Jump to content

What Happens After We Die?


Ron Beron

Recommended Posts

In a recent blog on the Huffington Post a Dr. Robert Lanza, M.D. writes,

What happens when we die? Do we rot into the ground,

or do we go to heaven (or hell, if we've been bad)? Experiments suggest

the answer is simpler than anyone thought. Without the glue of

consciousness, time essentially reboots.

He concludes...

Before he died, Einstein said "Now Besso [an old friend] has departed

from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing.

People like us ... know that the distinction between past, present and

future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." In fact, it was

Einstein's theory of relativity that showed that space and time are

indeed relative to the observer. Quantum theory ended the classical

view that particles exist if we don't perceive them. But if the world is

observer-created, we shouldn't be surprised that it's destroyed with

each of us. Nor should we be surprised that space and time vanish, and

with them all Newtonian conceptions of order and prediction.

It's here at last, where we approach the imagined border of

ourselves, the wooded boundary where in the old fairy tale the fox and

the hare say goodnight to each other. At death, we all know,

consciousness is gone, and so too the continuity in the connection of

times and places. Where then, do we find ourselves? On stairs that can

be intercalated anywhere, like those that Hermes won with the dice of

the moon, that Osiris might be born. We think that the past is past and

the future the future. But as Einstein realized, this simply isn't the

case.

Without consciousness, space and time are nothing; in reality you can

take any time -- whether past or future -? as your new frame of

reference. Death is a reboot that leads to all potentialities.

What do you think of the good doctor's opinion?

Link to comment

Great stuff.

I have always believed that time is nothing more or less than the way we experience reality in a sequential way- it is essentially information- this sentence in fact IS time- as each reads it, it is created anew, it begins with I, and ends with this period.

Through memory we can "be" children again instantaneously by breaking the sequential experience "barrier" our brains impose on us- a smell, a color, a feeling can suddenly transport us backward in information- and hence in time. We can see loved ones long dead and jump 20 years ahead and back again with the quickness of thought. We each create our own universes- copying God himself who has created this big one we all share. This to me is where the gospel explains things so well- seeing God as a man who created the universe and all of us as little gods in embryo who create our own little universes.

But we cannot yet remember the future- we cannot experience the eternal present while we yet have this bodily baggage that forces us to experience sequentially.

That's what I think.

Link to comment

My thanks to the Luciferian dude for adding this.

Lucifer delivers.

Link to comment

Yes I am quite familiar with this theory. This requires perfect knowledge which I nor anyone including Einstein does not have. His mere fool.gif death proves our existence and his assertion false. Einstein is not God. The notion that I'm the observer makes at my point of turning the computer off tonight means my perception of you has ended. Until I turn it on again you will all cease to exist. In essence I am God as I create you all. Nice thought huh? I told my wife this she gave me that whatever look. She asked me that instead of creating this bull in the world why don't I just create the CK instead. JS was right. God was once a man, and man may become God. I am him and there is no beginning, and end as my superior consciousness will recreate a new universe, and do it all again and again and again. I'm going to go to bed now and turn off the computer. You all will now cease to exist until I logon again when I feel like it. I'll just stuff you into the back of my mind until next time. Aloha!borg-drone.gif

Wait! You thought I was going to turn out the lights on you all. Psyche!wink.gif

Mind trip theory! Goodnight. Hey next time I wake up I need to correct the grammatical skills. I'm not perfect.blink.gif

Link to comment

...

What do you think of the good doctor's opinion?

Essentially agree -- but find his language problematic.

Death is the seeming discontinuity in time which forces

a new perspective. Since time itself is a point of view,

that new perspective might be called "re-booting time."

The problem with that wording, is that it might seem to

convey the tenet of reincarnation. But I am not talking

about time simply beginning again for any one of us in a

new life.

Rather, I am trying to express what it means to realize

from a different point of view, in which time is meaningless.

For want of better words, I'll use "eternity" and "infinity,"

but not in the sense of a single entity/observer/participant

experiencing infinitely, or eternally.

We operate in three dimensions. Time is not the 4th dimension --

though it can pass for that in our imaginations. Instead,

the 4th dimension is rather along the lines popularized in

the Intro to the old Twilight Zone TV show. Dimensions higher

than the third are realms of possibilities.

An individual comes to an existential choice -- a fork in the

road of time -- and makes a decision. That decision can move

into a dimension of new possibilities, just like turning

right or left at a stop-light moves us physically.

Death is that fork in the road where the choices are divided by zero.

Not infinity -- but infinity's twin sister: "undefined."

Uncle Dale

Link to comment
What do you think of the good doctor's opinion?

I think his theory is bogus hogwash (sounds like he was thinking of woodchucks and dragonflies while watching the last episode of Lost). While I am disinclined to think of time as an absolute but instead as a sequential ordering of things*, whatever model one adopts, things and events exists utterly independent of whether or not we observe them. Therefore time exists utterly independent of whether we observe the events or sequences.

At death, we all know, consciousness is gone...

This statement alone is false. The ability of our consciousness to interact with our physical body certainly ceases, but "gone" -- not so much.

* Time is a really, really tricky thing for physics. Nobody has a good theory that works absolutely with all branches of physics yet. The truth is that we just don't have a fundamental understanding of time. Still, we have expressions of it that are good enough for the time being.

Link to comment

What do you think of the good doctor's opinion?

I'm not sure that I understand him correctly.

Did he think that at death we lose consciousness? I think that's what he said when he said this:

Without consciousness, space and time are nothing; in reality you can take any time -- whether past or future -? as your new frame of reference. Death is a reboot that leads to all potentialities.

... and this:

At death, we all know, consciousness is gone, and so too the continuity in the connection of times and places.

If that's what he thought, I'm sure he's been a little better informed by now, whenever that happened.

Link to comment

I think his theory is bogus hogwash (sounds like he was thinking of woodchucks and dragonflies while watching the last episode of Lost). While I am disinclined to think of time as an absolute but instead as a sequential ordering of things*, whatever model one adopts, things and events exists utterly independent of whether or not we observe them. Therefore time exists utterly independent of whether we observe the events or sequences.

This statement alone is false. The ability of our consciousness to interact with our physical body certainly ceases, but "gone" -- not so much.

* Time is a really, really tricky thing for physics. Nobody has a good theory that works absolutely with all branches of physics yet. The truth is that we just don't have a fundamental understanding of time. Still, we have expressions of it that are good enough for the time being.

Aw come on nofear, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think. :P

Link to comment

* Time is a really, really tricky thing for physics. Nobody has a good theory that works absolutely with all branches of physics yet. The truth is that we just don't have a fundamental understanding of time. Still, we have expressions of it that are good enough for the time being.

It seems strange that people have so much trouble with things that are so simple.

Time is a specific moment in eternity as well as a collection of specific moments. We refer to those moments as moments that are past, or moments that are present, or moments that are yet future, and we associate each moment with other moments to distinguish how each moment relates to other moments.

Is that concept really so hard for physicists to understand, or are they just so determined to try to find another answer than the one that is so obvious?

Link to comment

Oh look here I woke up and you guys were still writing. All this after I told myself that you don't exist, and there will be no writing. I guess Einstein was wrong. Wait! maybe he was right and I just made all of you up just before woke up and it goes on and on. Ahhhhhh I'm losing my mind!!!!!!wacko.gif

Link to comment
It seems strange that people have so much trouble with things that are so simple.

Time is a specific moment in eternity as well as a collection of specific moments. We refer to those moments as moments that are past, or moments that are present, or moments that are yet future, and we associate each moment with other moments to distinguish how each moment relates to other moments.

Is that concept really so hard for physicists to understand, or are they just so determined to try to find another answer than the one that is so obvious?

We can assume as Ahab here implies: 1) 20th century physicists really have no idea what they are talking about, or 2) Ahab himself perhaps doesn't understand the subtleties involved.

While I vote for option 2), I can empathize with assumption 1), after all, look at the prevalence of the Copenhagen interpretation (an interpretation used in the op's article btw). Thankfully, there are freely available resources to help us make a more informed determination between the two options. Might I suggest as a starting point:

Brian Cox's Do You Know What Time It Is?*

* The link is youtube and so the hour long episode is cut into <10min segments, but there are alternative venues for watching the show if that annoys.

Link to comment

You guys are misunderstanding this whole thing.

Of course you all exist - this position is not solipsism. We exist in a cultural context- even turning on the computer which I did not create, nor the internet, nor my wife who has definite "input" and causes limitations and joys and sometimes pain in my life- obviously all these other universes exist with which we interact.

But what do you know of what happened before you were born? What you have read and heard about wars, events and happenings- but you did not experience them!

Don't be so epistemologically naive! We can only know what we know for ourselves - what we have experienced for ourselves- or what you have heard others tell you about.

Unless you have personally been there, the only way anyone here knows Antarctica exists is that they have read about it. You know it from a cultural context.

How many undiscovered species exist? We don't know. They are now irrelevant to our lives. What of all the things undiscovered yet by science? Do they "exist"? If you say they do, then tell me exactly WHAT is it that exists that is undiscovered? Is it a fish, what does it look like? Is it a butterfly? A butterfly that looks like a fish? And what do we call that undiscovered species? In what way does it "exist"?

Tell me! You can't because in a sense it does not yet "exist" - FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES!

We don't have the language to describe it! It is irrelevant to mankind!

THIS is what Einstein is talking about- we each have our own universe- it is sequentially ordered- but what happens when we die?

We no longer exist in time! The past and future are the same as the present- that is what he is saying!

Link to comment

...

We no longer exist in time! The past and future are the same as the present-

that is what he is saying!

Granted -- but I'd say there is more to it than that.

It may sound unreasonable, but I propose that there is no difference

at that point (death) between "we," "I," and "everything."

Not just no difference in a poetic way -- but literally.

There's an interesting line in the musical "Jesus Christ, Superstar,"

in which it is professed -- "To conquer death, you only have to die."

I submit that this applies not to "you" as an individual, but to "you"

as a collective, third-person plural, encompassing all entities.

May sound trite to quote a popular song in that way, but the words

have an earlier source which I view as ultimate wisdom.

UD

Link to comment

There's an interesting line in the musical "Jesus Christ, Superstar,"

in which it is professed -- "To conquer death, you only have to die."

I submit that this applies not to "you" as an individual, but to "you"

as a collective, third-person plural, encompassing all entities.

May sound trite to quote a popular song in that way, but the words

have an earlier source which I view as ultimate wisdom.

Very interesting!

I always took that line as meaning something more trivial like: "To conquer DYING you only have to die".

Are you implying that we become solipsists after death?

And since you mentioned it- what is the "earlier source"?

Link to comment

...

Are you implying that we become solipsists after death?

I'm implying that there is no "we" to become anything. Rather, there

is ultimate consciousness, of which "we" all partake here in existence,

and which is the reality transcending existence.

And since you mentioned it- what is the "earlier source"?

My call on this, is that being "born again" involves dying in a way

similar to physical death. In each case, we surrender all and either

trust or distrust.

Think of it this way -- going into the waters of baptism, not knowing

whether you'll ever come out as a living being. And yet you (we, I)

go through that total surrender, because of a trust which allows for

all good possibilities.

Many people are baptized with no thought whatever of a potential impending

physical death -- it is something far from their minds. And yet, I have

the strong opinion that baptism 2000 years ago was something much closer

to experiencing actual death and actual rebirth.

At least as close as a person can approximate that phenomenon in existence.

Baptism as a near-death experience --- think about it.

UD

Link to comment

In a recent blog on the Huffington Post a Dr. Robert Lanza, M.D. writes,

He concludes...

What do you think of the good doctor's opinion?

I believe there is an objective concept of time within the universe, but it is not relative to human beings. Time existed billions of years before humans primates evolved. Without an ultimate consciousness (God), time and space are nothing; but without human consciousness, they still exist. The death of a human being does not have any effect on time in any way, shape or form.

Link to comment

I believe there is an objective concept of time within the universe, but it is not relative to human beings. Time existed billions of years before humans primates evolved. Without an ultimate consciousness (God), time and space are nothing; but without human consciousness, they still exist. The death of a human being does not have any effect on time in any way, shape or form.

No one said it did.

The question is: does it have an effect on his perception of time. No one is suggesting that someone's death effects the space/time continuum

Link to comment
No one said it did.

The question is: does it have an effect on his perception of time. No one is suggesting that someone's death effects the space/time continuum.

Well, actually the author did suggest that (see link to article previously posted):

Einsten: "People like us ... know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

The point being that in relativity, with time as a 4th dimension, the future is as extant as any other spatial dimension. It isn't being created "on the fly" as it were but is already there and our perception of the creation of the future is the "persistent illusion". (This is talked about in the video I linked btw.)

Now this is where Lanza goes and suggests that the actual future is altered (as in it goes away ... poof):

Robert Lanza: "Quantum theory ended the classical view that particles exist if we don't perceive them [this is the Copenhagen interpretation I said he subscribed to earlier]. But if the world is observer-created, we shouldn't be surprised that it's destroyed with each of us. Nor should we be surprised that space and time vanish, and with them all Newtonian conceptions of order and prediction."

In short, Lanza is making this argument:

A) Time is relative to the observer. My time is not the same as your time. Both are equally real -- they are not simply "perceptions" of a single, universal time.

B) Existence of particles is observer dependent [to this I can only exhale a big /sigh]

C) At death consciousness, and hence the ability to observe ceases [bigger /sigh]

D) The space/time frame of reference that our observation created ceases to exist -- literally, physically, and in actuality.

But, as I said earlier, his article is bogus hogwash. His physics in A) is wrong. It is true that each observer has a different space-time frame of reference, but that changes up every time I accelerate or move in a gravitational field. Heck, the time frame of reference at my toes are different than the time at my nose. A single observer does not possess a unique frame of reference -- which is the reading I got from the author.

As to B) ... I can't really fault him subscribing the to majority opinion. Me personally, I prefer the more ontologically stable Bohmian mechanics -- none of this observer created nonsense.

As to C) ... doesn't jive with Mormonism at all.

In the end, D) doesn't stand up as being any more than bad, bad science posted in a newspaper. But, I'm sure he stitch up a bad cut very nicely.

Link to comment

In a recent blog on the Huffington Post a Dr. Robert Lanza, M.D. writes,

...

What do you think of the good doctor's opinion?

I was not convinced that time does not exist in the next spirit life, but it might be different than the time we experience here.

I read Duane Crowther's book, Life Everlasting, when I was young and was very intrigued by his research about what happens after we die.

You can read in this book at google books. I suggest you start at page 194.

Richard

Link to comment

No one said it did.

The question is: does it have an effect on his perception of time. No one is suggesting that someone's death effects the space/time continuum

The author did. He's been watching "The Secret" too much.

Link to comment

Well, actually the author did suggest that (see link to article previously posted):

Einsten: "People like us ... know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

The point being that in relativity, with time as a 4th dimension, the future is as extant as any other spatial dimension. It isn't being created "on the fly" as it were but is already there and our perception of the creation of the future is the "persistent illusion". (This is talked about in the video I linked btw.)

Now this is where Lanza goes and suggests that the actual future is altered (as in it goes away ... poof):

Robert Lanza: "Quantum theory ended the classical view that particles exist if we don't perceive them [this is the Copenhagen interpretation I said he subscribed to earlier]. But if the world is observer-created, we shouldn't be surprised that it's destroyed with each of us. Nor should we be surprised that space and time vanish, and with them all Newtonian conceptions of order and prediction."

In short, Lanza is making this argument:

A) Time is relative to the observer. My time is not the same as your time. Both are equally real -- they are not simply "perceptions" of a single, universal time.

B) Existence of particles is observer dependent [to this I can only exhale a big /sigh]

C) At death consciousness, and hence the ability to observe ceases [bigger /sigh]

D) The space/time frame of reference that our observation created ceases to exist -- literally, physically, and in actuality.

But, as I said earlier, his article is bogus hogwash. His physics in A) is wrong. It is true that each observer has a different space-time frame of reference, but that changes up every time I accelerate or move in a gravitational field. Heck, the time frame of reference at my toes are different than the time at my nose. A single observer does not possess a unique frame of reference -- which is the reading I got from the author.

As to B) ... I can't really fault him subscribing the to majority opinion. Me personally, I prefer the more ontologically stable Bohmian mechanics -- none of this observer created nonsense.

As to C) ... doesn't jive with Mormonism at all.

In the end, D) doesn't stand up as being any more than bad, bad science posted in a newspaper. But, I'm sure he stitch up a bad cut very nicely.

Perhaps you are partially missing the point.

Philosophy deals with language and the way we express abstract ideas. Physics has its own concerns. The article is an ambiguous mish-mash and deserves to be misinterpreted.

But clearly the expression of ideas depends on language and things are only real if you define them that way, whether in physics or another field. Do undiscovered species or particles "exist"? At first I am sure you will say "of course!"

But does something exist if you don't know what it is or how to describe it? "What" is it that exists, if you can't describe it?

THAT is the sense is that something exists only if we know about it.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...