gravity and the predictions are still accurate. I guess the only place where gravity may be relevant is mechanics of biological systems. Like motion of the whole organism, motion of its parts and so on. But then again if we're talking about a 2-3x difference, then I wouldn't be surprised if evolution could tackle that obstacle easily.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
saying that life could exist in a universe where gravity is different probably isn't accurate. I get what you're saying about how biology doesn't seem to be critically dependent on the magnitude of the gravitational field and if you tweeked the constant life could still exist. It tacitly assumes the ability to change the laws of physics in an already formed universe however.
from what I understand the formation of a universe suitable for life from a Big Bang event is exquisitely sensitive to the gravitational constant. If gravity were any stronger the universe would have collapsed before planets and life could have evolved, and if gravity were any weaker no stars would have formed and our universe would be gas soup. Basically, the physical constants of the universe are finely-tuned for the emergence of life which is the point you made earlier.
belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
I'm not familiar with the numbers. Obviously if gravity was orders of magnitude stronger or weaker, it'd be a problem for reasons you explained. However, is it really true that even a small change would mess everything up as far as cosmological evolution goes?
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
Had to look it up and got confusing answers. I kind of remember hearing something like the following quote
Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)
thing is because the constants exist over such a wide range of magnitude that statement isn't as impressive as I first thought it to be. I read somewhere else that if you held everything else constant and increased gravity by a factor of 30,000 a sun would last about a billion years. So anyways, if gravity were increased by a factor of 3 like you said originally I'm guessing it wouldn't preclude life now that I got a better sense of these numbers.
So my bad, I overestimated the fine tuning of the universe in my mind.
Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.)
thing is because the constants exist over such a wide range of magnitude that statement isn't as impressive as I first thought it to be. I read somewhere else that if you held everything else constant and increased gravity by a factor of 30,000 a sun would last about a billion years. So anyways, if gravity were increased by a factor of 3 like you said originally I'm guessing it wouldn't preclude life now that I got a better sense of these numbers.
So my bad, I overestimated the fine tuning of the universe in my mind.
swilow
Bluelight Crew
Ah, yes, you are correct. The idea of a first is something objective, the notion of something being 'wrong' is subjective. By firsts being a human perspective (weird use of english) I meant that the idea of a first particle is only really true of particles within the universe humans inhabit, or something. But yeah, I see what you saying.
I guess in the multiverse, there may have been a first universe. The first particle in that universe would have been the first particle in multiversal-history. Perhaps there are degrees of firstness?
It seems fitting to talk about origins of things in a discussion about death.rmikhail said:
Come on man, don't be a that guy making shitty generalisations that are probably pretty fucking accurate. :D
If you don't want to participate because you are above such discussion, feel totally free not to.
But no, I have no firm idea what this thread is about either. Its interesting to me, YMMV, opt out at will.