Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
What do you believe happens when we die
Comments
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Who's 'we' if not the Royal We I referred to? And aren't you making some assumptions based on some or other philosophy of knowledge when it comes to what constitutes evidence?*
We as in our species as a whole. As in the entire data set our species has accumulated. If you are aware of anything within that data set that suggests a god exists by all means highlight it for us.
But constantly your approach seems to be to talk ABOUT evidence without ever actually presenting a shred of any. But what can we expect from someone who defines his own assertions as true by default and then defines himself as being anti / AGAINST the sceptic of anything you assert as true?
Once again.... are you able to share with us any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that suggests the explanation for our universe, and our existence within it, is due to the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent? Do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that suggests human consciousness, awareness and subjective experience survives the death of said humans biological brain?
Thus far the answer to those questions is a resounding, constant, very loud "NO!". Perhaps one day that will change, and you will make believers of us all.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »What does that mean? What is a spiritual definition of consciousness?
This kind of explains it, we are consciousness not a person or a brain that has consciousness.0 -
LessOutragePlz wrote: »Our consciousness continues to live so death isn't the end for it, our brain and body dies but our consciousness manifested into our bodies to make this very discovery Like I've said before I'm not talking about the scientific definition of consciousness rather a spiritual one.LessOutragePlz wrote: »
This kind of explains it, we are consciousness not a person or a brain that has consciousness.
So when he says in that video that he's not claiming that consciousness is separate from brain or that it floats free from the brain at death, doesn't that undermine your earlier point above in bold?
Are you sure you watched the video? He's talking about a monists view, not a dualist view where the consciousness is separate from the body.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »We as in our species as a whole. As in the entire data set our species has accumulated. If you are aware of anything within that data set that suggests a god exists by all means highlight it for us.
But the data set 'we've' accumulated is filtered by you according to whatever philosophy you apply to it. It need be empirical data, for example.
You would accept that God can exist. You would probably also accept that God can demonstrate himself, evidence himself to people. You would probably also accept that those people can discuss and communicate with each other in the common language enabled in them by His evidencing himself.
Your objection, in that event, would amount to little more than 'I don't understand the lingo and so there is no lingo'
All your objections, in the event God exists and does as I and others suggest he does, amount to that. You might persist in positing you lingo (empiricist or whatever) as the lingo which can determine whether another lingo has merit. But that's a ridiculous claim. A faith based claim. A claim centred on a belief you have about the primacy of your particular lingo and its ability to comment.
There is no substance for your position and your demands and your setting the measure .. outside your beliefs about the sufficiency of your lingo.But constantly your approach seems to be to talk ABOUT evidence without ever actually presenting a shred of any.
I restate an oft stated position. Mine is not to present evidence such as to persuade in the positive sense. Mine is to bring to stalemate the argument (yours for example) that holds itself as having some kind of primacy.
The argument that talks about 'accumulated data', but only considers that particular subset of the accumulated data that it sees fit to include. What it sees fit to include is defined by the underlying philosophy. Which in turn is influenced by what you personally perceive around you. That is understandable of course: how could you lend weight to information you don't yourself have. How could a philosophy develop otherwise than around information at that philosophers disposal?
It boils down to that: you construct a view according to that which you can perceive. I do the same thing. And in doing so I can see how and why you do as you do. If you are 'blind' to information, what can you otherwise do but suppose that others who can see are deluded? It's a reasonable thing to do on your part. As reasonable as a tribesmen supposing a passing aeroplane to be some sky God. He operates according to the limited information he has.
And so do you. That is my contention. A contention that has as much merit to it (you may be blind) as your is (I'm deluded).
And since there is no way to establish which contention is the right one (save an appeal to the like-minded gallery here or to a self-serving edit of the accumulated data) we have stalemate.
Which is my aimOnce again.... are you able to share with us any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that suggests the explanation for our universe, and our existence within it, is due to the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent? Do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer that suggests human consciousness, awareness and subjective experience survives the death of said humans biological brain?
Thus far the answer to those questions is a resounding, constant, very loud "NO!". Perhaps one day that will change, and you will make believers of us all.
Hopefully you will one day see what my aim is: stalemate. The only thing that stalemate can achieve is bringing about a pause in your self-directed life (since that is the root of mans problem wrt God)
The only person who can present you with the evidence that will convince is Him. You ought know enough at this stage to accept that a person can't be brought to belief by another person: that would lead to a situation whereby some come to belief merely because they were fortunate enough to encounter someone prepared to invest the time to convince them.
The only God you would, I suspect, be prepared to bow to would be one who is scrupulously fair. Each man has to have an equal shot, irrespective of when and where he is born irrespective of the circumstances of his upbringing and the influences which shape his views. It has to be, as Dawkins found, that there is a commonality amongst men which transcends these influences and happenstance. And so, it can only really be between you alone .. and God.
All the rest is peripheral.0 -
Reading any of this I would say there's a good bit of mental illness running loose without a net.
When you die you're never seen nor heard from again and the vultures pick through your possessions. That's what happens.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »But the data set 'we've' accumulated is filtered by you according to whatever philosophy you apply to it. It need be empirical data, for example.
You would accept that God can exist. You would probably also accept that God can demonstrate himself, evidence himself to people. You would probably also accept that those people can discuss and communicate with each other in the common language enabled in them by His evidencing himself.
Your objection, in that event, would amount to little more than 'I don't understand the lingo and so there is no lingo'
All your objections, in the event God exists and does as I and others suggest he does, amount to that. You might persist in positing you lingo (empiricist or whatever) as the lingo which can determine whether another lingo has merit. But that's a ridiculous claim. A faith based claim. A claim centred on a belief you have about the primacy of your particular lingo and its ability to comment.
There is no substance for your position and your demands and your setting the measure .. outside your beliefs about the sufficiency of your lingo.
I restate an oft stated position. Mine is not to present evidence such as to persuade in the positive sense. Mine is to bring to stalemate the argument (yours for example) that holds itself as having some kind of primacy.
The argument that talks about 'accumulated data', but only considers that particular subset of the accumulated data that it sees fit to include. What it sees fit to include is defined by the underlying philosophy. Which in turn is influenced by what you personally perceive around you. That is understandable of course: how could you lend weight to information you don't yourself have. How could a philosophy develop otherwise than around information at that philosophers disposal?
It boils down to that: you construct a view according to that which you can perceive. I do the same thing. And in doing so I can see how and why you do as you do. If you are 'blind' to information, what can you otherwise do but suppose that others who can see are deluded? It's a reasonable thing to do on your part. As reasonable as a tribesmen supposing a passing aeroplane to be some sky God. He operates according to the limited information he has.
And so do you. That is my contention. A contention that has as much merit to it (you may be blind) as your is (I'm deluded).
And since there is no way to establish which contention is the right one (save an appeal to the like-minded gallery here or to a self-serving edit of the accumulated data) we have stalemate.
Which is my aim
Hopefully you will one day see what my aim is: stalemate. The only thing that stalemate can achieve is bringing about a pause in your self-directed life (since that is the root of mans problem wrt God)
The only person who can present you with the evidence that will convince is Him. You ought know enough at this stage to accept that a person can't be brought to belief by another person: that would lead to a situation whereby some come to belief merely because they were fortunate enough to encounter someone prepared to invest the time to convince them.
The only God you would, I suspect, be prepared to bow to would be one who is scrupulously fair. Each man has to have an equal shot, irrespective of when and where he is born irrespective of the circumstances of his upbringing and the influences which shape his views. It has to be, as Dawkins found, that there is a commonality amongst men which transcends these influences and happenstance. And so, it can only really be between you alone .. and God.
All the rest is peripheral.
You are really not listening, are you?0 -
guitarhappy wrote: »Reading any of this I would say there's a good bit of mental illness running loose without a net.
Mod warning: Implying that those who's belief system is different from your own are mentally ill is not acceptable on this forum. Please raise the standard of your posting and have some consideration of other posters. Thanks.
0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »But the data set 'we've' accumulated is filtered by you according to whatever philosophy you apply to it. It need be empirical data, for example.
I proposed no such limitation. You are once again.... your usual MO.... putting words in my mouth. My exact words were "Any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning". You can put into that box whatever you want, and I will take it out and consider it.
But as I said before, and you step right up to prove me right by doing it again, rather than offer ANY substantiation or evidence for your position you consistently just hand wave discussion around discussing evidence as a concept.antiskeptic wrote: »You would..........You would........ Your objection............ All your objections.............. You might.........
As per usual talking about me and what YOU want to imagine I think and believe, rather than answering one single question or challenge put to you. You simply have nothing to offer, so you deflect, make it about me rather than about your position.
It is charlatan 101 stuff really. You can not support your position so you attempt instead to undermine the mark. But I shall not be drawn. The fact is the thread/forum is STILL waiting for you to offer any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to substantiate the idea a non-human intelligent intentional agent created our universe. Or that human consciousness, subjectivity or awareness survives the death of the brain.antiskeptic wrote: »Mine is not to present evidence such as to persuade in the positive sense. Mine is to bring to stalemate the argument (yours for example) that holds itself as having some kind of primacy.
Yet the only one pretending their argument is default or prime is yours. Probably the only honest or true thing you have ever said on this forum in fact is that you are only interested in stalemate (read: shutting down discussion) and that you do not present any evidence.
But you claim your position to be default. You define yourself as being "anti" the "sceptic" of your position or that the sceptic is to be derided. So you are attempting to knock down a strawman given the only person guilty of the thing you are attempting to champion yourself against.... is you. Hence my prior comment to you about avoiding mirrors.antiskeptic wrote: »The argument that talks about 'accumulated data', but only considers that particular subset of the accumulated data that it sees fit to include.
But I included everything, so my excluding any is yet more of your pretence, and your undermining the mark and pretending falsehoods about the mark in order to deflect from your own deficiencies. I am willing to consider and discuss ANY part of the full data set accumulated by our species. You are only willing to discuss the data set as a whole and dodge specifics.
I directly asked your, but as usual you dodged/ignored it, if there was anything in the data set you think I missed or should consider. As usual.... you ignored this and dodged it and simple went on moaning/wailing about the dataset and how you think (read: falsely imagine) I treat it.antiskeptic wrote: »Which is my aim
And you have failed. The only "stalemate" you have created is your abject refusal to engage in discussion maturely or in good faith. That is not statemate. That is cowardice falsely wrapped up in the label "stalemate". It is not intellectual stalemate.... it is intellectual bankruptcy.0 -
The real mystery is not whether God exists but whether we do, considering that 100 years ago we certainly did not and in 100 years from now we will not, at least as we now are. An even greater mystery is how an unintelligent life force could have created beings as complex as ourselves, capable of thought and of doubt, both processes equally pointless if indeed there is only a blind life force. And why should we be bothered by these questions if we are only momentary sparks in an everlasting darkness.
I enjoy the reasonings of atheists and agnostics whose sincerity often does shine light on complex questions and whose company, the few I have known, is oddly so very inspiring.0 -
The real mystery is not whether God exists but whether we do, considering that 100 years ago we certainly did not and in 100 years from now we will not, at least as we now are. An even greater mystery is how an unintelligent life force could have created beings as complex as ourselves, capable of thought and of doubt, both processes equally pointless if indeed there is only a blind life force. And why should we be bothered by these questions if we are only momentary sparks in an everlasting darkness.
I enjoy the reasonings of atheists and agnostics whose sincerity often does shine light on complex questions and whose company, the few I have known, is oddly so very inspiring.
It is strange how self awareness or even the universe exists at all. Why, if you can even ask the question, is there not just nothingness.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is strange how self awareness or even the universe exists at all. Why, if you can even ask the question, is there not just nothingness.
Is it that strange really? I used to think so too. The "Why is there something rather than nothing" question plagued me somewhat.
But then I realised that "nothing" is a default in the human mind. Of course it is, we are evolved to think things like "I have no food, I must get food" "I have no home I must make shelter" "I have no mate, must get a mate". Our thought processes are literally formed on the premises of starting with nothing and finding goals and meaning in establishing a something.
But outside of our brains why would "Nothingness" be the default? Perhaps our brains have it exactly backwards. Perhaps the default is "something" and the very concept there ever would be or could be "nothing" is the absurd one?
Either way my thought processes have been modified by this realisation such that I try not to assume either is the default, or either is absurd, until I find some good reasons to. Which so far I have not.0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Is it that strange really? I used to think so too. The "Why is there something rather than nothing" question plagued me somewhat.
But then I realised that "nothing" is a default in the human mind. Of course it is, we are evolved to think things like "I have no food, I must get food" "I have no home I must make shelter" "I have no mate, must get a mate". Our thought processes are literally formed on the premises of starting with nothing and finding goals and meaning in establishing a something.
But outside of our brains why would "Nothingness" be the default? Perhaps our brains have it exactly backwards. Perhaps the default is "something" and the very concept there ever would be or could be "nothing" is the absurd one?
Either way my thought processes have been modified by this realisation such that I try not to assume either is the default, or either is absurd, until I find some good reasons to. Which so far I have not.
I like your reasoning. I too have difficulty with the concept of nothingness but also with those of eternity and infinity. Perhaps we are meant only to search for meaning but never quite to find it.0 -
I guess logic would dictate that if there is something then there can be nothing in relation to that at least. Astronomers, in their current understanding, say that the universe can be traced back to the 'big bang' but before that they don't know or there was really nothing. Did something come from nothing?0
-
Nothing.0
-
I guess logic would dictate that if there is something then there can be nothing in relation to that at least. Astronomers, in their current understanding, say that the universe can be traced back to the 'big bang' but before that they don't know or there was really nothing. Did something come from nothing?
I don't think the but in bold is logical. If there is something there can be an absence of that thing. But I don't think it necessarily follows that there can be nothing just because there is something.
Things can end and cease to exist. But the idea of absolute nothingness is a different matter entirely.0 -
I believe we go to another life0
-
-
Astronomers, in their current understanding, say that the universe can be traced back to the 'big bang' but before that they don't know or there was really nothing. Did something come from nothing?
I think it is astrophysicists rather than astronomers? Not sure myself on the different labels.
But as I understand it they trace our universe back to a singularity. The singularity I have heard described as being of "infinite mass and density" which sounds like the opposite of nothing to me.
So no, I do not think we have any reason yet to think "something came from nothing" do we? As I have not yet heard any scientists of note suggest there ever was, or we know there to have been, "nothing". Though Laurence Krauss did write a book showing how something could come from nothing without violating anything in science.
We do have a resident poster who claims to be an theoretical physicist though. Or at least he is a secondary school teacher with some previous background in the subject. So perhaps if he wanders in at any point he would be much better positioned by far to comment on any of this than I.0 -
I like your reasoning. I too have difficulty with the concept of nothingness but also with those of eternity and infinity. Perhaps we are meant only to search for meaning but never quite to find it.
I do not see much reason at this time to think we are "meant" for anything.
What does appear to happen is we have evolved in a kind of "middle universe" between the very big and the very small, the very short and the very long, and our minds just are moulded by that. Those minds struggle when going outside that space.
So the concepts and explanations we consider default..... such as expecting nothing to be the default and something to be the unusual state of affairs..... or expecting everything to have a "reason" or purpose or narrative..... are also formed by that.
That such expectations, powerful as they are to us, leave most humans suspecting there must be a "god" is therefore no surprise. A god narrative fits that evolved mind quite nicely.
There such happens to be no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to support the notion.0 -
Advertisement
-
I guess logic would dictate that if there is something then there can be nothing in relation to that at least. Astronomers, in their current understanding, say that the universe can be traced back to the 'big bang' but before that they don't know or there was really nothing. Did something come from nothing?
I can grasp the idea of existence of things but am unable to conceive of nothingness. The big bang I can accept but before that? I share your puzzlement.0 -
I can grasp the idea of existence of things but am unable to conceive of nothingness. The big bang I can accept but before that? I share your puzzlement.
One theory that had been dismissed but is once again seeming possible is the notion of an oscillating universe. In this case the universe moves between expanding and contracting phases, starting with a big bang and ending with a big crunch.
In terms of life, I personally think of it as fleeting with nothing subjective to follow on from it, much as there was nothing subjective preceding it. A remnant part of us may remain imprinted on those closest to us but there is no more self that persists after death.0 -
One theory that had been dismissed but is once again seeming possible is the notion of an oscillating universe. In this case the universe moves between expanding and contracting phases, starting with a big bang and ending with a big crunch.
In terms of life, I personally think of it as fleeting with nothing subjective to follow on from it, much as there was nothing subjective preceding it. A remnant part of us may remain imprinted on those closest to us but there is no more self that persists after death.
The oscillating universe is an interesting idea.
I agree we are aware of nothing subjective preceding our birth. But our birth marked the beginning of our "selfs" and our subjective experiences. I'm not sure that our self will not persist after bodily death. If it does'nt there will be no one there to say that your reasoning was right. And that would be a pity.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I do not see much reason at this time to think we are "meant" for anything.
What does appear to happen is we have evolved in a kind of "middle universe" between the very big and the very small, the very short and the very long, and our minds just are moulded by that. Those minds struggle when going outside that space.
So the concepts and explanations we consider default..... such as expecting nothing to be the default and something to be the unusual state of affairs..... or expecting everything to have a "reason" or purpose or narrative..... are also formed by that.
That such expectations, powerful as they are to us, leave most humans suspecting there must be a "god" is therefore no surprise. A god narrative fits that evolved mind quite nicely.
There such happens to be no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to support the notion.
Thanks for your thoughts.
I am puzzled as to why the middle universe, or indeed any of our experiences, would mould our minds to the god idea. To the idea of a non-existent god?
And do most humans suspect there must be a god? ; in my experience most humans don't think very much about the question or seem indifferent as to whether there is a god or not.
I dont agree a god narrative necessarily fits our evolved mind quite nicely. The idea is offensive to our independence of mind and thought.
But for some reason our evolved minds do seem to search for meaning in ourselves and in everything that happens in the world. And outside of the god idea, man does not seem to have been able to find any satisfactory sources of meaning.
I would be interested in your ideas for alternative sources of meaning0 -
The oscillating universe is an interesting idea.
I agree we are aware of nothing subjective preceding our birth. But our birth marked the beginning of our "selfs" and our subjective experiences. I'm not sure that our self will not persist after bodily death. If it does'nt there will be no one there to say that your reasoning was right. And that would be a pity.
Nobody can be sure that the self does not persist after death. But the time to think it's likely is when there's evidence for it.
If it's easy to imagine the 'self' and our subjective experience beginning at birth, then isn't it equally easy to imagine the self and our subjective experience ending at death also?0 -
I am puzzled as to why the middle universe, or indeed any of our experiences, would mould our minds to the god idea. To the idea of a non-existent god?
It is not that it moulds our minds to the god idea. It is that it moulds our minds to OTHER things which in turn leave us prone to the god idea.
A useful, and topical, analogy is to viruses. We did not evolve to catch viruses. That would be weird. We evolved to do OTHER things and viruses evolved in turn to take advantage of those things and infect us / use us.
Similarly there are things about humans that have evolved for good purpose, but can be commandeered by nonsense ideas like gods.
For example we have what has been termed "hyper active agency detection". That is basically a fancy smancy way of saying that historically humans who presumed there was no agency where there actually was.... promptly died. Those that presumed there was agency where there actually wasn't did nothing but look a little silly.
If the trees rustle and you react with "ah its nothing" you might die if it is something. If however they rustle and you automatically think "Who/what is there... and what does it want from me?!?!" you are more likely to survive if there is something there.
It is not a small leap to think that this hyper active tendency to see agency and design and motive and intent behind everything might get misapplied to the universe itself. And thus we get notions like a god.... and what does it want and what is it's designs and intentions towards me?
There is also another evolved trait which has been given the fancy term "The intentional stance". This is again just a fancy term for a relatively simple concept. Which is basically that we tend to represent the minds of others in our own minds. Often exaggerated. We can even do it for imaginary people or dead people. As the philosopher Daniel Dennett explains:
"Here is how it works: first you decide to treat the object whose behavior is to be predicted as a rational agent; then you figure out what beliefs that agent ought to have, given its place in the world and its purpose. Then you figure out what desires it ought to have, on the same considerations, and finally you predict that this rational agent will act to further its goals in the light of its beliefs. A little practical reasoning from the chosen set of beliefs and desires will in most instances yield a decision about what the agent ought to do; that is what you predict the agent will do."
This too can misfire and be applied to the universe and existence itself, and quite quickly you arrive at a kind of god concept that way too.
Third, and finally for now as this is already long, our purpose and intention and narrative driven mind is one that seeks meaning in everything we do. Every tool we make is "for" something, as is every action. We impute he narrative of intention and design quite readily therefore. And so when this misfires we easily start to ask "What am I for" "what is the universe for" "what is the purpose of life/universe/everything". And the moment you start to imagine a design or a purpose.... you have to posit a designer or a purpose driven entity.
So these evolves traits here in the "middle universe" are not traits we evolved to leave us open to the god concept. They are traits we evolved for other good reasons but as a consequence also leave us open to a god concept.I would be interested in your ideas for alternative sources of meaning
Some can't find one I suppose. Seemingly I do not suffer from this issue.
I remember some time ago now I was asked to go for a walk. It seemed pointless to me. I was home. Why would I want to randomly go for a walk for the sake of it, only to have the goal of returning to the place I started? I was already there! Why would I walk unless I had some kind of destination, what was the purpose or meaning or utility of that?
The person inviting me simply said to me that "The journey is the destination". And I realised later this is true of life too. I was seeking my meaning in the walk at the end of it, the "final" destination and looking solely for a narrative to justify it and give it meaning and purpose. Just like many do with life itself. Allowing death (whether they see it as final and total, or a step to the next life) as the defining end point.
But I realise now that with life, just like with the walk, the journey itself IS The destination. I do not need a "source of meaning" therefore for that life, it is it's own destination, it's own meaning, and justifies itself. Probably the one thing that does therefore lift itself by it's own bootstraps.
I can of course find transient meanings WITHIN that journey, events along the road I walk in life too. But ultimately the journey will always be the destination for me. Not marked by either it's end points or it's beginning. But every step in between worth of it's own footfall, for it's own sake.0 -
Some food for thought about the big bang theory, singularity etc.
'
Hawking only recently gave his own take in an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, where he likened the space-time dimensions of the Big Bang to the South Pole. "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang," he said.
But other physicists have argued there's something beyond the Big Bang. Some propose that there is a mirror Universe on the other side, where time moves backwards. Others argue in favour of a rebounding Universe.
Taking a slightly different approach, physicists Tim A. Koslowski, Flavio Mercati, and David Sloan have come up with a new model, pointing out that the breakdown arises from a contradiction in properties at a particular point in time as defined by general relativity.
What the theorem doesn't imply is how the Universe as we observe it necessarily gets to that point in the first place.'
They say that Who, where what why and when are the questions we need to ask. If you apply these to the beginning, if they are relevant, you must wonder what at least would have driven this process and why does it not remain nothing or a singularity?0 -
Some food for thought about the big bang theory, singularity etc.
'
Hawking only recently gave his own take in an interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson, where he likened the space-time dimensions of the Big Bang to the South Pole. "There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang," he said.
But other physicists have argued there's something beyond the Big Bang. Some propose that there is a mirror Universe on the other side, where time moves backwards. Others argue in favour of a rebounding Universe.
Taking a slightly different approach, physicists Tim A. Koslowski, Flavio Mercati, and David Sloan have come up with a new model, pointing out that the breakdown arises from a contradiction in properties at a particular point in time as defined by general relativity.
What the theorem doesn't imply is how the Universe as we observe it necessarily gets to that point in the first place.'
They say that Who, where what why and when are the questions we need to ask. If you apply these to the beginning, if they are relevant, you must wonder what at least would have driven this process and why does it not remain nothing or a singularity?
Hawking is saying 'first there was nothing, then there was something's??0 -
The oscillating universe is an interesting idea.
I agree we are aware of nothing subjective preceding our birth. But our birth marked the beginning of our "selfs" and our subjective experiences. I'm not sure that our self will not persist after bodily death. If it does'nt there will be no one there to say that your reasoning was right. And that would be a pity.
I agree death being the termination of self is very sad, for many, terrifying even. If you think about it, this provides a strong motive for inventing a more acceptable alternative such as an afterlife. People will be quick to believe in such an alternative as it is something they truly want, yet unfortunately wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. From a logical perspective, arguments for an afterlife are hence clearly loaded with confirmation basis, emotional investment and a deep fear of the alternative.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »Hawking is saying 'first there was nothing, then there was something's??
That seems to be the gist of it. Some other physicists say similar and that it it is ongoing even!0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0
Advertisement