What Happens After We Die?

[mfbukowski]

That's a cute way to avoid an answer!

[Nofear]

That's a cute way to avoid an answer!

Thanks. I thought you were asking a rhetorical question.

Anyway, I disagree with your interpretation of the author's intent and fail to see how your not-rhetorical question bolsters your interpretation (much less why you should feel the need to defend the doctor's mentally juvenile little article).

[Ahab]

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.

Assumptions and implications are 2 things I try to avoid.

I gave a very concise yet correct definition of what time is while asking why anyone would have trouble understanding what time actually is.

I don't need a place to start developing my understanding of time. I've already started and I've already obtained a correct knowledge of what time actually is, even though there will probably be some more things I will learn about time given the time to learn those things.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks. I thought you were asking a rhetorical question.

Anyway, I disagree with your interpretation of the author's intent and fail to see how your not-rhetorical question bolsters your interpretation (much less why you should feel the need to defend the doctor's mentally juvenile little article).

"Mentally juvenile"?

Ok. I guess this is going nowhere.

[Nofear]

I gave a very concise yet correct definition of what time is while asking why anyone would have trouble understanding what time actually is.

I don't need a place to start developing my understanding of time. I've already started and I've already obtained a correct knowledge of what time actually is, even though there will probably be some more things I will learn about time given the time to learn those things.

The fact that you gave a statement of time that is incorrect, or at the very least, incomplete belies your assertion. You stated,

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.

We have a sequence of moments events. It seems "so simple" that events are past, present, and future. But, what events are what depends on the frame of reference. For example, Bob sees event A and event B occur in the present -- at the same time. He says events A and B are simultaneous. Yet, observer Ted could be such that he says A already occurred (past) and event B has yet to occur (future). Consequently, how event A and B relate to each other is observer dependent. Your definition of time, Ahab, is incomplete if it does not correctly accommodate this observed fact about the relativity of simultaneous events.

Mind you, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Still lots of other issues to resolve. But let me assure you that physicists are not trying to make things more complex for the heck of it -- we like simple.

"Mentally juvenile"?

Ok. I guess this is going nowhere.

Bogus hogwash, mentally juvenile. Yes, yes that was and is my unapologetic assessment of the article (not you personally, of course). I've tried to spell out clearly why I believe as much. You've yet to give any justification that counters my assertion -- at least one that I could follow as relevant. You'll have to spell it out more clearly for me 'cuz I'm slow that way.

[Ahab]

We have a sequence of moments events.

I wasn't talking about events. I was talking about moments of time in which events occur.

Try thinking of time as the substance of eternity, itself, independent of the events which occur in it.

It seems "so simple" that events are past, present, and future. But, what events are what depends on the frame of reference.

Before getting into your example, consider this:

The same event can occur at different times, and I'm talking about exactly the same event.

The fact that something happened once doesn't mean it can't ever happen again, and people are often doing the same things that other people have done, with the only thing that is different is the time in which that event occurs.

For example, Bob sees event A and event B occur in the present -- at the same time. He says events A and B are simultaneous. Yet, observer Ted could be such that he says A already occurred (past) and event B has yet to occur (future). Consequently, how event A and B relate to each other is observer dependent. Your definition of time, Ahab, is incomplete if it does not correctly accommodate this observed fact about the relativity of simultaneous events.

Don't worry, it does, even though you didn't think it did earlier, and even if you still don't think so now.

Mind you, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Still lots of other issues to resolve. But let me assure you that physicists are not trying to make things more complex for the heck of it -- we like simple.

Good, because it is simple to correctly understand what time actually is.

[mfbukowski]

You'll have to spell it out more clearly for me 'cuz I'm slow that way.

I'll try.

Just give me an example of something which exists, which no one knows about. Your assertion was that things can exist that we don't know about, I just want an example.

[mfbukowski]

But I would have thought you would be more familiar with this than I am

http://www.google.com/search?q=physics+observer+effect&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Doesn't seem that "juvenile" to me, really.

Fundamental to contemporary Quantum Theory is the notion that there is no phenomenon until it is observed. This effect is known as the 'Observer Effect'.

[mfbukowski]

One more for us dummies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3_FBisoKD8

Even I kind of understand this one.

[Nofear]

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

[Ahab's definition]

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?

Good, because it is simple to correctly understand what time actually is.

You are basically saying "I'm right because time is really very simple -- obvious even. All those people who study time for a living must be rather dense since they apparently are missing the obvious." While it is one thing to disagree with the scientific community (who's position is that time is not so simple a beast to grasp -- see video I linked earlier). It is quite another to accuse the entire community as simply not understanding the issues. Indeed, it is an profoundly arrogant position. So, when somebody makes such as bold assertion on a public discussion board, I'm often inclined to call it out. Your position of accusing the community of physicists of utter naivety with respect to time places you squarely in the company of crackpots.

[Nofear]

Just give me an example of something which exists, which no one knows about. Your assertion was that things can exist that we don't know about, I just want an example.

Yes, I am a realist (philosophical term). Others are not. Not really something we can prove. But there are bounds/limitations to the belief. Indeed, quantum mechanics has shown that locality and counterfactual definiteness can't both be true. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects the latter -- that reality is intermingled with observation. As I mentioned earlier, I can't really fault one for taking that position (i.e. not why I called the article mentally juvenile). I, however, take the position of rejecting locality (partly because of our theology) and find Bohmian mechanics appealing.

Mind you, however, this is fundamentally different than saying that only the "perception of time" was affected -- your claim earlier. In the Copenhagen interpretation (which the author adopts) the "reality of time" is affected by observation. So, when I disagreed with you earlier, I was both disagreeing with the author (for several reasons) and your interpretation of what the author was saying (again, he wasn't merely talking about the perception of time).

[Ahab]

You are basically saying "I'm right because time is really very simple -- obvious even. All those people who study time for a living must be rather dense since they apparently are missing the obvious."

Not really. I'm simply saying that I understand what time is because it's obvious and easy for me to understand. I then shared my understanding of what time is, in very simple terms, and then I was asking (out loud) why so many people seem to be having so much trouble understanding what to me is so obvious.

That's it. That's pretty much the whole of my argument.

If you'd like to re-read what I wrote to explain what time is, feel free to do so, and you can even elaborate on it some more if you feel like you can help me and other people to better understand what time, and eternity, is.

While it is one thing to disagree with the scientific community (who's position is that time is not so simple a beast to grasp -- see video I linked earlier). It is quite another to accuse the entire community as simply not understanding the issues.

If they understood time like I understand time, I think they would also see that it's a very simple thing for them to understand. But they're not saying that, apparently. They're saying it's complicated, and I'm saying it's simple. Why they say it's so complicated I simply fail to understand.

Indeed, it is an profoundly arrogant position. So, when somebody makes such as bold assertion on a public discussion board, I'm often inclined to call it out. Your position of accusing the community of physicists of utter naivety with respect to time places you squarely in the company of crackpots.

The fact that some "scientists" say time is complicated and difficult to understand doesn't mean I have to agree with them, and I don't because to me it is so simple and easy for me to understand.

Try asking me a question about time that you think might show me how complicated the subject of time really is, because as of yet I haven't seen anything presented to convince me that time is difficult to understand.

[Nofear]

If they understood time like I understand time, I think they would also see that it's a very simple thing for them to understand. But they're not saying that, apparently. They're saying it's complicated, and I'm saying it's simple. Why they say it's so complicated I simply fail to understand.

Don't get me wrong, I empathize with your position.

I personally don't believe in a universal flow of time -- a time that is distinct from all moments/events. That is, time is not a fundamental quantity, but rather a derived quantity -- it arises from other things. Problem is, this view doesn't quite jive with all current branches of physics. So, I hold it merely as a bias.

This is what you said,

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.

calling it both concise and correct. I was trying to summarize what you actually meant by the statement, but find I am having difficulty because you give contradictory statements. "Time is a specific moment" -- translation 1 point in a set (I'm assuming an infinite set as you refer to the set as "eternity"). But then you also call time a "collection of specific moments" -- that is a subset of the set eternity. Time is a point, time is a plurality of points. While not necessarily inconsistent statements, you're just gonna have to spell that out for me better.

But, rest assured, whatever you have thought about time is not unique and for some reason or another, won't completely jive with a branch of physics. I gave the example of special relativity. You mention a relationship between the "moments" (everybody else uses the terms "events" btw) implying, I think, an ordering of them (past, present, and future). Yet, in special relativity there is not one eternity (set of all moments) but infinitely many "eternities". Moreover, the ordering in each of those sets is different. Not perceived as different or anything like that - but actually and really differently ordered*. So, while I don't precisely understand what your concise and simple definition is, I'm pretty sure it violates special relativity.

Anyway, the main point here, again, is what you suppose as being simple (whatever it is) is certainly a thing thought of -- and perhaps even believed by many -- but it is not without it's difficulties to overcome.

* Now, special relativity places constraints on how much things can be differently ordered. It so works out that the constraint (called locality) preserves causality. So, no worries there (until we accept a theory that denies locality -- not sure who'd do that though /cough).

[Ahab]

I was trying to summarize what you actually meant by the statement, but find I am having difficulty because you give contradictory statements.

They're not contradictory statements, or concepts.

Time is both a specific moment as well as a collection of specific moments, like, for example, time is both a minute and a collection of minutes. I didn't want to pin myself down to only using "minutes", though, which is why I used the term "moments".

"Time is a specific moment" -- translation 1 point in a set (I'm assuming an infinite set as you refer to the set as "eternity"). But then you also call time a "collection of specific moments" -- that is a subset of the set eternity. Time is a point, time is a plurality of points. While not necessarily inconsistent statements, you're just gonna have to spell that out for me better.

Time isn't necessarily a plurality of points, because time can be only an extremely brief moment in time, as well as a collection of extremely brief moments.

But, rest assured, whatever you have thought about time is not unique and for some reason or another, won't completely jive with a branch of physics.

Oh, I know that. All people don't agree on everything, and it's extremely rare for all people to agree on something, but that doesn't mean there isn't anybody who truly understands everything which is true.

[Nofear]

Time is both a specific moment as well as a collection of specific moments, like, for example, time is both a minute and a collection of minutes. I didn't want to pin myself down to only using "minutes", though, which is why I used the term "moments". Time isn't necessarily a plurality of points, because time can be only an extremely brief moment in time, as well as a collection of extremely brief moments.

Time is neither minutes nor a collection of minutes. Those are simply ways of counting time, or more precisely, moments/events that occur in time. If I had an atomic clock here by my computer and you had an identical-as-possible atomic clock by your computer -- they would disagree on the length of their minute. If both of our atomic clocks counted out precisely 551,557,906,200 cycles of radiation, they would take different lengths of "time" to do so -- that is, the final count on each of our two clocks would not be simultaneous (for observers at rest with respect to each other). If time is merely a collection of moments, then that wouldn't be the case.

[Cold Steel]

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.

Ah, yes, people speak of death as if they know anything about it.

It seems reasonable to me that only those who have experienced it and then returned are the only ones who can speak intelligently about it. Entire books have been written about God by people who know nothing about Him. Unless someone has passed through the veil and then returned, who can say? My brother recently sent me a book by someone who claims to have done just that, and it was written in some detail. Many LDS will recognize it. It's called The Message. I found that one of my friends at church knew the author, Lance Richardson, and his father and had only great things to say about both of them. It's an interesting read, but who knows?

I've read many life after life accounts and many of them are quite consistent. Many of the accounts from non-Mormons even include references to our premortal lives which, as far as I know, is an exclusive LDS belief.

.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I am a realist (philosophical term). Others are not. Not really something we can prove. But there are bounds/limitations to the belief. Indeed, quantum mechanics has shown that locality and counterfactual definiteness can't both be true. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects the latter -- that reality is intermingled with observation. As I mentioned earlier, I can't really fault one for taking that position (i.e. not why I called the article mentally juvenile). I, however, take the position of rejecting locality (partly because of our theology) and find Bohmian mechanics appealing.

Mind you, however, this is fundamentally different than saying that only the "perception of time" was affected -- your claim earlier. In the Copenhagen interpretation (which the author adopts) the "reality of time" is affected by observation. So, when I disagreed with you earlier, I was both disagreeing with the author (for several reasons) and your interpretation of what the author was saying (again, he wasn't merely talking about the perception of time).

Of course you still have not given me an example of something which exists which no one knows about.

I know you are a realist, though I am not sure that that constitutes a real philosophical position. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/ I thought we were discussing the merits of realism as opposed to the pov of the article.

But as I said earlier, this is going nowhere. It's ok. We can quit now.

Just please don't criticize someone else's position unless you are ready to argue its merits instead of simply re-asserting your own position repeatedly.

A few others on this thread also took the same position, and I would be happy to address those who did if they want to back up their assertions.

From the link you provided:

Physics up to the 19th century was always implicitly and sometimes explicitly taken to be based on philosophical realism. With the advent of quantum mechanics in the 20th century, it was noted that it is no longer possible to adhere to local realism

[Nofear]

But as I said earlier, this is going nowhere. It's ok. We can quit now.

Just please don't criticize someone else's position unless you are ready to argue its merits instead of simply re-asserting your own position repeatedly.

To reiterate again quite clearly (as I have before):

1. I criticized the science and theology of the article (post #6 and post #21).

2. I criticized your misunderstanding of the science asserted in the article (your post #20 and my posts #21 and beyond).

I have given my personal biases (as invited by the op), but never as a pillar of my critique of the article. Most of the time was spent trying to help you understand that you simply didn't understand what the article was saying. Instead of saying, "Oh, I misunderstood. I understand what he is saying now," you go off on tangents (it was never about the merits of realism vs. observation dependent realities -- which is why I mostly ignored your inquiries). In the end, I am incredibly disappointed with your approach and response to the thread. Even now, in your frustration, you make false accusations against me. Very disappointing indeed.

[Ahab]

Time is neither minutes nor a collection of minutes. Those are simply ways of counting time, or more precisely, moments/events that occur in time. If I had an atomic clock here by my computer and you had an identical-as-possible atomic clock by your computer -- they would disagree on the length of their minute. If both of our atomic clocks counted out precisely 551,557,906,200 cycles of radiation, they would take different lengths of "time" to do so -- that is, the final count on each of our two clocks would not be simultaneous (for observers at rest with respect to each other). If time is merely a collection of moments, then that wouldn't be the case.

The fact that a clock doesn't tell the correct time doesn't mean time can't be counted. Time is a collection of moments, as well as a specific moment, regardless of whether or not you or me or anyone else has a clock to tell us what time is or what we think of as the time.

If that isn't obvious to you, that's not my problem. It's obvious to me, regardless, and I don't know why you can't see that.

[Nofear]

The fact that a clock doesn't tell the correct time doesn't mean time can't be counted. Time is a collection of moments, as well as a specific moment, regardless of whether or not you or me or anyone else has a clock to tell us what time is or what we think of as the time.

Which clock would you say was right and wrong, or both right or both wrong? Does your definition help you decide? All I specified that both counted out precisely the same number of moments -- each moment defined by an emission of radiation and then claimed (correctly) that their counting would not finish at the same time.

If that isn't obvious to you, that's not my problem. It's obvious to me, regardless, and I don't know why you can't see that.

[Ahab]

Which clock would you say was right and wrong, or both right or both wrong? Does your definition help you decide?

The one that told the right time would be the one that accurately reflected the moments that had gone by, moment by moment, if one did, otherwise no clock would be right.

And, yes, my definition does help me decide.

All I specified that both counted out precisely the same number of moments -- each moment defined by an emission of radiation and then claimed (correctly) that their counting would not finish at the same time.

Sounds to me like those clocks are measuring the radiation of an atom, or atoms, rather than measuring time.

Try thinking of time as something that isn't physical, like love, hope, and faith, rather than something comprised of atoms.

<Ahab thanks cat for the hugz>

p.s. To go a little further into this issue with you, I'll say this:

Time is perceived, moment by moment, by each person experiencing the moment(s), but the fact that different people may perceive time differently doesn't mean time, itself, doesn't exist. Without time, there would be no "stage" (if you will) for any event, including no life, even including the life of God.

Without time, or eternity, there would be nothing at all.

[Nofear]

The one that told the right time would be the one that accurately reflected the moments that had gone by, moment by moment, if one did, otherwise no clock would be right.

And, yes, my definition does help me decide.

And how do you determine which one accurately reflected the moments that had gone by? What criteria would you use? Both counted the same number of "moments".

Sounds to me like those clocks are measuring the radiation of an atom, or atoms, rather than measuring time...

They are measuring the moment of interaction of the emitted radiation with the detector. We are only able to detect that "moment" because it effects a change in our world that we can perceive.

[mfbukowski]

To reiterate again quite clearly (as I have before):

1. I criticized the science and theology of the article (post #6 and post #21).

2. I criticized your misunderstanding of the science asserted in the article (your post #20 and my posts #21 and beyond).

I have given my personal biases (as invited by the op), but never as a pillar of my critique of the article. Most of the time was spent trying to help you understand that you simply didn't understand what the article was saying. Instead of saying, "Oh, I misunderstood. I understand what he is saying now," you go off on tangents (it was never about the merits of realism vs. observation dependent realities -- which is why I mostly ignored your inquiries). In the end, I am incredibly disappointed with your approach and response to the thread. Even now, in your frustration, you make false accusations against me. Very disappointing indeed.

Are you saying that you think he literally meant that one death changes the space time continuum by causing it to "reboot"? He couldn't possibly mean that!

[Ron Beron]

Are you saying that you think he literally meant that one death changes the space time continuum by causing it to "reboot"? He couldn't possibly mean that!

This is an interesting theory in and of itself. What if the continuum changes per individual ala "What Dreams May Come"? Certainly, the idea lends credence to the idea of "multiple mansions" within a framework of fourth dimensional physics.

[thews]

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

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

Uncle Dale

Interesting