What happens when you die

It's like sleep. You won't know you haven't died until you wake up.

Goodnight everyone.
 
Last edited:
wrbix said:
I can fully accept, and actually revel in, the fact that my individuality and that of every other individual and species are the results of a LONG series of randomly selective hits and misses.
I no longer accept the tales of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy......
IBTL
Click to expand...
But you do believe in statistical and philosophical impossibilities. You'd be better off believing in some of those fairy tales.
 
I don't know about youse guys, but I'll be dancing with Ashley Judd, outdoors, under strings of lights in a tropical setting; soft night breeze, hint of her perfume, music low, looking into each other's eyes. . .she'll tilt her head that special way, with that smile that blossoms and recedes; maybe casually, intimately, brush my hair back. . .

Or, I'll be explaining my behaviour across several continents, over several decades, to a scowling Diety, and it won't sound very good, even to me.

More likely, I'll check back in as a pomegranete, wood chuck, or some other lower life form - maybe a Liberal Professor or a member of the EU parliament.
 
Sac Arrow said:
asicer said:
When she was getting close, my mom offered to come back as a ghost and tell me about it. I politely declined.
Click to expand...
Really? I'd jump at the chance. I am not one to discount an afterlife. What shape it takes I don't know, but I've seen too many 'things' to poo-poo it.
Click to expand...

I was worried about the resale value on the house and having to put "haunted" on the real estate disclosures.
 
What I've been wondering about death is this -- can I log the flight as PIC if I die during the flight?
 
I don't think there's an afterlife.

I hope there is one.

But someone once told me that if there IS an afterlife, dogs don't go there. And anywhere that doesn't allow dogs isn't somewhere that I want to spend eternity.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
NoHeat said:
What I've been wondering about death is this -- can I log the flight as PIC if I die during the flight?
Click to expand...

Well, you probably can't, since you won't be able to write, but someone could write it in for you after they know the exact time of death.
 
Cooter said:
But you do believe in statistical and philosophical impossibilities. You'd be better off believing in some of those fairy tales.
Click to expand...
First, what's a "philosophical impossibility" and how is that an argument against evolutionary existentialism?
And second...."statistical"? - work those numbers for me please.
 
Don't know what happens when one dies, but when I am done in this life I want to come back as one of my wife's horses...they get treated a lot better than her husband.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I think our brain it's just an antenna receiving a signal. Like a radio. It's just parts. The information (life if you will) comes from somewhere else. My brain is mapped to this frequency and gets the Bryan signal (or soul or whatever it is) My guess anyway. We are just radios on different stations.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we are already at the robotic AI stage, and don't realize it...;)
 
wrbix said:
First, what's a "philosophical impossibility" and how is that an argument against evolutionary existentialism?
And second...."statistical"? - work those numbers for me please.
Click to expand...

Roger Penrose, an Oxford mathematical physicist calculated that the likelihood of the cosmological forces being what they needed to be to sustain life is equal to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. I'm not a math guy, but that is essentially a probability higher than the number of atoms in the known universe. It would be impossible to even write out that number because there aren't enough particles in the universe on which to place your zeros! If you break down the forces individually, it is even more overwhelming. There are more than 30 physical or cosmological parameters that must be precisely what they are to sustain life. Take gravity, if it were to change the equivalent of a fraction of an inch on a scale representing the entire universe, life would be impossible. Considering all the forces and their precision, and Emil Borer's statement that anything beyond 10^50 will not occur, it is not an unreasonable statement to say that the universe randomly popping into existence and the forces of nature being exactly what they need to be is a statistical impossibility.

A similar approach can be taken to the formation of the first proteins from a "soup" of amino acids. I've seen the number 10^14,000 just to get the amino acids into the proper form so that a protein is possible. When you start forcing these things into a timeline, the magnitude of improbability becomes evident.

Philosophically impossible could be re-phrased philosophically untenable if that is easier for you. If I were to say that I am a father, and then I said that I am a son, you would immediately interpret my statement that I had at least one child and of course I had parents. But if I were to say that I am a son and a father to the same person, you would rightly correct me and tell me that was impossible. If you found your kid with something that did not belong to him, and he answered that it spontaneously generated into his possession, you also would rightly correct him. We assume as part of every day interaction that statements cannot be true and non-true at the same time. If I told you that I was diabetic, and only moments before you had heard me tell someone else that I was not diabetic, you would probably ask me to clarify as both cannot be true, at the same time. That is what I mean by philosophical impossibility.

I'm not sure what you mean by evolutionary existentialism, but I would guess that it means you attribute your existence to evolution and nothing else. That evolution is a comprehensive and conclusive explanation of life and existence as we know it. But the problem with evolution as a comprehensive explanation is that it starts too far down stream. It does nothing to explain the origins of life or the universe, it only provides a possible explanation for why life looks the way it does. Evolution necessarily assumes a self-replicating entity, but cannot answer for how that self-replicating entity came to be.

Now when I said that you believe in a philosophical impossibility, I am pointing out that you believe that the universe "popped" into existence with no prior cause. It just happened. Something exploded, but nothing existed prior to the explosion. In secular naturalism, you eliminate the possibility of a transcendent cause and accept a "something from nothing" impossibility.

Thanks for the questions, could you clarify what you mean by evolutionary existentialism?
 
Last edited:
Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.
 
GRG55 said:
...but when I am done in this life I want to come back as one of my wife's horses...they get treated a lot better than her husband.
Click to expand...

Same here.

Heck, at least the horses get tied up once in a while...
 
Cooter said:
Roger Penrose, an Oxford mathematical physicist calculated that the likelihood of the cosmological forces being what they needed to be to sustain life is equal to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123. I'm not a math guy, but that is essentially a probability higher than the number of atoms in the known universe. It would be impossible to even write out that number because there aren't enough particles in the universe on which to place your zeros! If you break down the forces individually, it is even more overwhelming. There are more than 30 physical or cosmological parameters that must be precisely what they are to sustain life. Take gravity, if it were to change the equivalent of a fraction of an inch on a scale representing the entire universe, life would be impossible. Considering all the forces and their precision, and Emil Borer's statement that anything beyond 10^50 will not occur, it is not an unreasonable statement to say that the universe randomly popping into existence and the forces of nature being exactly what they need to be is a statistical impossibility.

A similar approach can be taken to the formation of the first proteins from a "soup" of amino acids. I've seen the number 10^14,000 just to get the amino acids into the proper form so that a protein is possible. When you start forcing these things into a timeline, the magnitude of improbability becomes evident.

Philosophically impossible could be re-phrased philosophically untenable if that is easier for you. If I were to say that I am a father, and then I said that I am a son, you would immediately interpret my statement that I had at least one child and of course I had parents. But if I were to say that I am a son and a father to the same person, you would rightly correct me and tell me that was impossible. If you found your kid with something that did not belong to him, and he answered that it spontaneously generated into his possession, you also would rightly correct him. We assume as part of every day interaction that statements cannot be true and non-true at the same time. If I told you that I was diabetic, and only moments before you had heard me tell someone else that I was not diabetic, you would probably ask me to clarify as both cannot be true, at the same time. That is what I mean by philosophical impossibility.

I'm not sure what you mean by evolutionary existentialism, but I would guess that it means you attribute your existence to evolution and nothing else. That evolution is a comprehensive and conclusive explanation of life and existence as we know it. But the problem with evolution as a comprehensive explanation is that it starts too far down stream. It does nothing to explain the origins of life or the universe, it only provides a possible explanation for why life looks the way it does. Evolution necessarily assumes a self-replicating entity, but cannot answer for how that self-replicating entity came to be.

Now when I said that you believe in a philosophical impossibility, I am pointing out that you believe that the universe "popped" into existence with no prior cause. It just happened. Something exploded, but nothing existed prior to the explosion. In secular naturalism, you eliminate the possibility of a transcendent cause and accept a "something from nothing" impossibility.

Thanks for the questions, could you clarify what you mean by evolutionary existentialism?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have expected that from a guy called cooter
 
GRG55 said:
Don't know what happens when one dies, but when I am done in this life I want to come back as one of my wife's horses...they get treated a lot better than her husband.
Click to expand...
Or my wife's dogs! My dad's best friend used to say, "If there is reincarnation, I want to come back as a Bleakley dog!" :D
 
Cooter--

I've long had two "evolution" questions that I would love someone (some "evolutionary existentialist" someone) to answer. Very simple, very basic questions:
  1. Before the Big Bang, all the attention in the universe existed as a single point to of infinite density. Where I'd "all of the matter in the universe" come from?
  2. Then it exploded, in a very big bang! What set it off? If it was so unstable, how did it ever gather into a point concerned traction in the first place?
But I like your dissertation above, covers the major points very succinctly.

Now it's time to fly, but I'm still waiting on my magneto to come back from where the overhaul people shipped it to the wrong place . . . So I'm hanging out and philosophizing on the interwebs instead.
 
Hank S said:
Cooter--

I've long had two "evolution" questions that I would love someone (some "evolutionary existentialist" someone) to answer. Very simple, very basic questions:
  1. Before the Big Bang, all the attention in the universe existed as a single point to of infinite density. Where I'd "all of the matter in the universe" come from?
  2. Then it exploded, in a very big bang! What set it off? If it was so unstable, how did it ever gather into a point concerned traction in the first place?
But I like your dissertation above, covers the major points very succinctly.

Now it's time to fly, but I'm still waiting on my magneto to come back from where the overhaul people shipped it to the wrong place . . . So I'm hanging out and philosophizing on the interwebs instead.
Click to expand...

Hank, you've identified the point where science breaks down. It can make no claims prior to the "bang" as all the laws of nature become a point of singularity. So despite the bluster and ridicule, science finds itself at a point where it can no longer make scientific claims. If I had a little more time I would dig up some quotes to illustrate this, but I would appreciate it if we could all just be honest about the difficulties that exist.

There are other difficulties as well, but the two that I see as being unanswerable from a naturalist perspective are origins of the universe and the origin of life. Maybe someone from that perspective can give their views?
 
N747JB said:
Or my wife's dogs! My dad's best friend used to say, "If there is reincarnation, I want to come back as a Bleakley dog!" :D
Click to expand...

Mine too. Slackers don't pay rent, get good quality food and treats, get lots of daily pets and attention, regular trips to play with other dogs, free medical and dental, fairly regular table across of tasty morsels, and 2 acres to run around in.
 
denverpilot said:
Mine too. Slackers don't pay rent, get good quality food and treats, get lots of daily pets and attention, regular trips to play with other dogs, free medical and dental, fairly regular table across of tasty morsels, and 2 acres to run around in.
Click to expand...


All that plus my mothers dog has a better health care plan than I do......
 
One of my lady friends tells me she wants to come back as a man so she doesn't have to pack a boxcar worth of clothes, makeup, skin products, hair products, etc. etc. etc. for a weekend trip.

I suggested that it had best be after I'm gone:cool:.

I tried the "aircraft is going to be over gross" and that definitely didn't fly, to coin a phrase.

Cheers
 
denverpilot said:
Mine too. Slackers don't pay rent, get good quality food and treats, get lots of daily pets and attention, regular trips to play with other dogs, free medical and dental, fairly regular table across of tasty morsels, and 2 acres to run around in.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, I bought a pontoon boat because the dogs had a had time getting into the center console and they like to go on boat rides!! LOL
 
You lie down with dirt on your face and hold your breath for a real long time.
 
Hank S said:
  1. Before the Big Bang, all the attention in the universe existed as a single point to of infinite density. Where I'd "all of the matter in the universe" come from?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but there may be some physicists who have some pretty good theories. In the end though, at least to me, it matters not a whit.

Hank S said:
  1. Then it exploded, in a very big bang! What set it off? If it was so unstable, how did it ever gather into a point concerned traction in the first place?
Click to expand...

I believe they are working on that at this place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
 
denverpilot said:
Mine too. Slackers don't pay rent, get good quality food and treats, get lots of daily pets and attention, regular trips to play with other dogs, free medical and dental, fairly regular table across of tasty morsels, and 2 acres to run around in.
Click to expand...

And it only costs them their freedom, the ability to empty their bladder when they want, oh, and their testicles . . . .
 
Universe. God did it, and Einstein agreed. I'm good with that. Also good with Euclidian geometry and Newtonian physics, as well. Quantum stuff, fussing about waves vs particles - all below (or above; or maybe at right angles to) my sensory perception.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top