What happens when you die

[ExpectantlyIronic]

As long as you realize that what you like to think doesn't necessarily correlate with the truth of the matter. The ego IS the subjective state.

Words mean whatever context dictates. There really isn't a truth of the matter. I'm just used to the existentialist definition of "Ego", so I went ahead and explained it. Although, for the remainder of this thread, I'll go ahead and use your definition of it.

Your statement contradicts itself.

Yeah. I worded that pretty poorly. What I meant was that the "self" as we understand it can't be the conscious in it's entirety. If it were, the conscious would be totally consumed with itself, turn inwards on itself, and it would see nothing. Thus, the conscious is simply the totality of experience. Now we can understand the "self" as a category that we know to include phenomenon X, phenomenon Y, etc. Yet all the components of said category can never appear to us in their entirety alongside other sorts of phenomena, given that they're already, by definition, all experienced phenomena.

You're missing the point. You are the ego.

In that case I've already demonstrated why the ego exists in my first response to you.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Of course, the experiencer is all accumulated experience. That is what the ego is, the mind "of" brain. The reality is the psychological phenomenon.

Are you saying that only psychological phenomena exist? As in philosophical idealism?

[kowtaaia]

Of course, the experiencer is all accumulated experience. That is what the ego is, the mind "of" brain. The reality is the psychological phenomenon.

Are you saying that only psychological phenomena exist? As in philosophical idealism?

No! The psychological phenom is an illusion. Illusion is a reality. You feel like you exist, right? :)

[ExpectantlyIronic]

No! The psychological phenom is an illusion. Illusion is a reality.

Are you saying that illusions exist, and that the psychological phenom is one of them, or that the psychological phenom is a reality? Or both/neither? I'm a bit confused at what you're getting at.

You feel like you exist, right? :)

It seems to be more of a necessary fact given how I define my self. So... yes.

[kowtaaia]

Words mean whatever context dictates. There really isn't a truth of the matter. I'm just used to the existentialist definition of "Ego", so I went ahead and explained it. Although, for the remainder of this thread, I'll go ahead and use your definition of it.

Well, there is a truth of the matter!
You have to understand that because the phenomenon is thought activity within its own reality (the inner); it cannot be anything but divided. So, of course, it invents itself as "other".

Yeah. I worded that pretty poorly. What I meant was that the "self" as we understand it can't be the conscious in it's entirety.

Yes it can, but since it is the observer and the observed (as our friend Cory said awhile ago), it is a self negating awareness. This is the only approach that brings about total awareness or what Buddhists call "awakening".

If it were, the conscious would be totally consumed with itself, turn inwards on itself, and it would see nothing. Thus, the conscious is simply the totality of experience. Now we can understand the "self" as a category that we know to include phenomenon X, phenomenon Y, etc. Yet all the components of said category can never appear to us in their entirety alongside other sorts of phenomena, given that they're already, by definition, all experienced phenomena.

The fact is that the ego is self centered activity, ipso facto, entirely consumed with perpetuating itself.

You're missing the point. You are the ego.

In that case I've already demonstrated why the ego exists in my first response to you.

Quote!

[kowtaaia]

No! The psychological phenom is an illusion. Illusion is a reality.

Are you saying that illusions exist, and that the psychological phenom is one of them, or that the psychological phenom is a reality? Or both/neither? I'm a bit confused at what you're getting at.

Yes, illusion exists. The psyche is not only illusion, but the mother of all illusion.

[David Quinn]

Dave Hodges wrote:

DQ: To be consistent, we can't very well confine the theory to a restricted set of phenomena, such as cats living or dying, or to humans making choices. It would necessarily have to apply to utterly everything. Every single event that happens in the world, no matter how large or small, would have to be causing an infinite number of parallel worlds to peel off in every single instant in time and at every single location in our universe (and in all the other countless peeled-off universes as well).

DH: That is indeed the multiple worlds model. There are an infinite number of universes. Everything that is possible, happens. It has a nice sort of symmetry to it.

Provided that we ignore the absurdities.

For example, consider the decision to go to the toilet and take a piss. According to the multiple worlds model, every time a person decides to go to the toilet, the same person in another world decides not to go. And so what we quickly end up with is trillions of otherwise sensible, intelligent people steadfastly refusing to go the toilet until their bladders burst and they die a horrible, painful death.

Or consider to decision to eat food. There are countless people in countless other worlds who, for no good reason at all, simply refuse to eat and therefore allow themselves to starve to death, as well as countless others who decide to keep eating and eating until their stomachs rupture - again, for no good reason at all.

Likewise, there are countless people in countless worlds hitting their heads repeatedly with a hammer; hopping up and down on a spike; eating their own body parts; using infants for a soccer ball; injecting themselves with liquid mercury; voting Republican; forming relationships with women, and so on.

Apart from anything else, the theory clearly makes a mockery of human intelligence and decision-making.

I see this as being related to Feynman's idea that when a particle travels from point A to B, it does not follow a single path but travels along all possible paths.

I understand the aesthetic appeal of this type of model, but again, what about the absurdities?

For example, in this case, there are an infinite number of paths between A and B which are so convoluted as to be of infinite length. And so Feynman's conception implies that the particle is currently in all locations in the Universe and always will be, and so the idea of the particle traveling from A to B loses all meaning.

I don't think Many Worlds denies causality, by the way.

It does because it postulates that the same set of circumstances can generate different sets of effects. It severs the strict connection between cause and effect by introducing an extra layer of non-causality into the proceedings, which is why "unwise" and his ilk praise it so much.

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I think one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the multiverse theory is made to explain certain observations about quanta and would only be meaningful in that world. No reason to assume that laws, and as such events in the normal world of classical physics, cause, effect or decisions would change a bit from the usual.

There's a simple way to prove the multiverse theory for oneself, if one has the balls to put the money where the mouth is...

Quantum Suicide

In this experiment, a physicist sits in front of a gun which is triggered or not triggered depending on the decay of some radioactive atom. With each run of the experiment there is a 50-50 chance that the gun will be triggered and the physicist will die. If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then the gun will eventually be triggered and the physicist will die. If the many-worlds interpretation is correct then at each run of the experiment the physicist will be split into one world in which he lives and another world in which he dies. After many runs of the experiment, there will be many worlds. In the worlds where the physicist dies, he will cease to exist. However, from the point of view of the non-dead copies of the physicist, the experiment will continue running without his ceasing to exist, because at each branch, he will only be able to observe the result in the world in which he survives, and if many-worlds is correct, the surviving copies of the physicist will notice that he never seems to die, presuming, of course, that there is no afterlife in which the physicist is conscious of his death.

Any takers, Unwise?

The problem is obvious: no device coupling a quantum-event to a 'real world' event one to one exists. And might be even impossible to make. There might not be any other way to prove such multiverse since there's no evidence communication is possible according to the same theory at least. Very convenient: a complex theory which for ever can remain 'true' in the eye of the believer!


Edit: changed quarks to quanta

[Bo]

Don't you feel as if you exist, as if you are a something? :)

That's what ego is, the 'experiencer', the continued subjective state or psychological phenomenon.

Grounds? It can be absent while the body is living. It happens intermittently and ever so very, very briefly, throughout the day, for everyone, but it's always unknown. The cessation can be for a prolonged period if the mind is extremely attentive to its own movement. Of course, you only know that it happened. Only illusion fades away in awareness.

I love it when 'kow' gives a 'How'

:)

[Bo]

Words mean whatever context dictates. There really isn't a truth of the matter. I'm just used to the existentialist definition of "Ego", so I went ahead and explained it. Although, for the remainder of this thread, I'll go ahead and use your definition of it.

Well, there is a truth of the matter!
You have to understand that because the phenomenon is thought activity within its own reality (the inner); it cannot be anything but divided. So, of course, it invents itself as "other".

Yeah. I worded that pretty poorly. What I meant was that the "self" as we understand it can't be the conscious in it's entirety.

Yes it can, but since it is the observer and the observed (as our friend Cory said awhile ago), it is a self negating awareness. This is the only approach that brings about total awareness or what Buddhists call "awakening".

If it were, the conscious would be totally consumed with itself, turn inwards on itself, and it would see nothing. Thus, the conscious is simply the totality of experience. Now we can understand the "self" as a category that we know to include phenomenon X, phenomenon Y, etc. Yet all the components of said category can never appear to us in their entirety alongside other sorts of phenomena, given that they're already, by definition, all experienced phenomena.

The fact is that the ego is self centered activity, ipso facto, entirely consumed with perpetuating itself.

You're missing the point. You are the ego.

In that case I've already demonstrated why the ego exists in my first response to you.

*laughs*

Good Watson !

At last, multiple How posts. How wonderful.

Thanks, 'kow'.

Quote!

[DHodges]

I understand the aesthetic appeal of this type of model, but again, what about the absurdities?

Well, really, I agree. You are calling it "absurd", I was calling it "weird". The problem is not so much that this model is absurd, but that they all are.

The problem is in constructing a model - a metaphor that we can understand - that agrees with the equations. The equations are very well verified. They just don't agree with our intuitions.

Your examples of what you consider absurd, actually radically understate the point. In Many Worlds, a new universe is generated every time a subatomic particle interacts with another subatomic particle in such a way that it must assume a definite state.

For instance, if you are lying on the beach wearing polarized sunglasses, every time a photon hits the lens it has to "decide" which way it is polarized, which determines if it goes through the lens or not. This happens many times per second. I don't know exactly how many, but let's say a billion times a second. Overall, the earth alone would be generating many trillions of new universes every second.

I earlier said an infinite number of universes, but actually I'm not sure if it is truly infinite or just a number so extremely huge that it hurts my head to think about it (trillions per second times billions of years times billions of worlds - each new universe also spawning trillions of new ones...)

But from another point of view, is having many quadrillions of universes more absurd than having two?

And is having two more absurd than having one?

...

To change the subject a bit, here's the part that I think is difficult, or philosophically interesting.

Let's say we have two interpretations, one being multiple worlds (which rejects contrafactual definiteness) and another being one which rejects local realism, say the Copenhagen interpretation.

Further, let's say that there is no way to tell, from a physical experiment, which is correct. They are both consistent with the same set of equations. You can not tell whether you are in a Copenhagen universe or a Many Worlds universe, based on the physical evidence. (This may or may not be true.)

That means there is no difference between the two models. They are both saying the same thing. Contrafactual definiteness means the same thing as local realism. From our point of view, they seem like two radically different propositions, but the physical universe doesn't see it from our point of view. It just is what it is.

[David Quinn]

David Hodges wrote:

DQ: I understand the aesthetic appeal of this type of model, but again, what about the absurdities?

Well, really, I agree. You are calling it "absurd", I was calling it "weird". The problem is not so much that this model is absurd, but that they all are.

Then there is something wrong with all of them.

When we come to sufficiently understand QM in the future, I dare say that we will find it to be no more weird than anything else. The current hype surrounding it is very childish.

The problem is in constructing a model - a metaphor that we can understand - that agrees with the equations. The equations are very well verified. They just don't agree with our intuitions.

Your examples of what you consider absurd, actually radically understate the point. In Many Worlds, a new universe is generated every time a subatomic particle interacts with another subatomic particle in such a way that it must assume a definite state.

For instance, if you are lying on the beach wearing polarized sunglasses, every time a photon hits the lens it has to "decide" which way it is polarized, which determines if it goes through the lens or not. This happens many times per second. I don't know exactly how many, but let's say a billion times a second. Overall, the earth alone would be generating many trillions of new universes every second.

I earlier said an infinite number of universes, but actually I'm not sure if it is truly infinite or just a number so extremely huge that it hurts my head to think about it (trillions per second times billions of years times billions of worlds - each new universe also spawning trillions of new ones...)

But from another point of view, is having many quadrillions of universes more absurd than having two?

And is having two more absurd than having one?

Well, it isn't the size and scope of the model which makes it absurd. Rather, it is the nonsensical scenarios that it necessarily throws up - such as the sensible person somehow deciding, for no reason at all, to repeatedly refuse to go to the toilet until his bladder bursts. This completely contradicts the notion of human intelligence and its ability to lead a coherent existence. And so, for me at least, this is sufficient grounds for dismissing it.

To change the subject a bit, here's the part that I think is difficult, or philosophically interesting.

Let's say we have two interpretations, one being multiple worlds (which rejects contrafactual definiteness) and another being one which rejects local realism, say the Copenhagen interpretation.

Further, let's say that there is no way to tell, from a physical experiment, which is correct. They are both consistent with the same set of equations. You can not tell whether you are in a Copenhagen universe or a Many Worlds universe, based on the physical evidence. (This may or may not be true.)

That means there is no difference between the two models. They are both saying the same thing. Contrafactual definiteness means the same thing as local realism. From our point of view, they seem like two radically different propositions, but the physical universe doesn't see it from our point of view. It just is what it is.

If the same evidence can spawn radically different interpretations, then the quality of the evidence isn't very high. It wouldn't be be admissible in a court of law, for example.

The fact that the evidence is mathematical in nature and works very effectively in the world isn't relevant as far as this issue is concerned. It is still only one stream of evidence which spawns radically diverging interpretations. We would need corroborating evidence from other sources before we could begin to make any proper judgments about what QM means.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Well, it isn't the size and scope of the model which makes it absurd. Rather, it is the nonsensical scenarios that it necessarily throws up - such as the sensible person somehow deciding, for no reason at all, to repeatedly refuse to go to the toilet until his bladder bursts. This completely contradicts the notion of human intelligence and its ability to lead a coherent existence.

The many-world theory does eliminate the logic of cause and effect, but cause and effect is not always logical. Even the most logical of people sometimes make the most blundering of errors. What caused the error? Maybe it was a matter of which way a photon went and interacted with genetic or environmental factors.

What of the otherwise rather intelligent anorexics that simply decide not to eat any more, or to eat so insufficient of an amount, that they die of a heart attack? Or well-loved, successful people who suddenly decide to shoot themselves? Or not pay attention for a moment in traffic and cause a serious accident? Has anyone here ever not had a moment where they did/said something really stupid or mindless and then as themselves “Why did I do/say that?”

Now, the more relevant question as far as I am concerned is: What is the purpose of pondering the many-world theory? Is there a practical application for it?

The Stanford discussion unwise linked to earlier said “the essence of an object is the quantum state of its particles and not the particles themselves” – which is a fine description as how all the particles are arranged is how macro-organisms perceive reality of existence – but all that has to be done for reality to change is just rearrange the particles. The likelihood of that happening, however, is based on certain fundamental rules, and that seems to be David Q.’s major objection to the stated QM paradigm. That is how, although the maximum improbability drive described in the Hitchiker’s Guide series is correct according to QM theory, but just does not fit in with the more established sciences. If all science were correct, all the sciences would be congruent. When an incongruency is found, theories tend to have errors found in them (and “tend to” just means that some of the errors have not been found yet – not that there are no errors in incongruencies).

All things lack inherent existence - the potential for infinity.

Loosely, yes – but math and other universal principles are not things.

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth wrote:

DQ: Well, it isn't the size and scope of the model which makes it absurd. Rather, it is the nonsensical scenarios that it necessarily throws up - such as the sensible person somehow deciding, for no reason at all, to repeatedly refuse to go to the toilet until his bladder bursts. This completely contradicts the notion of human intelligence and its ability to lead a coherent existence.

EI: The many-world theory does eliminate the logic of cause and effect, but cause and effect is not always logical. Even the most logical of people sometimes make the most blundering of errors. What caused the error? Maybe it was a matter of which way a photon went and interacted with genetic or environmental factors.

Or more likely, the information he had at his disposal was limited or faulty. Logical people do not make errors, but they can only work with the information they have at hand. If the information at hand is uncertain, then the resulting conclusion will also be uncertain.

This is always the case with regards to empirical matters, of course. Empirical reasoning always contains uncertainty to some degree, because of limited information.

It goes without saying that the logical person is fully aware of all this, and hence would never fall into the error of claiming a conclusion to be more certain that it is. So even when he falls into error in empirical matters, he is not really in error.

What of the otherwise rather intelligent anorexics that simply decide not to eat any more, or to eat so insufficient of an amount, that they die of a heart attack? Or well-loved, successful people who suddenly decide to shoot themselves?

These are all explainable in terms of psychological reasons, and have nothing to do with the issue I was talking about.

Now, the more relevant question as far as I am concerned is: What is the purpose of pondering the many-world theory? Is there a practical application for it?

None, as far as spirituality is concerned.

It started out as a useful thought-experiment for quantum physicists, and subsequently became a useful mental refuge for flakes and escapists.

-

[Nick]

Unwise, so what you're saying is that if I kill myself there's a chance I could be transported to another universe where everything is made of chocolate? Well fuckin' A buddy I should have slit my throat years ago!

Fucking idiot...

[Iolaus]

For instance, if you are lying on the beach wearing polarized sunglasses, every time a photon hits the lens it has to "decide" which way it is polarized, which determines if it goes through the lens or not. This happens many times per second. I don't know exactly how many, but let's say a billion times a second. Overall, the earth alone would be generating many trillions of new universes every second.

I want to know where all the other universes go. Seems there's two possibilities. One is that they expand away from each other, and the other is that the new universes fill up the vast voids of empty space between particles, and between stars.

The problem is, we'd run out of room soon enough. Despite the vast empty spaces, the new universes would quickly get to the point of being spawned in such numbers - ever increasing numbers - that the expansion would exceed the speed of light.
Or, if they go into the inerparticulate space, it would have filled up eons ago. And I see no reason why it could occupy interparticulate space, because there's no reason to assign separate dimensions to it.

In fact, it seems to me that the rate of expansion- just numerically not spatially - would have approached infinity billions of years ago.

And what about the generation of matter/energy? Isn't that a problem? A little photon has two choices - and suddenly each one gets an entire universe filled with galaxies worth of matter? What causes this amazing duplication capability?

[DHodges]

David Hodges wrote:

The problem is not so much that this model is absurd, but that they all are.

Then there is something wrong with all of them.

Well, maybe. There are interpretations other than Copenhagen and Many Worlds, and there may be better interpretations that no one has thought of yet.

I personally favor the Transactional Interpretation. It still has some weirdness - waves travelling backward in time, for instance, and it's still a non-local theory, but it gives a kind of mental picture that I can make some sense of.

[DHodges]

And what about the generation of matter/energy? Isn't that a problem? A little photon has two choices - and suddenly each one gets an entire universe filled with galaxies worth of matter? What causes this amazing duplication capability?

I have a kind of speculative notion that the overall energy of the universe (or "a universe") must be zero.

[Iolaus]

That may very well be true, bit it doesn't really answer my questions.

[reedsch]

Your personality will be with you forever.

I'm not sure why folks worry so much about this particular subject. The only thing for sure is that your DNA lives on, if you minded your manners and passed it on properly. I ask you, what's wrong wiht being recycled back into the Cosmic Pool? Your own being is no more permanent than a raindrop between the cloud and ground. Better to accept the fact that "you" are ephemeral, a condensation of energy as it were but that seeking permanence in this form is a fool's errand. Enjoy it while it lasts then let it go.

[Dan Rowden]

Let what go, man!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Let what go, man!

the form of the raindrop, Dan...

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Kow,

Well, there is a truth of the matter!

A truth as to what a word means independent of context? No, there really isn't. Words only arrive at meaning through a shared understanding of what they point to or of their appropriate grammatical usage. Given that single words can take on multiple uses, the exact definition of a given word must be gleaned from context. The barks or scribbles that compose a word don't have any sort of hidden essence of meaning.

You have to understand that because the phenomenon is thought activity within its own reality (the inner); it cannot be anything but divided. So, of course, it invents itself as "other".

It's own reality? As opposed to what other sort of reality. Everything that is knowable appears as phenomena. Unless you're wired into a priori metaphysical truths as the rationalists suggested one could be, you're not going to be able to know of any reality beyond the phenomenal.

Yes it can, but since it is the observer and the observed (as our friend Cory said awhile ago), it is a self negating awareness. This is the only approach that brings about total awareness or what Buddhists call "awakening".

Do you have an explanation of how the conscious can become opaque and see itself directly? Several existentialists made quite clear claims that it couldn't, and as far as I know, such claims have never met with opposition.

The fact is that the ego is self centered activity, ipso facto, entirely consumed with perpetuating itself.

The "experiencer" is entirely consumed with perpetuating itself? I'd figure that it'd be too busy experiencing things. I, incidentally, don't believe in an "experiencer" that's non-arbitrarily separable from the totality of experiences.

Quote!

Allow me to explain a little better. If ego is to be defined as the self - as I've previously defined my usage of the term "self" - it exists, and isn't an illusion. If ego is to be defined as the "experiencer", it exists as the totality of experience, and thus is the "self", and thus isn't an illusion.

Yes, illusion exists. The psyche is not only illusion, but the mother of all illusion.

Psyche as in soul? Sure, some people might experience such an "illusion", but I don't. I'm not attempting to argue in favor of an ultimate mental arbitrator of action defined as existing within essential, or obviously significant, boundaries.

[kowtaaia]

Kow,

Well, there is a truth of the matter!

A truth as to what a word means independent of context? No, there really isn't. Words only arrive at meaning through a shared understanding of what they point to or of their appropriate grammatical usage. Given that single words can take on multiple uses, the exact definition of a given word must be gleaned from context. The barks or scribbles that compose a word don't have any sort of hidden essence of meaning.

We were talking about the ego phenomenon. There is a truth of the matter and just because you use the word in a different context, doesn't mean that the truth of the matter is dependent on your erroneous understanding.

You have to understand that because the phenomenon is thought activity within its own reality (the inner); it cannot be anything but divided. So, of course, it invents itself as "other".

It's own reality? As opposed to what other sort of reality. Everything that is knowable appears as phenomena. Unless you're wired into a priori metaphysical truths as the rationalists suggested one could be, you're not going to be able to know of any reality beyond the phenomenal.

The physical as opposed to the non spatial psychological.

Yes it can, but since it is the observer and the observed (as our friend Cory said awhile ago), it is a self negating awareness. This is the only approach that brings about total awareness or what Buddhists call "awakening".

Do you have an explanation of how the conscious can become opaque and see itself directly? Several existentialists made quite clear claims that it couldn't, and as far as I know, such claims have never met with opposition.

It seems that you don't understand what the phrase "self negating awareness" means.

The fact is that the ego is self centered activity, ipso facto, entirely consumed with perpetuating itself.

The "experiencer" is entirely consumed with perpetuating itself? I'd figure that it'd be too busy experiencing things. I, incidentally, don't believe in an "experiencer" that's non-arbitrarily separable from the totality of experiences.

We've already gone over this, haven't we? The experiencer, the feeler etc. is an illusion. The illusion constantly reincarnating itself is the activity of thought as "me". That's you! You are that life of thought.

Allow me to explain a little better. If ego is to be defined as the self - as I've previously defined my usage of the term "self" - it exists, and isn't an illusion. If ego is to be defined as the "experiencer", it exists as the totality of experience, and thus is the "self", and thus isn't an illusion.

It's been said numerous times, that illusion is a reality. You're it. No one's asking you to agree.

Yes, illusion exists. The psyche is not only illusion, but the mother of all illusion.

Psyche as in soul? Sure, some people might experience such an "illusion", but I don't. I'm not attempting to argue in favor of an ultimate mental arbitrator of action defined as existing within essential, or obviously significant, boundaries.

The psyche, the mind. Soul is an invention of a frightened ego.


.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Kow,

You aren't providing any arguments to prove your points. Your simply asserting your own views without any explanation of why they should be accepted. You might think that they're so intuitive that they'll be automatically accepted when stated, but that obviously doesn't seem to be the case. Could you clearly state what you're trying to say, how it contradicts what I've said, and why?