The afterlife and existence after death

#21
But is it necessary for QM that the observer can process his obsveration? I mean, i already read discussions about that in other forums and physicists seem to not agree on those parts. But im not educated enough to judge there.
We've got no right to say anything about the state of the system until we make a measurement, simply because there is no state. No state exists until we make a measurement. Other than that, I'd just repeat what I said in my last post...

I don't really understand what your asking in the second question? What are you referring to when you say two observers, observe the same things (in plural)?

I'm guessing you cannot be talking about a QM measurement, because each QM measurement is independent, and irreversibly changes the state of the system, such that you can't make two measurements of the same thing. So when you say two observers observe the same thing, it doesn't make any sense from a QM perspective.
 
#23
As much as i know the observer doesnt have to be conscious. If its even possible to observe something without consciousness at some point (if its the observation of the reaction of the machine or a direct observation) is something that isnt clear.
If consciousness is ubiquitous, then even if there's no observer that we can definitely point to as being conscious (say, a human being), something could still conceivably be actualised by that. Put slightly differently, anything that has actualised from all potential actualisations could have done so because it has been observed by some conscious entity or other, whether or not we are aware of the existence of that entity.
 
#24
It was discussed before, on the old forum I think.
One of the claims made here is that this hypothesis "doesn’t suffer from logical inconsistencies". That statement is patently false.

The main problem here, as I see it, is that this hypothesis fails to account for all of the evidence. For example veridical information received during an NDE, including occasional Peak in Darien experiences are not considered. Or the fact that an NDE very often occurs during times when brain activity is insufficient to support even an ordinary dream, let alone a richer than normal experience. Or the fact that an NDE can have a transformative effect on the life of the experiencer. (This is only a starting point, I haven't even mentioned whole categories of evidence relating to the afterlife).

My view is that this is an attempt to constrain what answers are acceptable. But in so doing vast areas of evidence must be ignored, and a limit placed upon what questions one is permitted to ask.
 
Last edited:
#25
Oh, that one. I read about this a few times already. I cant really imagine how this would work. A dream that goes on forever while it isnt actually happening at all. Thats not logical to me.

Btw, wheres your haruhi-avatar? I loved that one :'(

We've got no right to say anything about the state of the system until we make a measurement, simply because there is no state. No state exists until we make a measurement. Other than that, I'd just repeat what I said in my last post...

I don't really understand what your asking in the second question? What are you referring to when you say two observers, observe the same things (in plural)?

I'm guessing you cannot be talking about a QM measurement, because each QM measurement is independent, and irreversibly changes the state of the system, such that you can't make two measurements of the same thing. So when you say two observers observe the same thing, it doesn't make any sense from a QM perspective.
No worries, you didnt understood what i was talking about in my 2nd question - you still answered it correctly. Thanks :P It was about two measurements at the same time. I didnt know that those would be independent from each other.

If consciousness is ubiquitous, then even if there's no observer that we can definitely point to as being conscious (say, a human being), something could still conceivably be actualised by that. Put slightly differently, anything that has actualised from all potential actualisations could have done so because it has been observed by some conscious entity or other, whether or not we are aware of the existence of that entity.
True. Point is, if consciousness is ubiquitous. But science seems to go in that direction these days, huh. Atleast some of it.
 
#28
I agree. That "dreaming forever even when brain dead" thing is a bit over the top.
I remember when I used to bounce around in Reddit (golly, that feels like ages ago), someone brought up this idea, and their basis for it was that at death, our sense of time slows down to the point of near-eternity. In essence, what could be four hours in our world between the time a patient slips into a coma and the time they completely perish, in their brain, they're experiencing eternity, or close to it. Then they'd die and there'd be nothingness.

What's always stood out to me as supporting the NDEs and the like as actual experiences of the afterlife is that, if they're not-- if they are just hallucinations produced by the brain-- what evolutionary function could that possibly have had? I thought the whole point behind evolution was that traits which adapted best to the environment were passed on down to the next generation. To have an NDE, you have to be dead at some point, and most people tend to stay that way, so how would that mechanism get passed on to the next generation?
 
#29
I remember when I used to bounce around in Reddit (golly, that feels like ages ago), someone brought up this idea, and their basis for it was that at death, our sense of time slows down to the point of near-eternity. In essence, what could be four hours in our world between the time a patient slips into a coma and the time they completely perish, in their brain, they're experiencing eternity, or close to it. Then they'd die and there'd be nothingness.

What's always stood out to me as supporting the NDEs and the like as actual experiences of the afterlife is that, if they're not-- if they are just hallucinations produced by the brain-- what evolutionary function could that possibly have had? I thought the whole point behind evolution was that traits which adapted best to the environment were passed on down to the next generation. To have an NDE, you have to be dead at some point, and most people tend to stay that way, so how would that mechanism get passed on to the next generation?
About the evolution thing. Some people experience the whole "It's not time. You have to go back to earth" thing, because maybe they hadn't reproduced. And some appreciate life more because they're more likely to survive and reproduce. That might be the "evolutionary" thing. That's what I think.

This reminds me of the Magical Thinking book that I mentioned on the other thread. Some skeptics do say that having a purpose in life gets "believers" out of bed in the morning and lets them sleep at night.
 
Last edited:
#30
Yes, I can see what you're saying, Boo boo. Hmm, I'm not asking my question to my satisfaction, though, please allow me the attempt to rephrase. From the materialist standpoint, if you and I can have an NDE in the 21st century, it's because we inherited the genetics to be able to have an NDE from our parents, and they from their parents, and so on, as I understand materialism and evolution. However, NDEs did not become widespread until the invention of CPR, the most basic of resuscitation techniques, in the 20th century.If you stopped breathing, if your heart stopped beating, before the 1950s, you were going to stay that way, and then some.

So if modern man has been around for, let's say 100,000 years, wouldn't that mean that the genetic code to allow for the production of NDEs in the brain was, for lack of a better term, dormant for thousands of years? Would that be possible from an evolutionary perspective?
 
#37
What's always stood out to me as supporting the NDEs and the like as actual experiences of the afterlife is that, if they're not-- if they are just hallucinations produced by the brain-- what evolutionary function could that possibly have had? I thought the whole point behind evolution was that traits which adapted best to the environment were passed on down to the next generation. To have an NDE, you have to be dead at some point, and most people tend to stay that way, so how would that mechanism get passed on to the next generation?
I don't see this argument as carrying any great weight. Some characteristics are neither positive nor negative, they neither increase nor reduce chances of survival. In such a case the characteristic can simply get passed on to the next generation unchanged.
 
#39
I don't see this argument as carrying any great weight. Some characteristics are neither positive nor negative, they neither increase nor reduce chances of survival. In such a case the characteristic can simply get passed on to the next generation unchanged.
Actually, if we look at evolution in terms of survival of the group, rather than of the individual, then such an individual could indeed be favoured. That is, if someone returned from the brink - this does happen even today - how often do we read of someone waking up in a morgue, having been declared dead? Spontaneous revival does happen, and presumably it was so throughout history. Such a person might return with an amazing story, and perhaps also gifted with psychic abilities of various kinds. Even if the person is very old at the time, they and their immediate family might be elevated in status within the group (or occasionally put to death - but we might assume that would not happen every time).
 
Top