/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9869421
What do you mean by real?

>>9869422
Is there really anything after death?

>>9869424

>>/x/

>>9869421
>Are they real
Yes.
>hallucination
You can call anything you don't want to be true a hallucination.

>>9869424
If there is, can we kill them again?

>>9869424
There is. It's the only way for the universe to be just. If there's a God (which I do believe) then there's an afterlife. If not then there's no reason to believe that there's anything after physical death.

>>9869424
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YsjrA87Cno
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za_b9UQoz6E

>>9870130
Quantum immortality is based off a misinterpretation of what the observer effect is.

>>9870140
Physicists are bad at naming things. Its like they want their shit to be co-opted by paranormal idiots. Call it the measurement effect and they wouldn't have to deal with this bollocks.

>>9870140
How do you explain the anthropic principle without quantum mechanics or god?

>>9869421
Ask a friend to choke you and decide where hallucionations are real or not

>>9870140
>>9870662
I have a defense of Q.I.
Should I leave a link here?

>>9870935
Do it
And if it doesn't contain the anthropic principle then quantum kill yourself til' it does

>>9869421

> be paramedic
> 24 years field experience in 911
> see hundreds of people die

>>9870130
>dude just let consciousness magically travel to another universe lmao

>>9872512
It's more-so an argument about the nature of consciousness
If consciousness is in illusion then QI is plausible

>>9869421

Yes, they are self-evidently real to the experiencers. Just as we think that waking life is self-evidently more real than our dreams, NDEs are self-evidently more real than this life. They say that it's like waking up into a higher reality altogether than this life. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that NDEs are, contrary to popular assumption, the very opposite of dreams. Every reason we have for concluding that this reality is more real than our dreams at night, NDErs have for asserting that the afterlife is more real than this world.

That is, these experiences are vastly more lucid, vivid, coherent, consistent, tangible, rational, and reasonable, etc., than the experience of this life.

Just like this life is more lucid, vivid, coherent, consistent, tangible, rational, and reasonable, etc., than the experience of our dreams at night.

In other words, NDErs have the best possible epistemic justification imaginable for their assertion that the afterlife exists, and they frequently assert that they are more certain that the afterlife is more real than they are that this world exists. They are more sure that they were there, than they are that they are having a conversation in the present, whenever you talk to them.

It's embarrassingly ironic that so many philosophers of our world have completely missed that this is the near-perfect analogy of the allegory of the cave. This people are reporting in the millions that they have escaped the metaphorical cave of the human experience and experienced a higher reality in the light. Furthermore, NDErs are frequently treated upon their return as those who return to the cave are by the troglodytes in there.

Don't be a troglodyte.

>>9870115
Your personal desire for the universe to be “just” is not relevant. There is no evidence of an afterlife or deities.

>>9872604
People’s personal anecdotes are not useful evidence. The brain does weird shit and retards think it’s souls or magic. There’s nothing more to it,

>>9872610

>People’s personal anecdotes are not useful evidence.

Millions of testimonies are not "anecdotes, like urban legends, man! #420 blaze it".

Science relies on testimonies, and many scientific endeavours are the direct study of testimonies. Like neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry, and medicine, for instance.

>The brain does weird shit and retards think it’s souls or magic.

The thing is, even people who are skeptical of an afterlife and NDEs prior to their NDE change their mind. Eben Alexander is a famous example of this, a Harvard neurosurgeon. Howard Storm is another example, an avowed strong atheist before his experience.

>There’s nothing more to it,

>muh fundamaterialism dogma, please don't challenge it with facts and explanations of the implications of these facts

>>9872619
>The thing is, even people who are skeptical of an afterlife and NDEs prior to their NDE change their mind. Eben Alexander is a famous example of this, a Harvard neurosurgeon. Howard Storm is another example, an avowed strong atheist before his experience.


Good for them. They’re both idiots, apparently.

>muh fundamaterialism dogma, please don't challenge it with facts and explanations of the implications of these facts

Personal anecdotes aren’t “facts”.

>Millions of testimonies are not "anecdotes, like urban legends, man! #420 blaze it".

They are, by definition, anecdotes. No, science does not rely on “anecdotes”.

>Muh pseudoscience conflicts with reality so I cross into Bigfoot sighting territory

>>9872625
>he hasnt seen bigfoot so he thinks its not real
Hehe

>>9872649
Does he give you prophecies in your dreams?

>>9870115
>There is. It's the only way for the universe to be just.
that basically is like saying "I would like for the universe the be just, therefore god exists"
Thats not really valid reasoning if you can even call it that,

>>9870130
seems like wishful thinking and is entirely unfalsifiable so the null hypothesis would leave us to conclude that while this is an interesting Idea there is no reason to believe it to be true.

>>9872668
Multiverse theory in its entirety has been presumed to be impossible to prove from within a single universe
Doesn't make it any less interesting to talk about
I'm not trying to say go buy a gun and quantum suicide yourself into a better universe. Just that it's interesting topic that explains the anthropic principle with much more scientific plausibility than a supernatural god.

>>9870676
>the anthropic principle
the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivor bias): i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing and reflecting on the matter. Most often such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes to select from and from which selection bias (our observance of only this universe, compatible with our life) could occur.

>>9872604
>That is, these experiences are vastly more lucid, vivid, coherent, consistent, tangible, rational, and reasonable, etc., than the experience of this life.
Thats one hell of an assertion and the facts wouldnt seem to support that at all, many peoples reports of NDE, including my own, conflict dramatically.

>>9872674
The only argument I've heard which explains the anthropic principle without including multiverse theory or religion involves an eternal universe.
So far as I can tell, the scientific consensus is that there was a start to this universe.
However I have heard some speculate that the universe is like a phoenix, expanding and then contracting only to expand again.
This would allow for such a selection bias as in the fullness of time there would eventually be a universe that could harbor life.

>>9872674
There could be fifty trillion universes that expanded so fast that they were never anything but a very fine dusting of gas, or there could be universes vastly more habitable. There’s no way to know at this time, but what we do know is we wouldn’t observe the universe at all if it wasn’t habitable for organisms capable of observing. The vast, vast majority is uselessly far away and not habitable. Fine-tuning my ass.

>>9872619
>Eben Alexander is a famous example of this, a Harvard neurosurgeon. Howard Storm is another example
My personal experience with being near death conflicts with this. why is my experience invalid compared to these people?

>>9872649
What reasonable evidence do you have to conclude that there is a big foot? Are you aware of the null hypothesis?

>>9872673
>much more scientific plausibility than a supernatural god
How so? Im happy to discuss the issue but once we make the leap to concluding its correct I take issue with that. Its an interesting idea but worthless outside of interesting discussion I feel.

>>9872685
>Fine-tuning my ass.
Not that anon but he said it was likely due to "survivor bias," which is exactly what you explained
The key thing to point out to people who use this as an explanation for multiverse theory or quantum immortality is that there are other explanations for such a situation
It could just be that the universe is infinite, expanding and contracting into itself each time altering the fundamental forces.

>>9872692
>once we make the leap to concluding its correct
I never made that leap
Just said that it's more plausible than something that by definition invokes a non-natural cause

>>9872683
I dont understand why you feel this way. We live in a universe that can harbor life, Why would we even begin to assume that it could have been another way? What evidence is there to suggest that? I dont think that there really is any other than to say its hypothetically possible via modeling.

>>9872693
>each time altering the fundamental forces.
Or it could just as easily be that the fundamental forces cannot be any way other than how we experience them.

>>9872625

>Good for them. They’re both idiots, apparently.

Apparently? So anyone who thinks that there is an afterlife based on their direct experience of it must be an idiot, because materialism MUST be true, so an afterlife can't exist? Please elaborate.

>Personal anecdotes aren’t “facts”.

Testimonies in the millions are facts. If it wasn't, we wouldn't even know that consciousness exist, because we have to rely on other people when they testify that they have consciousness.

>They are, by definition, anecdotes. No, science does not rely on “anecdotes”.

They are, by definition, testimonies. See this: https://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Philosophical-C-J-Coady/dp/0198235518

>>9872682

>Thats one hell of an assertion and the facts wouldnt seem to support that at all

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315422540_Characteristics_of_memories_for_near-death_experiences

Any facts contrary to the findings in this study you're referring to?

>many peoples reports of NDE

Well, far from everyone report a heightened sense of reality during their NDE, but it's probably more than half of all NDErs. Anyway, this attribute is strongly correlated with the depth of the NDE.

>including my own

Care to share yours? The content of it, the cause of it, your thoughts on it, etc.

>>9872686

>My personal experience with being near death conflicts with this. why is my experience invalid compared to these people?

Care to share yours, so that I know where you're coming from?

>>9872700
>Why would we even begin to assume that it could have been another way?
Hypothesis' are the bedrock of science.
If you would alter any of the fundamental forces even slightly you would end up with a universe that could not produce human life.
It's at the very least interesting.

>>9872693
People seem to imagine other universes as just being like ours with the dials screwed with a bit, even though there’s no known reason they couldn’t be cylinder-shaped spacetimes where you could go one direction and come back where you started in which “particles” are literally just really small triangles that lock together to form larger molecules due to attractive “Glorbigz” forces.

>>9872695
I didnt mean to accuse you of taking that position, I just wanted to make it more clear that we have no good reason to conclude that this is indeed the case at least as of yet.

>>9872703
That's an equally valid hypothesis

>>9872706
>Any facts contrary to the findings in this study you're referring to?
>Well, far from everyone report a heightened sense of reality during their NDE
I feel like these start to refute your conclusions, many people who claim to be abducted by aliens claim similar things, are we to conclude that they also are experiencing the afterlife? How would we determine this if either way?

>>9872706
>Apparently? So anyone who thinks that there is an afterlife based on their direct experience of it must be an idiot, because materialism MUST be true, so an afterlife can't exist? Please elaborate.

Making supernatural conclusions based on weird qualia when your brain is shitting itself is stupid, yes.

>Testimonies in the millions are facts. If it wasn't, we wouldn't even know that consciousness exist, because we have to rely on other people when they testify that they have consciousness

Nope. Personal testimonies are never anything but anecdotes unless they can be confirmed and verified. We know other people are conscious because philosophical zombies are literally impossible. They couldn’t behave the same as conscious people unless they had some kind of zombie master making them appear to act conscious.

>They are, by definition, testimonies. See this: https://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Philosophical-C-J-Coady/dp/0198235518

Nope. They are, by definition, anecdotes. There is no real difference.

>>9872721

>many people who claim to be abducted by aliens claim similar things

No. People who report being abducted by aliens often only remember it during hypnosis (or so I've heard, I'm not intimately familiar with the data on that), and they never say that this abduction was on a metaphysical level above this entire reality. They say that it happened within the confines of this reality and thus was, at best, as real as the experience of this everyday life.

>>9872725
Crazy people making unfalsifiable claims is proof of catshit on the moon.

>>9872706
>Care to share yours?
when I was 12 I had appendicitis that lead into peritonitis. Before my third surgery I apparently very nearly died and my only strong recollections were of spinning quickly in a void and having the strong feeling "There are no answers here" and It felt as if I was stuck like that for an extremely long time. Later while taking high doses of hallucinogenic drugs I experienced what many people refer to as "ego death" and I had the similarly strong feeling of "There are no answers here" I cant fully explain my experiences but I see no strong reason to conclude something like we have eternal souls that move on to an afterlife. Maybe that is the case but I dont understand how you would assume NDE indicate something like that to be true.

>>9872722

>Making supernatural conclusions based on weird qualia when your brain is shitting itself is stupid, yes.

First of all, 'supernatural' is a worthless term. Think of it in terms of waking up from a simulation instead to a higher reality.

Secondly, these are not 'weird qualia', these are ultrareal experiences that are more real in every conceivable way than this life. Your cognition expands exponentially to an unfathomable degree, your perception expands, your certainty in the fact that you exist expands exponentially to an unfathomable degree, you remember where and what you were before you were born, why you came here, who you really are, etc. It's like waking up from a deep dream. When you wake up from a dream, do you use the same logic? "Omg man, such weird qualia of being awake, the dream was the true reality, I can't dispute that just because this reality feels and seems more real in every way xD" <- That's you when you say that NDEs are "weird qualia" that we shouldn't trust.

Thirdly, you're saying that it's impossible for anyone to ever experience the afterlife, even if an afterlife actually was to exist? Do you not see the extreme dogma in your own statement?

>We know other people are conscious because philosophical zombies are literally impossible.

That's your personal philosophical position. Many philosophers disagree.

We trust people when they say they have consciousness. We trust people when they say they have dreams at nights. We trust people when they say they have hallucinations. We trust people when they say they have NDEs. We trust people when they say they have a headache. We trust people when they say they are tired. We trust people when they say they are depressed.

We trust people when they report things, period.

Some of them will be liars, for sure. The vast majority won't be. Trusting in testimonies is reasonable, and science relies on testimonies at the core. See >>9872461 for an elaboration.

>>9872707
>you would end up with a universe that could not produce human life.
>It's at the very least interesting.
I agree, its very interesting to me in fact but I think the important thing to remember is that though we may hypothesize alternatives there is not good reason to conclude that any of our proposed alternatives are at all possible.

>>9872735

Alright, thank you for sharing your experience(s). Two things to keep in mind: You had a very shallow NDE. These happen all the time, and they are often without the element of a heightened sense of reality (as per the study I cited earlier, >>9872706). It is an established fact that the deeper into the experience you go, the more obvious it becomes to you that it is reflective of an external reality and not a brain-generated hallucination. That is because, or so at least I hypothesize, the sense of the experience to be more real than this life is also strongly correlated with the depth of the NDE. (I can provide relevant links to back all of this up if you're interested.)

Secondly, your hallucinogenic experience does not mean much in the context of this discussion, because they are often very different experiences, even though they have some over-lapping vocabulary due to the general ineffability of both experiences. We know this because people who have had both profound NDEs and then tried psychedelics say so.

Keep also in mind, 60-82% of people who come close to death have no experience whatsoever. And keep also in mind that the overwhelming majority of NDErs don't go very deep into the experience.

Eben Alexander and Howard Storm are famous because they are classic examples of people who were a priori skeptical of NDEs before their NDEs, and came around completely after having profound NDEs of going deep into the light.

>>9872725
The guy that wrote "Watchmen" would disagree with you just as one example but there are mnay others, I feel your research into this cant support your conclusions.

>>9872763
>your hallucinogenic experience does not mean much in the context of this discussion
Ill start by saying I intend to give more indepth response when I have time if the thread permits.

My point of mentioning my experiance with a drugs was to show that both of these events lead me to distinctly similar feelings though I would certainly describe them as dissimilar experiences,.

>>9872763
a superior mana tree.

>>9872791

Please do my friend! There's no rush, so take your time, and a quality response is always better than a quick and hurried response. Meanwhile I'll provide two testimonies of people who have taken psychedelics, and had NDEs, and how they compare them:

>"I would like to mention something else that isn't talked about much and that's hallucinogens. Hoping to recreate the experience, I've tried several drugs, including LSD, mushrooms, and ecstasy. These experiences were all wonderful, interesting, intriguing, fascinating, but there is a big difference. Yes, you get to explore other levels of consciousness but there is often a feeling of loss of control and fear that does not occur during an NDE. With the drugs, there is a surreal feeling, but with the NDE it feels more real than this life. With drugs, it's more an experience is happening to you. With the NDE, you're the experience, the experience is of yourself, your consciousness. A good thing about hallucinogens though is that they give people (who haven't had an NDE) a glimpse into altered states of consciousness and an awareness that there is more to us than we've been led to believe." From http://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1diane_g_nde.html

>"As I saw this sight, I felt the most amazing love and joy I have ever felt in my life. I cant even put into words the love and joy that was in me, around me, just flourishing. Not even a million X tabs could begin to scratch the surface to giving you the love and joy I was feeling. It was so pure. I really cant describe it. It was so intense, yet so calming." [...] "I haven't done acid but I have done shrooms, and it doesnt compare to the thought expansion you have when you are completely, and legitimately, out of your body experiencing the other side. Acid and shrooms expand your mind in a somewhat delusional sense. There is no delusion in an NDE."

>>9872735
>tfw when i had ego-death on acid all I got was "life is nothing but a joke"