/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12163795
It dies. When you turn off the computer, it no longer computes. Why are humans so bad at accepting this?

The sheer unlikelihood of being conscious in the first place suggests it's not possible to not be conscious. You're trapped in reality forever.

>>12163795
There was never a "you" in the first place. It's an illusion created by the brain. Read the teachings of Buddha

>>12163803
Yes, but that is a computer, which has no real awareness of itself at all. The OP's question is more about the death of the consciousness from the perspective of the consciousness itself, like when being knocked out or going under anesthesia. Problem is, in both cases, many report going from one to the other in the blink of an eye, as if no time has passed at all. With death, unless we pass on to another life, there is not re-awakening of the consciousness to "skip" to.

>>12163811
This is what I feel, too. You see, the consciousness cannot experience it's own lack of existence (as this is a contradiction) so what I think happens is that whatever feelings you have at the exact moment of your death are what you are left with forever, with no awareness of time, thought, logic, etc. All you can do is feel the same feeling.

>>12163795
Why do the skeletons wear necklaces with the astrological symbol for Neptune on them?

>>12163844
Where does this consciousness live? If it can not not exist why werent you conscious before birth?

>>12163844
Where does this consciousness live? If it can not not exist why werent you conscious before birth?

>>12163795
Noone knows.

>>12164085
the planets were named after gods
>>12163795
the time after you die is as meaningless as the time before you were born, which is to say that as far as you are concerned, the universe blinked into existence the day you were born, and will cease to exist the day that you die, and when your consciousness comes to exist again, the universe will blink into existence from your perspective. we are incapable of percieving non-life, existence is an infinite stream of consciousness. the universe itself could cease to exist, but should the right circumstances arise 10 billion googol years from that point for a new universe to be born, and your consciousness exists in that universe, it will blink into existence as if no time had ever passed.

>>12164095
an abstract conceptual part of the cell structure that cannot be created from nothing. living creatures pass on consciousness to their offspring via sperm and egg cells, living cells that simply merge together to share DNA and then grow into a new creature. no new life is being created by birth, just the extension of current life.

I think we all will be recombined at some point in the future, IF

IF, time is infinite.

>>12164131
Wow an entire paragraph of absolute horseshit

>>12163795
I like the theory about "No time" vs. "zero time

>>12163795
We return to God and do his will.

>>12163795
If the universe truly does have an infinite nature, then that means you could exist again, eventually.

>>12165499
the topic of the thread is horseshit, when the thread is bad I reserve the right to do drugs and post. if you want to contribute, do you consider the act of cell division to be the creation of new life?

>>12163837
>which has no real awareness of itself at all
Maybe it does. You talk awfully big for something you have absolutely zero hard knowledge about.

The redpill is that the universe was born when you woke up this morning and it will be destroyed when you go to sleep.

Vape DMT

>>12163795
>“Death is nothing to us. When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not. All sensation and consciousness ends with death and therefore in death there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of death arises from the belief that in death, there is awareness.”
> - Epicurus

Bros, how do I stop caring deeply about this?, I'm having panic attacks from thinking about this stupidity.
Is it just another form of fear of death? what's the psychology behind this?

>>12163795
Nothing happens, you dipshit.

What happens to your consciousness when you go to sleep? It shuts off. Same thing when you're dead. There's no special afterlife.

>>12165788
>It shuts off.
lol wut?

Consciousness is a spectrum, and in order for one to feel fully awake or conscious, their brain has to be in fully working order. Without a healthy brain, your consciousness cannot arise.

Dead brain = no consciousness.

>>12163795
It dissolves and devolves into that of plants, bugs and rocks. You may think it's a big loss, but what made your consciousness is still there, nothing is lost. A "you" can be raised countless times.

>>12163835
Buddha was pretty spot on I think.

>>12165783
You can always go to /pol/ and brainwash yourself with infantile bible cope. Don't question their stuff though, you'll get threats about "pagans" and kikes getting the rope.

>>12165828
I'm also crept out by the idea of Living forever in "heaven", shit must be boring as fuck.
You didn't answer my original question, I want to stop caring about "what happens after death", I want to be chill like all the people around me that have problems like "my gf won't answer" or "i'm balding", things that are easely fixable.

You were dead before you were born, what did that feel like? It felt like nothing, and then you woke up. Once you're dead again, you'll probably just wake up again.

>>12164119
>the time after you die is as meaningless as the time before you were born
I am so fucking tired of seeing midwit retards repeating this reddit tier bullshit everywhere when the topic of death of brought up

>>12165783
You just have to stop thinking about it. I have been through so many of those panic attacks its the worst feeling of dread I have ever felt about anything and there is no way to think your way out of it. Literally all you can do is take pascals wager and try not to think about it.

>>12165845
Do physical workout, eat garlic and spend time in nature, specially under the sun. Thank me later.

>>12165873
I'm sorry that your magic sky garden isn't real anon

>>12165594
Oh shit we've got an actual self reported expert here

>>12165900
What does some magic sky garden you just made up have to do with the topic are you retarded by any chance?

>>12165891
I work out, I don't eat garlic and I don't spend time under the sun; I'm brown so a deficiency might have something to do with it.

>>12165910
try explaining your disagreement with a statement if you don't want people to make assumptions on why you're being a retarded cunt.

>>12165911
>brown
you have to go back

>>12165921
My disagreement is self evident and the fact that you don't understand it just proves that you are a midwit retard who completely missed the point. Your reply literally made no sense in any context so you need to work on your reading comprehension skills or something.

>>12165924
you too >>>/pol/

>>12165783
Happened to me for the first time in my life last week. Really fucked up my health but I've managed to somewhat wrestle that under control, still have some appetite problems though. I've resorted to doing something I never thought I'd do and I just watch streamers. Their incessant chatter, especially when they're with other people really clears my mind of other thoughts. Don't know how long it'll take for my mind to drift to other things permanently though, still working through it.

>>12165949
>you disagreeing with me means you are stupid and I don't have to explain my reasoning
good argument, very strong, very high quality.

>>12165968
You didn't disagree with me you missed the point completely and then posted some made up off topic bullshit about some magic sky garden that has nothing to do with my post.

>>12165981
maybe if you actually said WHY you disagreed with me, beyond just saying "I disagree, you're stupid", I could give a higher quality statement? are you perhaps autistic? did you fail the sally-anne test as a child? people can't read your mind and intrinsically know what you are thinking.

>>12165992
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

>>12166015
so you failed the sally-anne test then? your initial post is:
>I am so fucking tired of seeing midwit retards repeating this reddit tier bullshit everywhere when the topic of death of brought up
this is not an explanation of your beliefs, just your opinion that my statement is retarded. either back it up or expect more responses calling you an autistic faggot.

>>12166028
Shut up retard I am not interested in debating with some midwit
The fact that you posted this offtopic nonsense just proves my point even further >>12165900

>>12166040
wow so you really are autistic then, low functioning or high functioning?

>>12166046
reported for off-topic reply

>>12166057
get therapy, nobody wants to work with the living embodiment of sheldon cooper.

>>12163795
open indvidualism

>>12166068
I like the concept of open individualism but it does rely on concepts of the soul or at least that consciousness is a universal construct being tapped into in some way

>>12166061
A big bang theory reference? Didn't that shit end years ago are we boomer posting on /sci/ now?

>>12166072
Well I'm certain the consciousness (soul) exists, at least mine. I'm not sure about others but NPCs are probably just confused about consciousness.

Why don't you think consciousness is a universal construct? Certainly the only thing you've ever experienced is your own consciousness, why assume there is anything but?

>>12166098
I feel like consciousness as a construct is a bit of a jump, but it's not like I don't believe it's possible, I've thought about it, it's just not falsifiable. it is a neat concept to think about though, particularly in regards to self-identity. things like memory and sensory information are physical constructs of the brain, so a single consciousness interacting with every living being on earth wouldn't be able to piece together its own existence or even find any evidence of it, beyond what is provided in each individual brain. a universal consciousness in this reality would be living 7 billion different human lives, on top of trillions of lives for lesser creatures, experiencing trillions of different simultaneous, singular "lives" with no way to piece them together or recognize itself for what it is.

makes me wonder what would happen if we invented a true mental singularity that linked people's minds and consciousness' together, what would happen from that.

>>12166107
>falsifiability
You fell for the Jew's meme. Its a retarded crtierion for what counts as a good theory. A better idea is to look at what is the most parsimonious explanation. The thing that solves all the questions you want to ask with minimal assumptions, occams razor is important in this regard. If you think about it for a bit you realize really nothing is falsifiable, even Popper's criterion itself isn't falsifiable. Falsification is a virus that retarded grade 6 (female) science teachers were paid big bucks to inculcate you with.

>Physical constructs
I was stuck on this for a while too before coming to a proper understanding. Why do you assume physical matter exists? You've never seen it, only appearances in consciousness. Open Individualism should be paired with Idealism and not Physicalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_idealism

You are exactly right about the universal consciousness not knowing itself. It's weird how it can piece itself together through thinking about the problem, through philosophy. I know I'm the same person as you right now and as everything else, even if the other things haven't realized it yet.

>>12163803
false equivalence. When the computer goes off the web server and database doesn't also go off. Your analogy assumes that consciousness is stored somewhere in the body, the object itself (the computer), which is a false assertion.

>>12167707
there are some interesting aspects of this point of view, particularly in the context of simulation / quantum universe theories.

>>12165828
hey hey hey hey cunt
what's all this /pol/ hating here?
are you a racist?

>>12163844
This is not what I mean at all. Think about how you came to be? How is it possible that out of nowhere you are suddenly conscious? What process is responsible for this ostensible magic? This is not understood by people in the slightest, and likely never will be. But one thing is for certain. You will always be conscious somewhere, likely in some other body.

>>12167707
when you die the rest of the world keeps on going
>mindblown.jpg

>>12165866
That presumes a holistic state of "unnbeing". Nothing coming before birth is interrupted by a period of life, which changes things because now there's something to be taken away, whereas before you just had nothing.

>>12165788
brainlet.

>>12163803
>implying it won't reemerge eventually

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem

>>12163837
>be alive
>go unconscious
>have absolutely no awareness or experience for the period you're unconscious
>mind still not quantum entangled
>psyche does not teleport to an alternative universe
What is not understood seriously
You are an ongoing chemical reaction, nothing more, you have an ability to process information granted by the function of your member cells
When they die the function halts

>>12164210
so this?
>>12169019

>>12169024
>have absolutely no awareness or experience for the period you're unconscious
the unconscious mind is absolutely present in every moment

>>12169024
>"hurr durr functions end. thats it."

>doesn't factor in the possibility that time is infinite

>doesn't fact in the possibility that the universe may spontaneously collapse after that infinite amount of time and recombine molecules into their exact configuration after an infinite amount of time.

>>12169049
>after an infinite amount of time
See you in x=inf years

>>12169019
lmao 2 penis holding ball

>>12169058
you wouldn't be able to process time while dead, so it will feel instantaneous.

>>12169058
time is an illusory construct. at the speed of light, time functionally does not exist. when you don't exist, time also passes instantaneously from your lack of perspective

>>12165783
for me i lost the sense of impending doom after i read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

I cant recommend it enough

>>12165783
the only thing that scares me is losing my memories of my loved ones. the idea that life repeats is far less scary, but with no way to retain my memories I can't know it will happen.

>>12169049
Probably the dumbest thing ive resd on this website.

>>12169145
how do you cherish something you can't possibly lose?

>>12169229
I'm still going to lose it and have to wait who knows how long to have it back, without the foresight to know it's coming back.

>>12169247
then why worry?

>>12169251
because I don't want to have my memory wiped?

>>12169253
The goal of human life is to preserve memory. This may not be possible, but this is still what we want.

>>12169253
but if your memory wasnt ever going to be wiped then you would have nothing to lose

if you have nothing to lose then not much can be very precious can it?

>>12169264
I don't WANT to lose it

>>12169270
so you want to worry?
thats not very healthy anon you should try some mindfulness

>>12167707
That's an interesting perspective that Tesla has, and in many ways I feel it's true. Though what I'm really tapping into is probably some complex working of my subconscious, and not some universal consciousness.

That said, didn't Alan Turing have somewhat similar ideas about any afterlife?

>>12169272
take your pitpul circular argument autism somewhere else, asshole

>>12169297
>screaming into the wind
again, not healthy
if you're so afraid of death you're not doing a very good job of staving it off im afraid

>>12169305
if you're so at peace with dying, why don't you take a bullet on vacation through your skull? or maybe see what it's like to jump off a 20 story building?

>>12169307
try relaxing your forehead my man

>>12169172

>Probably the dumbest thing ive resd on this website.

>Yet, the retard can't spell.

kek

You couldn't comprehend the post so badly, you stuttered.

>>12165891
Why garlic?

>>12169307
Just because I don't fear death doesn't mean I want to die. Dying in old age sounds fine.

>>12169459
not him but garlic lowers blood pressure among other benefits

>>12163795
Anihilation

>>12163795
THIS --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-= --=-=-=-==-=-=-=

>>12163795
Op is a completely unenlightened trash bag. wow, what a faggot, everyone point and laugh at the spiritually unenlightened faggot everyone, holy shit kid, youre a little fucking queer arnt you, hahahahaha, open up your asshole nigga you pussAY ass bitch faggot

>>12163795
Anyone here who is familiar with "Germany Will Try it Again" by Sigrid Schultz?
We all know about the extension of germanic autism but what if EU is not being controlled by (((them)))
but by eternal germs that try to turn it into 2nd HRE?
Everyone who lurks here long enough knows that joos are not a single faction and even among them
there are various groups of interest.
Globo-homo, US financial elite, Pedowood, Zionists and possibly others more hidden groups and not
to mention many non-jew factions trying to grapple them for power (chink commies for example)
Apparently the raison d'etre for all of South America dictators and juntas were the nazi exiles
trying to recreate the power structure they had in 3rd Reich
If that's the case then WW II never ended. It merely shifted the frontlines.

>>12163795
The reason for the creation of social media was because the elites learned that people would absorb propoganda better
if they interacted eith it, rather than simply viewed it. In social media, the peers and social groups police eachother.
This is how our cukture changed so radically between the creation of myspace to the smartphone era of the mid-2010’s.
After that point, smartphones took over and now everyone was conmected with everyone 24 / 7. This created what is practically
a mass social group. A worldwide hive. And so between roughly 2013 to now you saw explosion in whoredom, 80/20 becoming 99/1,
bullying went wild.

Guess what else went wild?

You know how I can tell youre actually for the mask, you specifically frame your observance of those who dont wear the
mask as suicidal or they dont care about their health, while not making it clear whether you wear the mask or not.

You make significant mention to negative consequences of not wearing the medical mask, as imaginary they may be based
on your own delusional fear mongering.

You display the illusion that you dont like the mask, therefore attempting to creating rapport with people who dont wear
the mask, - but you see cowboy this is where you go wrong, because you dont understand those people, because your an
obiedient little bitch made nigger. People who dont wear the mask arnt emotionally controlled faggots like you,
theyre rational thinkers who can work around the system and call out your bullshit.

Oh no I have to pretend to wear a mask that looks like a hat to fool store security gaurds to get inside,
oh no buddy, im totally freaking out, oh yeah, I certainly care ]-[ that much that you catch me breaking
the rules, when the truth is I care more to be a role model in not wearing the mask, especially, coz of, you know,
exemptions by law, you stupid douchebag.

I cannot begin to describe how stupid your people are. Tell your handlers to hire new yes men.

>>12163795
you get the mesage op, you little faggot, we dont take kindly to your trash here

>>12163795
how many times we gotta see this same topic over and over again, whos paying you to do this, who put you up to this, is it the Chinese, the Russians, the corrupt faction in the U.S., ARE THEY THREATENING YOU DO TO THIS? ARE THEY THREATENING YOUR FAMILY? YOURE GUNNA FUCKING TELL ME ONE WAY OR ANOTHER YOU LITTLE RAT SHILL, YOU FUCKING GOT IT PAL?

You see you might be able to fool the rest of these cocksuckers here but I keep an eye on you and I remember many things and take note of them and rationalize it all -

Tell me who youre working for. Tell me why they put you up to this, to post this shit like on a weekly basis, and youre going to fucking tell me whether its the Chinese, the fucking Russians, or the Corrupt faction in the U.S., or whatever fucking COCKGOBLIN youre fucking working for you piece of dog shit, remember, we're fucking onto you pal, the next time I see this thread, youre getting the same treatment you pile of foreign rat shit

>>12169799
Checked
And

Rekt

>>12169806
Weew lad

Take ur meds schitzo lmao

>>12169808
Nice

>>12169790
>guess what else went wild

I give up. Check these dubs fagit

>>12167715
>>12169296
Here is the science enjoy the rabbit hole
https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

>>12169826
Tldr

>>12163795
Your consciousness resides in your brain. When you die, the matter is chemically converted and the leftover heat and electricity will dissipate as radiation. In the end the components of your consciousness are still there, but have reached such a disorganized state that the illusion of the discrete "you" will not be maintained. The parts remain, but the consciousness is utterly destroyed.

>>12163795
Consciousness is a byproduct of the brain. When we die, we cease to exist forever. Well...our consciousness ceases to exist forever but our physical body will become worm food, etc.

>>12169850
And can you therefore manipulate this radioactive energy as you please?

>>12163795
What happens to your consciousness when you are asleep or knocked unconscious?

>>12165779
This is such bullshit, I LIKE being alive, I don't want to not exist

>>12163795
No one can know anything about anything ever.

>>12169832
filtered, JUST

>>12169874
No, the energy in your brain was maintained, confined, and generated by the physical media of the brain. When the physical media fails, the energy dissipates as radiation.

>>12169459
Also I heard it is an old wives tale to keep ticks/mosquitos from bothering you.

>>12169902
It's ok anon, your brain will flood with chemicals before you die and you will accept it.

>>12164095
If you didn't have some level of prebirth consciousness, how do you explain instinct?

>>12164119
>the time after you die is as meaningless as the time before you were born, which is to say that as far as you are concerned, the universe blinked into existence the day you were born, and will cease to exist the day that you die.
Beginning and End are not meaningless, though, you are still assigning values to those periods you claim are meaningless..

>>12169954
A very small portion of this plane is physical matter. I find it hard to believe that the physical is the only guiding factor for this energy.

>>12165866
>what did that feel like? It felt like nothing
Your first orgasm feels like nothing now too, does that mean it didn't exist?

>>12166098
>Certainly the only thing you've ever experienced is your own consciousness
He has never experienced anything else in the universe's consciousness, so why should he assume anything else in the universe is conscious?

>>12167752
>How is it possible that out of nowhere you are suddenly conscious?
That is not what happens, you start with a minimal level of consciousness and expand upon that with experience, but you aren't born with the full range of awareness as what you have accumulated up until this point and there are chances you can loses some level of consciousness based on trauma like blunt force to the brain or the aging process and slowed cell replication.

>>12169272
>so you want to worry?
If you lose all your memories you will still have to worry because you won't be able to predict cause and effect and any future outcome would be unknowable and uncomfortable.
Its obvious you have never known someone with dementia if you think losing your memory means losing your anxiety..

>>12169468
>Just because I don't fear death doesn't mean I want to die
The fact that you aren't comfortable doing something definitely implies some level of fear or fear of the consequences.

I opened this thread and dreaded to see what I would find, but I found it anyway, exactly the way I predicted it; some materialist morons rambling with their putative hypotheses about consciousness, some schizophrenics talking about Boltzmann brains and entanglement, ect. This is why science is failing—this is why information entropy is actually a thing happening in real life, where energy is continually used up and rapidly approaching thermal equilibrium every plank instant. Every thought, every vibration of every particle, allows the eventual and inevitable heat death of the universe to come ever closer. You absolute fools wasting our ever-shrinking time on this world is one of the reasons I wish I was never born.

Nevertheless, I shall waste the relative infinitesimal that is a few minutes of my dwindling and wretched life to write a post for this thread:

Consciousness is not a computation, and hence isn’t limited to simple material holistic interpretations where the combination and permutation of molecular structures creates choice or thought, of the ‘illusion’ of choice or thought. Instead, Consciousness is a type of phenomenon that is fundamental to Observers, where everything is some type of Consciousness, but in different levels of being Conscious. A photon is conscious in that it is continually superpositioned within all of anti-desitter space, which is what a photon experiencing ‘no time’ at lightspeed really means in Special Relativity. Quantum Mechanics also shows a similar example—the Quantum Zeno Effect; observation can slow down or speed up the decay, and therefore the entropy, of an atom, or an entire entangled sub-system; even empty regions of space, as boundaries in M-Theory can also be entangled.

Essentially, conscious observers can choose when to observe, and observation can delay or even halt entropy by making an isolated system into a non-isolated system; destroying any causal paths that would increase entropy.

>>12170048
This destruction of certain causal paths is what is called ‘unitarity’ in QM, where information is always conserved.

Essentially, observation and therefore consciousness is needed for information to be conserved. Look it up.

>>12169078
based

>>12169850
>>12169954
>When you die, the matter is chemically converted and the leftover heat and electricity will dissipate as radiation
How is your consciousness aware of this when it has no direct awareness of its own chemical and electrical structure and why can't it just internalize a perpetual self contained set of its own memories and constructs that last for its own internalized eternity during the brain's swan song of final electrical seizure like mass neural firing activities?

Anyone who is really concerned with losing their consciousness forever should write a book or keep a journal. Mark Twain and Charles Dickens are still alive in their writings. They can't learn from others but their minds are still present in a fashion. Even if your journal doesn't become world famous your family my read it or it could be passed down and discovered as a moment in history. Or maybe you'll actually become an author if you tried. Either way, if your afraid of dieing I think doing some writing in your space time would help.

>>12169019
>Life is infinite, just as matter can’t be destroyed, only transformed.

Such a non-sequitur. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, NOR borrowed.

Matter being “borrowed” indicates causality, which indicates time; however in order for causality to actually take affect there needs to be an observer observing the system. The reason why Black Hole interiors are so weird is because they’re Unobservable, you just get squashed at the event horizon because of the time dilation—not length contraction, that doesn’t exist as noted by Einstein’s original papers in 1907—time dilation.

In order for LIFE to be borrowed or transformed, an observer must be present; something to VIOLATE entropy by introducing information that turns an isolated system into a non-isolated system.

That observer is God. Considering that the prime Observer can only be the true infinite (what cantor called the ‘true infinite’) then all subsequent ‘transfinites’ must be finite in some uncomputable—but finite—cardinal.

Life is not truly infinite. It begins, and ends, but it can be continued by the prime observer—God.

That’s exactly what the Bible says.

>>12170061
The materialist can deflect via the Wigner-Neumann interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, where Consciousness cannot be in a superposition—and therefore cannot experience ‘infinite’ time dilation.

Of course, I do not agree with this at all. The resulting ‘electrical’ seizure at death is only due the malfunction of hardware, not consciousness itself—indeed, consciousness is not an emergent phenomenon like a checksum in some fundamental program that is running behind a curtain in some alien’s basement, and even if it was I do not think we could infinitely dilate our consciousness because consciousness destroys linear time, as noted by the quantum zeno effect and the delayed choice quantum eraser.

Look it up. Special relativity is the view of the world via the infinitely superpositioned photon, something that consciousness cannot ‘fit’ into.

>>12163795

Haven't read this but heard about it on a podcast today:


The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life Hardcover – May 12, 2015
by Sheldon Solomon (Author), Jeff Greenberg (Author), Tom Pyszczynski (Author)

Review
“The idea that nearly all human individual and cultural activity is a response to death sounds far-fetched. But the evidence the authors present is compelling and does a great deal to address many otherwise intractable mysteries of human behaviour. This is an important, superbly readable and potentially life-changing book. . . . The lesson contained within The Worm at the Core suggests one should confront mortality in order to live an authentic life, as the Epicureans and the Stoics suggested many centuries ago.”—The Guardian (U.K.)

“A neat fusion of ideas borrowed from sociology, anthropology, existential philosophy and psychoanalysis . . . [The] sweep-it-under-the-carpet approach to death is facile and muddle-headed. More than that, it has consequences more far-reaching than we could possibly imagine because, as [the authors] see it, death informs practically every aspect of human existence. From the way we organise our societies to the moral codes we live by, even down to how we have sex and what rituals and emotions we ascribe to it, death is the bedrock.”—The Herald (U.K.)

“Deep, important, and beautifully written, The Worm at the Core describes a brilliant and utterly original program of scientific research on a force so powerful that it drives our lives, but so frightening that we cannot think clearly about it. This book asks us to, compels us to, and then shows us how—by shining the light of reason on the heart of human darkness.”—Daniel Gilbert, Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, and author

>>12170094
>where Consciousness cannot be in a superposition
No, The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement which means that it is impossible for consciousness to cease since observation is a necessary part of your universe.

>>12170094
>he resulting ‘electrical’ seizure at death is only due the malfunction of hardware
How can a malfunction be the standard common procedure for death in all brains? It seems like that is the way a dying brain is intended to function.

>>12170116
Did you seriously just copy and paste from the Wikipedia article? The main thought-experiment formulated by Wigner, called ‘Wigner’s Friend’ shows how Consciousness cannot be within a Superposition. Imagine a cat in a box that hasn’t been observed, with an atom that will randomly decay, which would in turn break some poison which would kill the cat.

Is the cat dead or alive?

Let’s say that the cat is within a superposition, and a man, called Wigner, enters the room but does not observe the cat—him and the cat are entangled, ready to collapse to uniform states when observed.

But then imagine someone is observing Wigner, called Wigner’s friend, and also observing the room that Wigner is in.

It is not possible that Wigner’s friend is the person causing Wigner to collapse, because that would cause decoherence of the entire system; Wigner’s friend, Wigner, and the Cat included.

This only shows one available option—Conscious observers cannot be in a superposition.

>>12170121
Eventually, given enough time, a “malfunction” will happen within a brain given that it is very fragile, and not that greatly endowed.

>>12170041
I'm not afraid to go to bed, doesn't mean I want to do it the moment I wake up. I have shit to do.

>>12170128
That is how the brain appears to be intended to function when other organs fail, though.

>>12163795

God is omniscient and knows every thought we have had. Knowing every thought we have had is the same as being you, similar to sci-fi stories where people copy their minds onto a computer. So you exist eternally as an aspect of God's consciousness. (All this only works with a block theory of time though.)

>>12169024
Yes, but the question is what *you* feel when *you* stop existing. Whenever you go unconscious, you only know you were unconscious because you logically deduce it after you wake up. Otherwise, time when unconscious passes practically infinitely quickly. However, when you die, you do not return to consciousness and so cannot deduce that you were unconscious. If your consciousness is transported to a different dimension or life, you will wake up instantly after dying. Otherwise, as I thought in the post you quoted, you remain at the exact point of your death because there is no way for the consciousness to go back to memories (since it is effectively non-existent at that point,) nor is it possible to think further on the current emotions (as, again, thought is not possible.) As I said earlier in this post, you are only aware that you were unconscious after you return to consciousness, so you cannot be aware of that, either. Hence, only one option remains: that you remain in the exact emotional state you were in at the moment you died.

>>12170133
So because you have FOMO, you think you aren't afraid of death?

>>12170138
If the brain is “intended” to function that way, then so be it.

A malfunction can be intended to happen on purpose, maybe a punishment perhaps? I thought I read about something like that in Genesis...

>>12170123
>Conscious observers cannot be in a superposition.
What about when they are only observing their own internal consciousness and all your worries about indirect or secondary observation are meaningless since they aren't observing the same outside universe as the other observers, but they are the only ones left to observe what remains of their own consciousness.

>>12170148
Then if it can malfunction, why can't it malfunction in regards to perception of time and the internal dilation of failing external sensation?

>>12170147
I don't fear missing out, being awake is preferable to asleep not out of fear. Just like being alive is preferable to death not out of fear .I don't jolt out of bed terrified I may sleep in.

>>12170154
Observation cannot be based on infinite regression. If you could just “observe” yourself into being, by “observing” yourself arbitrarily without an outside observer—and consciousness can indeed be in a superposition like you are indicating, then we have no way out of a vicious cycle of superpositions collapsing from self-observation.

Let’s grant your hypothesis. Conscious observers CAN be in a superposition. How does the system of Wigner’s friend, Wigner, and the Cat NOT instantly undergo decoherence? We don’t find that happen in reality, so either Consciousness has NO effect in QM, or Consciousness cannot be put into a superposition. The former is obviously wrong given experimental evidence from other areas—such as the Quantum Zeno Effect and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser.

>>12170163
Because Consciousness is not based in material phenomena.

>>12165788
Wait until you hear about lucid dreams lol.

>>12165783
I wouldn't sweat over it anon if there was nothing before you were born, how come you're here right now? same goes after you die, our safest bet is to live a moral and fulfilling life and hopefully the consciousness will transcend. I know it sounds like mumbo jumbo but this is purely a spiritual matter and applying any scientific reasoning always goes into a dead end because we just don't understand the brain completely.

>>12170165
>I don't fear missing out
So if you fail to do all the shit you have to do and you slept for 80 hours straight instead there won't be distressing consequences that were worthy of dreading?

> Just like being alive is preferable to death not out of fear
Wrong, nothing is perfect, your parents did you a huge disservice by plucking you from the precipice of perfection and binding you to a decaying organic defect that is destined to fail and die.

>.I don't jolt out of bed terrified I may sleep in
Not even if you realize your alarm didn't go off and you are going to be late and miss out on whatever was important enough to set an alarm?

>>12170174
>>12170174
But what are morals but just rules made by society, inculcated into us during our childhood? I think we stick to morals because of it's importance as stressed in childhood (good things and bad things) as well as the pleasure (as caused by how our brain works) of being in a group, while also wanting to maintain the group and make it progress to overcome obstacles and enemies like other groups.

>>12170182
>Wrong, nothing is perfect, your parents did you a huge disservice by plucking you from the precipice of perfection and binding you to a decaying organic defect that is destined to fail and die.
Holy fuck what a brainlet take, where was "I" plucked from? There was no I being made to exist. How could I have known "perfection" as a none existent entity you absolute retard? Your idea of lose, perfection, want fear etc all REQUIRES your current existence and you think you'll find "peace" and "rest" in none existence? Go back to fucking R nihilism you david benatar reading midwit.

>>12170168
>If you could just “observe” yourself into being
Your consciousness constantly reforms itself by observing itself, though, otherwise it would be impossible for you to change your mind. How much observation would it take to build a complete internal model of a basic day in the life?

> we have no way out of a vicious cycle of superpositions collapsing from self-observation
That is what I just described in >>12170061 when at some point you can not take in new sensation and are stuck with all that you have accumulated over your life, but that still has so many permutations that you could try different combination perpetually without realizing anything is missing.

>>12170188
The anon you replied to is just stupid, my friend.

The Nihilistic defense against this is just, “it doesn’t matter bro, we’re all just biological machines born to die bro and we’re just here to suffer bro.”

It is honestly pathetic. Death has already been overcome by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Look it up.

>>12170193
I actually agree with you about Jesus even if you're taking the piss but even form a none religious stand point that kind of nihilist rhetoric is fucking retarded.

>>12170192
>Your consciousness constantly reforms itself by observing itself, though, otherwise it would be impossible for you to change your mind. How much observation would it take to build a complete internal model of a basic day in the life?
Way to go absolutely dodging my question on how that system escapes decoherence, but whatever.

You are showing your bias by assuming you’re actually the one doing the observation. How do you know that you aren’t just being observed by some other person, or some photons, or some regions of empty space who are constantly entangled with you? What if you’re entangled with versions of yourself from different periods of time? Ect. This just gets into absolutely stupid metaphysical discussions when it really shouldn’t. Either consciousness can be in a superposition or it can’t. If we only ‘Observe’ ourselves then what originally started that superposition, and what originally collapsed it? Are you seriously going to say that we violate causality and therefore information conservation just by existing and observing ourselves?

> That is what I just described in >>12170061 # when at some point you can not take in new sensation and are stuck with all that you have accumulated over your life, but that still has so many permutations that you could try different combination perpetually without realizing anything is missing.

That is absolutely not what I was trying to get at whatsoever. You’re talking about infinite conscious experiences, but I’m talking about the infinite amount of regresses that would take to actually form those experiences in the first place. Either consciousness can be in a superposition, or it can’t. We can’t ‘collapse’ our own superposition by ‘Observing’ ourselves because that would create an infinite regress which is logically impossible.

>>12170195
Based

>>12170188
>where was "I" plucked from?
Nothing, the highest state of perfection.

> There was no I being made to exist. How could I have known "perfection"
You were nothing and only nothing is perfect, you don't need to know nothing and as something you can't know nothing and must be nothing to know nothing and you lost that privilege because you had selfish parents who wanted more at the expense of your experience of nothing.

> Your idea of lose
You can't lose nothing, if you have something, its because you were deprived of nothing from the very beginning of your existence by greedy people who wanted something from you and named you in hopes of acquiring something else they were missing.

>you think you'll find "peace" and "rest" in none existence?
No nothing is perfect, not peaceful or restful, not fearful or painful since neither will be necessary as nothing is perpetual in the self contained oneness of it own nothingness.

>>12163803
Yeah but all the data is still there able to be recovered and the computer can start right back up. Really bad analogy.

>>12170205
>I know that nothing is perfect by using my human brain to rationalize this that I just admitted was imperfect by virtue of being brought into existence
Uh huh.

>>12170202
>If we only ‘Observe’ ourselves then what originally started that superposition, and what originally collapsed it?
I already stated it could be caused by the death of the brain and swan song of electrical activity acting upon the final state of a brain that is ceasing all biological function in favor of various esoteric quantum functions.

> because that would create an infinite regress which is logically impossible
Most of the internal ideations of the brain are not logically or physically possible outside of that imagined context, but can still make perfect sense to the internalized worldview.

>>12170215
>I already stated it could be caused by the death of the brain and swan song of electrical activity acting upon the final state of a brain that is ceasing all biological function in favor of various esoteric quantum functions.
I would say that what you just said there was word-salad, but considering the level of rhetoric we are bantering at right now I won’t really scrutinize you for it, considering that it’s essentially really easy to understand once you read it correctly.

First off, you ignored basically everything I said except for the part you quoted—again, the brain being able to replicate infinite time-dilation already presupposes that consciousness can be in a superposition. You are arguing in a circle, where an infinite regress is started with another infinite regress. Again,

How does the superposition of consciousness form for the first time?

How does this superposition collapse for the first time?

If you think both of these questions have a finite answer, then your entire argument is void; considering that if consciousness has a starting superposition, how does that superposition come into being? How does that superposition not make everything around it undergo decoherence as in the example of Wigner’s friend?

>Most of the internal ideations of the brain are not logically or physically possible outside of that imagined context, but can still make perfect sense to the internalized worldview.

So now you’re arguing that human rationality is flawed, and a priori knowledge in specific cases doesn’t actually constitute as knowledge? That’s extremely strange of you to say that, considering that the entire level of discourse we’re at right now is heavily reliant on Quantum theory—which is formally written in mathematics, which does not constitute as empirical knowledge whatsoever.

Infinite regresses have lots of philosophical and mathematical problems.

>>12170210
If nothing isn't perfect and they are two separate mutually exclusive things, then what thing is nothing and what other thing is perfect?
Reasoning doesn't have to be perfect to produce the best results and be the best explanation.
How does you saying that even human rationalization is inherently flawed disprove that nothing is perfect?
How does our imperfect existence imply anything, rather than nothing, is perfect?

>>12170235
I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that nothing is perfect from an imperfect point of view, this doesn't disprove what you believe but also shows it can't be proven. I don't see how a human being can call something it can not experience "perfect" nothing by nature of being nothing/none existent means it also can not be perfect as perfect is something your existing brain has come up with as quality and I have no idea how you did so and how it isn't just an arbitrary feeling rather than objective fact. You clearly hold it as such as you put blame on your parents for wronging you which would require that they did something objectively bad, but their point of view of bringing you into existence as good is just as valid as yours as its arbitrary so I think you're a retard. I also fail to see why you are hear typing to me and not dead and once again made perfect in nothing if you see it as such.

>>12170234
>the brain being able to replicate infinite time-dilation already presupposes that consciousness can be in a superposition. You are arguing in a circle, where an infinite regress
Its not technically infinite since the set of memories and experience you have had are finite, its just infinite internally to the brain. Just like the set of floating point numbers eventually wraps, but from the perspective of the pointer, it is just infinitely incrementing to create a new state unaware of its own upper limit and loops.

>How does the superposition of consciousness form for the first time?
Birth begins the brain's looping process of sensory input, Internalization, and forward feedback.
>How does this superposition collapse for the first time?
Brain begins biological death and stops getting external sensory input and starts making all of its own electrical input to bounce around the feedback loops for every amount of time the brain can possibly experience while it is in the throws of its swan song.

It isn't experiencing time in the same way, it is forever locked into that final seizure of electrical activity where every possibility is internally modeled, but there very well may be some information loss as there is always even sensory input information lost in the process of observation.

>heavily reliant on Quantum theory
No, it is mostly explainable through quantum theory, but quantum theory came long after actual observation a scientific theory is reliant on the observation, not the other way around.

>>12170243
>from an imperfect point of view
If even every single perspective is inherently imperfect and there is no possibility of observing anything perfect, then how could you conclude anything rather than nothing is perfect?

>I don't see how a human being can call something it can not experience "perfect"
The same way we can say .9... = 1, if the definitions and patterns are exactly the same, then there is inherent sameness in the things being observed.
If the only thing that matches the concept of perfection is nothingness, then there is no other conclusion that can be drawn until evidence to the contrary is available and I am willing to judge your evidence that something is perfect because I understand everything has flaws including my own logic.

> You clearly hold it as such as you put blame on your parents for wronging you
Technically, I blamed your parents for creating such an imperfect monster.

>they did something objectively bad
Something is objectively bad ie imperfect given that only nothing is perfect.

>not dead and once again made perfect in nothing if you see it as such.
Its too late to be nothing after you have been something, being dead is being dead not being nothing, the only truly perfect being is one that never existed since every other one has flaw, this is probably why God must exist and is nothing.

>>12170249
>Its not technically infinite since the set of memories and experience you have had are finite, its just infinite internally to the brain. Just like the set of floating point numbers eventually wraps, but from the perspective of the pointer, it is just infinitely incrementing to create a new state unaware of its own upper limit and loops.
I think we’re talking on two completely different levels, considering you are thinking that consciousness actually begins it’s observation of itself once it gains self-awareness, but if consciousness were actually able to be in a superposition, then something would need to collapse it first to actually come into a concrete mode of being. Something would of observed you by necessity for you to come into being, so you could ‘observe yourself’, which would eventually mean that something would need to observe the thing that observed you, which ‘observed’ itself, ect. You get another infinite regress on top of everything you just said.

>Birth begins the brain's looping process of sensory input, Internalization, and forward feedback.
Birth collapses Consciousness’ Wavefunction? Really? I find that hard to believe.

Not to mention, but you basically ignored everything having to deal with Wigner’s friend. You never answered my questions relating to that.

>Brain begins biological death.

So apparently the superposition that is your consciousness begins when you are born, and collapses when you die? Then what happens in between? What’s stopping instant decoherence? Just by ‘observing’ yourself like you think happens, the wavefunction should collapse instantly. Your entire view makes 0 sense.

> No, it is mostly explainable through quantum theory, but quantum theory came long after actual observation a scientific theory is reliant on the observation, not the other way

QM is really had in the observation department. We don’t have the technology to create experiments for Quantum Gravity or whatever.

>>12170260
Birth creates*

Not collapses.

>>12170258
Again you've yet to show me how nothing is perfect, I need you to prove to me empirically that something that doesn't exist is perfect. In fact go ahead and define perfection for me and prove to me what it is and that it is objective.

Until you do that your entire world view is adhoc and there for any world view is valid including yours and mines parents and this dialogue is pointless.

>>12170035
dementia affects more than just memory, and worrying about things you have no control over is simply self-torture

at least regret can somewhat function as part of a vehicle for learning from past mistakes

but worrying about what the future could bring? you might as well start smoking a pack a day lmao.

>>12170268
To be perfect is to be in a state of perfection.
Perfection is a state without flaw.
Nothing has no flaws.
Nothing is without flaw.
Nothing is perfect.

0=0
Any flaw is a nonzero value.
The only state with a non zero flaw value is nothing.

Prove anything has zero flaws.
You have nearly infinite things besides nothing to choose from, so it should be easy to find just one physical thing that is perfectly flawless.

>>12163811
literally this
if you measure something constantly, then according to quantum mechanics it can't change.
consciousness is what happens when a thing starts constantly measuring itself.
hence eternal life.

see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFeeVkpHTWA&feature=youtu.be&t=692

>>12170271
>worrying about things you have no control over is simply self-torture
When you have progressive dementia, you can't assess what you can control and what you can't because you don't have the prior information necessary to make that assessment including regret and learning, so it can creates a lot of unease and anxiety.

>>12170272
Nothing is null, nothing doesn't fit the criteria of flawless as for something to be flawless it needs to be "some"thing not nothing. Your reasoning is circular and defeats itself from the get go, you are making nothing tangible in which case it is no longer nothing. In fact to even ascribe perfection to it makes it no longer nothing but perfection. You're a Sophist who uses logic and rhetoric when it suits you then hides away in the non existent and arbitrary to stop yourself form being cornered.

>>12170081

>>12170281
whats your point? i mean this thread is clearly full of demented people (myself included) but not to that extent. The topic is death, not nursing home purgatory

>>12170283
>Nothing is null
True, as are the flaws in nothing given a null value is even more definitive than a zero value since they totally aren't the same thing.

> flawless it needs to be "some"thing not nothing
>flaw·less
>/ˈflôləs/
>adjective
>adjective: flawless
>without any blemishes or imperfections; perfect.
I don't see any requirement saying that nothing can't be flawless, you just made that up, what fatal flaw does nothing have given nothing can't die?

>you are making nothing tangible
No I am not I am saying everything tangible is imperfect and nothing is perfect precisely because it has no form or physical material. I am saying nothing is perfect in order to make nothing into a state of perfection, not trying to turn it into something, your flawed mind simply can't comprehend nothing because it is filled with so many imperfect superfluous other things.

Feel free to try to corner nothing if you think its so easy to catch.

>>12170300
>To be perfect is to be in a state of perfection.
To quote you. Now explain to me how nothing can be "in a state"?

>>12170283
>You're a Sophist
Also deifying nothing is the apex of Nihilism, it has nothing to do with a Sophist since I am saying there are many things in the universe besides myself and nothing, but everything that isn't nothing is flawed to some degree.

I'm a paid up member of Alcor.

If resurrection is possible, I will tell your descendants what happens after death.

>>12170307
Oh but it does, to quote Plato's dialogue on "The sophist"
>It is plausible then, that ‘things that are not (appearing and seeming) somehow are’

Explain to me how nothing can be "in a state" of perfection without it no longer being nothing?

>>12170304
The Nil State
A state of nothing, I can't compare it to anything else because everything else is something and every thing is flawed, which is why nothing is the only perfect state, everything else is flawed, and I have no way to describe the perfect state of nothing through imperfectly flawed metaphors or other things any of us flawed being could relate to.

>>12170312
I can't if a full explanation could be applied to nothing, it wouldn't be nothing, I would be explaining something and the more completely I tried to explain it, the more incoherent the explanation would appear because it would no longer be nothing, but some random thing that was partially imperfectly explained.

>>12170315
>a state of nothing
Okay
>everything else is flawed which is why nothing is perfect
How did you make this leap? Once again you have made nothing "perfect" it is no longer "nothing" and because it is no longer "nothing" it is no longer "perfect".

>>12170318
Exactly, so you are stuck with always making nothing something meaning you can't have nothing held as perfect as it will always be something to make sense of it. Your position is incoherent and there for nothing more than a belief based on faulty logic (which you admit) making your position no greater or lesser than others.

>>12170321
>How did you make this leap?
Due to my inherent flaws, I am willing to consider that there might be some material thing that is perfect and nobody has yet to offer up anything from a near infinite set of possible things.

>>12170321
>Once again you have made nothing "perfect" it is no longer "nothing"
Perfection is not defined by what it positively has, but what it lacks, since nothing is defined by the lack of everything including flaws, it is by definition the only thing that perfectly fits the definition of perfection.

>>12170323
The state of perfection is not a thing, it is a state with a complete lack of things, ie flaws.

>>12170323
Al you have to do then, is point to one material thing that is perfect and prove that perfection is an actual thing rather than nothing.

>>12170329
Could I not define perfection as "positively having no flaws?" perfection still requires SOMETHING to be in a STATE of perfection, nothing nullifies perfection as it does everything, it makes no sense to excuse the STATE of perfection from nothings "infinite" grasp without having made it something.

>>12170334
Perfection would be something rather than nothing by definition, you're arguing for the immaterial using material things as a measure has been my point this whole time, that is sophistry.

>>12163795
This: >>12163803

Our consciousness just stops, it's as simple as that

>>12170339
>Could I not define perfection as "positively having no flaws?"
How does that change its relationship to nothing?
Null is not positive, you can't have a positive zero value, its is neither positive nor negative, it is perfectly zero and nothing has no units.

>nothing nullifies perfection as it does everything
Nothing doesn't nullify anything the only thing that nullifies something is its negative value and nothing again is neither negative or positive.

>it makes no sense to excuse the STATE of perfection from nothings "infinite" grasp
Then what thing is perfect and how is nothing with flaw?
It is a measurement based on definition, no thing is perfect and nothing is without flaw, so nothing must be the same thing as perfection if you can't measure a flaw in nothing and that is the state of perfection by definition..

Prove that any thing can achieve the state of perfection rather than nothing being capable or that.
Conversely prove that nothing has fatal flaws and can't be perfect.

If you can't demonstrate either or any difference between a perfect thing and nothing, you must assume perfection is the same as nothing by definition.

>>12170347
The idea of perfection requires nothing to be something, if all was nothing there would be no idea of perfection or state of perfection. To even begin to argue the merit of nothing, something and perfection REQUIRES existence of something unless you can prove to me that the idea of perfection would exist in none existence which is impossible. It seems to me that this "perfection" of none existence required existence for it to even have existed. Its circular, it comes from the use of imperfect logic from existence it makes no logical or rational sense as a world view as it requires the use of existing logic to become aware of it.

>If you can't demonstrate either or any difference between a perfect thing and nothing, you must assume perfection is the same as nothing by definition.
Why must I assume that? definitions by virtue of existing become imperfect yet some how can be used to define perfect?

>>12170368
>The idea of perfection requires nothing to be something
Ok, but perfection in practice does not require that and nothing doesn't care about your feelings or ideas, if all was nothing there would be no flaws at all even in your feeling, argument of or idea of perfection because they would actually be nothing and just as perfect as nothing in practice rather than in your flawed ideas where you can't even comprehend not trying to assign a value of something to nothing.

> It seems to me that this "perfection" of none existence required existence for it to even have existed.
It only seems that way to you because you are something and you can't even comprehend nothing because the flaws run so deep in your material being that even nothing needs to be brought down you your level of somethingness.

>it requires the use of existing logic to become aware of it.
No, the use of existing logic only creates an imperfect model of it in your brain and nothing doesn't have any means to allow it to care about your personal model nothing.

Nothing needs no logic it doesn't have anything, it is nothing, you need logic because you are flawed and can't even comprehend nothing.

>Why must I assume that?
To be logically consistent, if you can simply discard the idea of logical consistency, good job, you are on the path to believing in nothing, if you believe you need to be logically consistent to believe existence is coherent, that is how you must prove two things are different and not equivalent.

>>12170383
How can I use imperfect logic and reasoning to know perfection? How can I define perfection when definitions are imperfect because they exist?

How can I be logically consistent by disregarding the idea of logical consistency? You act as if disregarding logical consistency is some how a logic move how did you come to that conclusion without using logic?

>>12165911
Have you tried not being brown?

>>12170184
Not the anon you were responding to, but unirionically the Golden Rule is golden. Empathy and all that. Whether those values can extend to, and be valued by, a hypothetical 12th dimension omni-consciousness that makes humans look like amoebas, who's to say? Although I think there's a discussion there.

>>12170387
>How can I use imperfect logic and reasoning to know perfection?
Can you know pain or love just because you know all the synonyms for pain or love?
Also you are the one saying perfection is not nothing, so you under your logical framework, should be able to point to a perfect thing and its the only thing that has been asked of you to prove your point yet you failed to produce a single perfect thing among a near infinity of things for hours now implying only nothing is perfect which is why you are trying to prove that nothing is actually a things which is failing miserable since it is by definition no thing.

Perfect is not defined additively by what is added to a state, it is defined reductively through the removal of things like flaws. Flaws are easy to define since everything has flaw given everything is in a state of decay and decomposition.

>How can I be logically consistent by disregarding the idea of logical consistency?
You don't, you get closer to nothing by discard ideas that aren't necessarily working for you, you are the only one saying something is possibly perfect and implying that means logical consistency has merit, but can't prove it with any sort of perfect logical consistency or a single perfect thing.

>disregarding logical consistency is some how a logic move
No I am saying you can't use logical consistency to prove anything is perfect because nothing is perfect and everything and every logic has its flaws.

I am welcoming you to prove me wrong and hoping for some evidence that something is perfect and will disprove my observation that nothing is perfect.

>>12170398
I could literally make the exact same argument you have but replace nothing with god and it would work by your own logic.

You are asking me to define perfection when you yourself have said by virtue of existing my definition and what ever I point to will be flawed but some how your definition and what you point to are outside of this truth because? If I can't define perfection because I'm flawed neither can you. You have said within your world view anything that exists is flawed and short of perfection now explain to me how you or I could ever know perfection is nothing under such a world view? At the most we'll have to settle on "we can't" in which case its arbitrary.

I'll humour you, god is perfect by virtue of veing god , you as a human can't possibly understand his perfection and any attempt to do so will be tainted by your imperfection because the flaws run so deep in your materiel being that God needs to be brought down to your level.

>>12170398
You've also told me I can't comprehend nothing as I am something so how is it you keep telling me what nothing is in relation to existing even going so far as to call it perfection if its incomprehensible? Are you some how able to comprehend it where I can not even though you too exist?

>>12163795

Welcome to your life
There's no turning back
Even while we sleep
We will find you
Acting on your best behaviour
Turn your back on mother nature
Everybody wants to rule the world
It's my own design
It's my own remorse
Help me to decide
Help me make the most
Of freedom and of pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world

>>12170053

>>12170412
>I could literally make the exact same argument you have but replace nothing with god and it would work by your own logic.
Then you would just be finding out that your god is nothing by my logic since proving that doesn't take anything away from the equality of nothing and perfection.

>You are asking me to define perfection
I never said any such thing, perfection is a concept that already exists and is well defined, you keep trying to redefine it because you can't make your point otherwise and can't point to any perfect thing besides nothing that fits the very simple definition.

>explain to me how you or I could ever know perfection is nothing under such a world view?
We can't know perfection and we can't know nothing (just like we can't know .9... and we can't actually know 1), but we can deduce whether or not they define the same thing or whether there is a way to uncouple their definitive properties.

> could ever know perfection is nothing under such a world view?
We can't experience nothing and we can't experience perfection, so we can know they are categorical equivalents and in the same realm of reality far removed from our own experiences, but we can deduce they are the same based on our own inability to reach either of those states unless you can prove that some thing is perfect or that no thing is the same as some thing.

>You have said within your world view anything that exists is flawed and short of perfection
No I have said until you can find something perfect, everything I have observed is imperfect and I am gladly waiting to be disproven since I know how flawed logic can be given the definition of nothing that no thing is the only thing that can possibly fit the definition of perfection other than things like god that can not be measured, but can also be assigned the value of null as you asserted earlier.

>you as a human can't possibly understand his perfection
Agreed, god is nothing and our understanding of god equates to nothing.

>>12170439
>perfection is a concept that already exists and is well defined
>We can't know perfection and we can't know nothing
>We can't experience nothing and we can't experience perfection
We can't experience it, and we can't know it. Yet somehow we can define it as perfection. This is retarded and you know that. Its 4am here and I'm going to bed. I genuinly urge you to read Plato's "the sophist" in hopes that you see where and how you're using logic and reason to try and argue we can't know logic and reason there for we can logically reason something is nothing.

>>12170425
>how is it you keep telling me what nothing is in relation to existing
By definition, just because you can't experience what it is to remove everything that makes you something until you are nothing doesn't mean that can't be abstractly modeled to find that if you removed everything you would be without flaw and perfect by definition.

I don't perfectly comprehend it because things keep getting in the way, but the closer I get to thinking about purely nothing, the less flaws I have to think about, so I can understand that the concepts are directly and completely related.

>>12170450
>Yet somehow we can define it as perfection.
No, I am not defining either, I am finding that the definitions are equivalent and can not be uncouples as the only possible perfection is nothing given everything else can have a flaw whether in observation or execution.

>we can logically reason something is nothing.
Then you are the sophist as you can't seem to understand perfection is nothing, nothing is perfect and neither of them need to be something since they are both nothing.

I am not saying we can use logic and reason to argue we can't know logic and reason, I am saying they are flawed and the only perfect logic is nothing since any attempt at logic will either be incomplete or be some degree of incoherent and logic is only necessary for unintuitive things that inherently exist in various states of imperfection.

>>12170284

existence doesn't need an observer.

>>12167707

>>12165783
I can finally relate to someone here. My mind has also been trying to escape my body for so long.

>>12170689

>>12170679
Oh but it does friend, what do you think creates order out of chaos? The eye of providence that never blinks

>>12170433
saved

>>12169049

It's a little hard to say that new person in a googleplex or so years is really you though. It's really another person who happens to have the exact same experiences as you.

>>12163795
the same nothingness as before u were born. ur a dum dum if u think being dead is any different than how not being born yet was

I don't Know anon
I guess You just have to wait till your time is up

>>12163803
When you turn off a computer it stops computing. When you turn off a brain it stops computing, this means it stops computing time. Its clock turns off. When under general anesthetic hours can seemingly pass in a split second which proves time is not constant and in fact can change depending on our state of being.

This brings about one of two scenarios:
A) If time is infinite then we should, hypothetically at least, skip time until our brain is "on" again. If matter cannot be destroyed, only broken down, and time is infinite then eventually it would have to take a similar form again eventually, or it is extremely likely. Since you cannot perceive time when you are dead however time would simply jump straight to the point where you are functional again.
B) If time is finite and has an end then it is literally impossible to perceive what being dead is like as there is no possibility of "waking up". Time being finite is equivalent to time being infinite and matter being destructible. If matter can be destroyed then the matter than comprises your current mechanical functions can be destroyed.

>>12166072
>>12166068
What happens to time if every single conscious mind in the universe dies?

As I mentioned in my above post, time is demonstrably bound to consciousness, the universe existed billions of years before you did but when you were born you skipped from the beginning to now. Open individualism is very real in a sense that if everybody dies I believe time will stop existing.

>>12169019
This means I'm me forever, potentially.

>>12165783

You stop caring as you age and your family and friends start dying. It almost becomes a comfort, you either see them again in the afterlife or you go to an endless sleep. Since it is inevitable, why overly worry?