What Happens After We Die?

[mfbukowski]

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.

One of my favorite movies!

Yes, individually, clearly death is a life-changing experience I am sure! Saying that it "reboots time" I am sure is an understatement.

But I totally agree with you about us creating our own worlds- that happens here, but I am sure it is accentuated in death where everything becomes more subjective I would think. We may not be solipsists here, but there- I am not so sure.

[mfbukowski]

Interesting

[Lightbearer]

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

Not much. He makes a lot of assumptions, one of which is the following:

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

How does he know? I submit that this is a false assumption based on external evidence which is totally invalid from the perspective of the dead. It is manifestly impossible to know what they perceive unless they were to return and give us an account. By his assertion "life is but a dream" and reality only exists in the mind of the living. This is a ridiculous notion to me, because we have too much evidence to the contrary. Of course he may explain it away as dreams or folklore, but I think that we do not fully comprehend even this world, and not at all the next unless enlightened by the spirit of the Lord. As for time, I believe the following:

(D&C 130:4-7) "In answer to the question

[Nofear]

I

[thews]

Very very interesting post- thanks!

So now you harbor no doubts about your experience? Was it just a "dying brain needing oxygen" or are you positive what you experienced was "real"?

Many times people will have spiritual experiences but later doubt them- I am just curious about how you feel now.

To answer your question, I don

[Nofear]

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!

But, indeed, that is what he is saying:

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.

He is saying that at death, our observer-created reality -- which is relative to us specifically -- is destroyed with death (since consciousness ceases with death he claims).

But, he misapplies his relativity. Time is indeed relative to each observer, but that frame is not a unique frame that follows a person around. It changes completely every time we move*. So, if you want to accept his observer created reality paradigm, sure (that) time would vanish on death -- but it would vanish every time I move too. That is to say, from his line of reasoning (when more correctly applied) the influence of death on time is no different than what happens when somebody does jumping jacks. Consequently, I disdained the article.

* And it's even more fun than that. Our bodies are extended objects. That is to say, the time that my hand has is different than the time that my head has. The space-time frame of my eyes is different than the space time frame of my brain. And to take this argument even farther, parts of my brain have different time frames. So, if we want to adopt his Copenhagen observer-created reality paradigm, what part of us is the observer? I'm going to go out on a very short limb and suggest that his perception of humans is that our brain is our consciousness (else why would it cease with death). So, what part of the brain do we use? He sets himself up for paradox in his mingling of physical theories.

[mfbukowski]

To answer your question, I don

[Ahab]

And how do you determine which one accurately reflected the moments that had gone by? What criteria would you use?

Try asking me which method I currently use. I do have some method to tell what time it is right now, FYI. I have a radio that accepts a signal to keep itself updated as to what time it is, and as I said before, even though each of us may perceive time differently, which includes giving different answers for what we think of as time, that doesn't mean time doesn't actually exist, in reality.

Time is a moment, or a collection of moments, regardless of what method we use to tell what time it actually is.

For example, consider the moment Joseph Smith received a revelation from God, which we (LDS) refer to as the First Vision.

NOTE: I'm not asking you to consider the event. I'm asking you to consider that moment when that event actually happened, in time, in a particular moment in eternity.

Now, with that moment in mind, does it really matter if we refer to that time as 6:24am on April 6, 1820, or XJ*|v7 ???

Answer, no, it really doesn't matter. Any time/date stamp is simply a means of trying to communicate with someone else regarding what moment in time an event actually happened, and the main point we should understand is that things actually happen at some point along the timeline of eternity, regardless of what name/title/term we use to refer to that time.

Both counted the same number of "moments".

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.

Yes, but rather than focusing on what happened at that or any other particular moment, I'm focusing on the fact that there was an actual moment when something happened.

You seem to be focusing more on events than on actual time.

[mfbukowski]

But, indeed, that is what he is saying:

....He is saying that at death, our observer-created reality -- which is relative to us specifically -- is destroyed with death (since consciousness ceases with death he claims).

Well it appears that our disagreement is rather trivial and is actually about what the author is saying- not anything else.

Death is a reboot that leads to all potentialities.

You were disagreeing with death being the end to consciousness, and I was agreeing that it was "a reboot which leads to all potentialities".

When you "reboot" a computer, it isn't dead- it just starts over. I saw it one way, you saw it the other.

[Nofear]

Well it appears that our disagreement is rather trivial and is actually about what the author is saying- not anything else.

Precisely.

[Nofear]

Try asking me which method I currently use. I do have some method to tell what time it is right now, FYI. I have a radio that accepts a signal to keep itself updated as to what time it is, and as I said before, even though each of us may perceive time differently, which includes giving different answers for what we think of as time, that doesn't mean time doesn't actually exist, in reality.

Your comments are highly suggestive that you simply don't grasp the subtleties of time. You think you do, but it's not my job to disillusion you from your fantasy world definition. I'll just let you proceed merrily on your way. There is still the link I posted earlier -- good stuff -- I encourage you to watch it -- even if but for no other reason than to shake your head in dismay at the blindness of the world's physicists.

[Ahab]

Your comments are highly suggestive that you simply don't grasp the subtleties of time. You think you do, but it's not my job to disillusion you from your fantasy world definition. I'll just let you proceed merrily on your way.

Back atcha, from my perspective, well wishes and all.

There is still the link I posted earlier -- good stuff -- I encourage you to watch it -- even if but for no other reason than to shake your head in dismay at the blindness of the world's physicists.

I'd rather continue to learn from God, personally, as he teaches me the truth about everything.

There is no better person to learn from.

[Nofear]

I'd rather continue to learn from God, personally, as he teaches me the truth about everything.

There is no better person to learn from.

Of course -- God is the ultimate source from which we may learn truth. Are you publicly declaring that your understanding of time has been revealed to you by God? And by inference, if somebody disagrees with you that they are setting aside the revealed word of God as given to the world through Ahab?

[Ahab]

Of course -- God is the ultimate source from which we may learn truth. Are you publicly declaring that your understanding of time has been revealed to you by God?

My understanding of time as it is now, yes. I'm not relying on any guess work here. I'm simply stating what to me is obvious, and I give the credit to God for opening my eyes and heart and mind and everything else he has given me to enable me to see what I see.

And by inference, if somebody disagrees with you that they are setting aside the revealed word of God as given to the world through Ahab?

As I said earlier, I do my best to avoid inferences and assumptions, and I will now recommend that you do so as well.

Assumptions and inferences are basically guess work, and I prefer not to dabble with that except to see what might be without thinking it is that way until God reveals some truth to me.

[Nofear]

My understanding of time as it is now, yes [it was revealed to me by God]. I'm not relying on any guess work here.

Yes, yes, God has opened your eyes, you have the truth about time. The prophets don't (or at least haven't bothered to tell us*), the world's physicists don't. Ahab, however, does -- God has revealed it to him.

For the remainder reading this, it should be known that this publicly avowed position is an almost sure sign of error.

And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men... (Alma 9:12)

The moment a person publicly states he has revealed doctrine from God which God's revelators have not already let out of the bag*, then either that person is seriously violating a trust God has given him or he is deceived.

* If this in in doubt, one need simply cite for reference.

[Ahab]

Yes, yes, God has opened your eyes, you have the truth about time. The prophets don't (or at least haven't bothered to tell us*), the world's physicists don't. Ahab, however, does -- God has revealed it to him.

You're mistaken in thinking (other) prophets of God haven't been informed on this issue while also sharing what God has taught them. I can't think of a reference off hand, because I don't make it a point to note or memorize book chapter and verse when learning from God through the people he has appointed to teach me, but it's out there for you to find it you care to do the research.

The problem may be that you don't accept anything as coming from God unless it is canonized, but the fact that the teachings of prophets and apostles haven't been canonized doesn't mean that what they have taught isn't scripture.

[Nofear]

You're mistaken in thinking (other) prophets of God haven't been informed on this issue while also sharing what God has taught them. I can't think of a reference off hand, because I don't make it a point to note or memorize book chapter and verse when learning from God through the people he has appointed to teach me, but it's out there for you to find it you care to do the research.

The problem may be that you don't accept anything as coming from God unless it is canonized, but the fact that the teachings of prophets and apostles haven't been canonized doesn't mean that what they have taught isn't scripture.

If they have explained they physics of time it is news to me. CFR that our latter-day prophets have spoken your definition of time (don't feel obligated to do so, I am not ignorant on the subject).

For the record, I hold that there are plenty of things that are true which are neither taught nor are scripture. That's not in question. There are even a few things (not nearly as many as I would like) I know to be true which have not been revealed publicly yet. I do not go around telling people God has revealed it to me -- it is contrary to the order God has instituted.

And so, I fully reject to your public avowal of revelation on the topic. Indeed, my God has revealed to me (through his holy writ) that when people spoken as you have done that they are false preachers, that they are (paraphrasing here) bad mojo. Experience has reaffirmed this rule as well. You aren't the first to play this card on this board. Every time I've seen somebody do it, they have turned out to be negative influences. Consequently, it is not prudent that I interact directly with you on this board.

I leave you to say whatever you will (for it is of no consequence to me) with a letter Galileo wrote:

My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry? (Letter to Johannes Kepler (1610), as quoted in The Crime of Galileo (1955) by Giorgio De Santillana)

God gave us the telescope (and the equivalent with respect to time). One only need look to see all is not so "obvious" just as the world was not so "obvious" as thought by the learned men who refused Galileo. One merely need look. I even gave a link as a good starting point.

[Ahab]

If they have explained they physics of time it is news to me. CFR that our latter-day prophets have spoken your definition of time (don't feel obligated to do so, I am not ignorant on the subject).

I'm not limited to only latter-day prophets. I'm drawing on all that I've learned from all the prophets and apostles of God I've learned from while relying on God's personal assurance to me regarding whether or not someone is one of his prophets and apostles.

And just to be clear, my definition of time is basically this:

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.

I've said a few other things too to try to explain that concept of time as God has helped me to understand it with the help of his prophets and apostles, but the basic concept above is, in my own words, what God through his prophets and apostles have taught me about what people usually refer to as "time".

Now, if you'd really like to try to make me feel "obligated" to refer you to some statements from some of God's prophets and apostles who have taught that same concept of time, in their own words, while trying to explain how I believe my words agree with their words, I'll go ahead and do so, but only if you will try to make me feel "obligated" to do that research for you. Otherwise, I'll simply leave it up to you to do your own research on this issue, without me worrying about whether or not you agree with me.

For the record, I hold that there are plenty of things that are true which are neither taught nor are scripture. That's not in question. There are even a few things (not nearly as many as I would like) I know to be true which have not been revealed publicly yet. I do not go around telling people God has revealed it to me -- it is contrary to the order God has instituted.

I give God credit for every good idea I have as well as every idea which I am sure is truly a good idea. And why do I do that? Because I consider God to be the source of everything good, so, naturally, I tie everything that is good to God.

And so, I fully reject to your public avowal of revelation on the topic. Indeed, my God has revealed to me (through his holy writ) that when people spoken as you have done that they are false preachers, that they are (paraphrasing here) bad mojo. Experience has reaffirmed this rule as well. You aren't the first to play this card on this board. Every time I've seen somebody do it, they have turned out to be negative influences. Consequently, it is not prudent that I interact directly with you on this board.

I leave you to say whatever you will (for it is of no consequence to me) with a letter Galileo wrote:

Galileo, huh. Interesting. Why do you choose to quote what he said? Do you consider him to be a prophet or apostle of God?

God gave us the telescope (and the equivalent with respect to time). One only need look to see all is not so "obvious" just as the world was not so "obvious" as thought by the learned men who refused Galileo. One merely need look. I even gave a link as a good starting point.

I'll simply direct you to God while recommending that you learn from him both personally and through his prophets and apostles.

What you think of me, personally, is your own business, and I'm accustomed to people thinking that I am not their God.

[erichard]

One more for us dummies:

...

Even I kind of understand this one.

I have not read much of this thread. But I did watch this video.

The video raises this question in my mind:

How do phyicists know that atoms are "all over the place" when they are not being observed? If they are not being observed, how can they know that?

Richard