File: 1589059158944.jpg (51.96 KB, 640x360, 16:9, kaiji.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Anyone else here seriously considering that big world/quantum/many-worlds immortality might be true?
I started interest in it out of edgyness but im seeing more and more mainstream scientists and some cosmological observations support it. The logic,the science,the maths..it all seems to point that indeed a concious observer never experiences its own death.
I started interest in it out of edgyness but im seeing more and more mainstream scientists and some cosmological observations support it. The logic,the science,the maths..it all seems to point that indeed a concious observer never experiences its own death.
File: 1589062091043.jpg (63.01 KB, 624x950, 312:475, animu girl kills self.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>168170
Well there's one easy way to test that theory.
Well there's one easy way to test that theory.
For what it's worth, I tried to kill myself by taking a massive amount of Xanax and Oxycodone and I lived somehow. I'm talking like 40mg of Xanax and 320mg of Oxy.
>>168170
I also considered it and I also believe in many worlds and even in reincarnation. I believe it because some particles seem to be eternal like electrons and energy also seems to be eternal, which suggests that the universe has put you together once, it can do so again and again and again. It seems to me that we are in an endless loop.
Ultimately it only means that every thinkable experience must be experienced. This means you will experience everything infinite many times and not only that you will experience everything you can think of. That means you will live a life as a millionaire, as a normie, as a scientist, etc. Every possibility will be realized.
I also considered it and I also believe in many worlds and even in reincarnation. I believe it because some particles seem to be eternal like electrons and energy also seems to be eternal, which suggests that the universe has put you together once, it can do so again and again and again. It seems to me that we are in an endless loop.
Ultimately it only means that every thinkable experience must be experienced. This means you will experience everything infinite many times and not only that you will experience everything you can think of. That means you will live a life as a millionaire, as a normie, as a scientist, etc. Every possibility will be realized.
>>168342
>you could live a life as a scat slave who is also sounded and burned
Now I'm really terrified, that scares me a lot. I wish nirvana was genuinely attainable
>you could live a life as a scat slave who is also sounded and burned
Now I'm really terrified, that scares me a lot. I wish nirvana was genuinely attainable
>>168342
When do we get to experience eternal nothingness? That's technically an experience.
When do we get to experience eternal nothingness? That's technically an experience.
So now we have two quantum threads, three third-world threads, probably 4+ larper threads.
Do we need to start keeping a list or something?
Do we need to start keeping a list or something?
File: 1592131923408.jpg (14.65 KB, 400x225, 16:9, DD.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
There are a thousand theories out there,from the simulation to Open Individualism. All are pretty fucked up, but i honestly believe we are just meat with strings. Death is the end.
I believe in quantum immortality, but I think it manifests itself through your sleep cycle. Kinda some groundhog day type shit. You don't narrowly dodge death from some improbable circumstances, what happens is you simply wake up the next morning in a universe where you didn't take any of the actions that led towards your death. You think you can hug a nuke and survive the blast? No, you just wake up the next day in a timeline where you decided that was a retarded idea. That's how you dodge death.
Also falling asleep is the equivalent of philosophical death, and you wake up each day as a new person who has all the memories of the previous person who was in your body, to the point that you think you are them, but you aren't. Your mind shuts down and a new instance of you takes its place in the morning. It's like the Star Trek transporter problem, but real.
Also falling asleep is the equivalent of philosophical death, and you wake up each day as a new person who has all the memories of the previous person who was in your body, to the point that you think you are them, but you aren't. Your mind shuts down and a new instance of you takes its place in the morning. It's like the Star Trek transporter problem, but real.
>>169586
That's retarded though, because what happens to the memory of the blast?
Are you saying that 14 hour portion of the day is wiped clean, time is then reversed and you are plugged into another reality where you not only hugged the nuke that day, but decide not to hug the nuke for all time?
Sounds convoluted and poorly thought out.
That's retarded though, because what happens to the memory of the blast?
Are you saying that 14 hour portion of the day is wiped clean, time is then reversed and you are plugged into another reality where you not only hugged the nuke that day, but decide not to hug the nuke for all time?
Sounds convoluted and poorly thought out.
>>169589
The core requirement of quantum immortality is the assumption that Many Worlds is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. This states that at every instance, the universe is splitting into infinite new timelines for every possible outcome of every possible event. On a basic, simplified level, anyway, that's how the Many Worlds interpretation works.
So the timeline doesn't just split at the moment you are killed - it's been splitting basically an infinite number of times over the entire history of the universe leading up to that instant of time. The "memory of the blast" still exists in another timeline where it occurred and where you are dead. You simply wake up in a timeline that branched before the point at which your survival was least probable. You would not have any "memory of the blast" because you are not in the timeline in which that occurred. Your memory would hold a different 14 hours instead.
Part of this stems from the anthropic principle as well, in a more personalized sense. Assuming Many Worlds and literally infinite possible universes, probabilities take hold, and you are going to be observing the timeline that most likely leads to your own survival. Hugging a nuke is not likely to lead to your survival. This doesn't mean you lack the agency to make future decisions, it only constrains your past. You can still decide to hug a nuke, that timeline branch still exists, and others in that timeline will continue to experience it after you are inevitably deleted from it. But you will never wake up remembering that timeline, you will always wake up remembering the timeline where you decided against it, the timeline that produced the most probable odds of your own survival.
There would likely exist some small portion of timelines where you somehow "quantum dodged" the blast to survive, but those are near infinitely less likely than simply having decided against it. So you would "almost never" find yourself in such a strange timeline.
The core requirement of quantum immortality is the assumption that Many Worlds is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. This states that at every instance, the universe is splitting into infinite new timelines for every possible outcome of every possible event. On a basic, simplified level, anyway, that's how the Many Worlds interpretation works.
So the timeline doesn't just split at the moment you are killed - it's been splitting basically an infinite number of times over the entire history of the universe leading up to that instant of time. The "memory of the blast" still exists in another timeline where it occurred and where you are dead. You simply wake up in a timeline that branched before the point at which your survival was least probable. You would not have any "memory of the blast" because you are not in the timeline in which that occurred. Your memory would hold a different 14 hours instead.
Part of this stems from the anthropic principle as well, in a more personalized sense. Assuming Many Worlds and literally infinite possible universes, probabilities take hold, and you are going to be observing the timeline that most likely leads to your own survival. Hugging a nuke is not likely to lead to your survival. This doesn't mean you lack the agency to make future decisions, it only constrains your past. You can still decide to hug a nuke, that timeline branch still exists, and others in that timeline will continue to experience it after you are inevitably deleted from it. But you will never wake up remembering that timeline, you will always wake up remembering the timeline where you decided against it, the timeline that produced the most probable odds of your own survival.
There would likely exist some small portion of timelines where you somehow "quantum dodged" the blast to survive, but those are near infinitely less likely than simply having decided against it. So you would "almost never" find yourself in such a strange timeline.
>>169592
Ok, ill take your Many Worlds assumption as a compromise.
Now then, after i hug the nuke, wake up in a new reality where i no longer wanted to hug the nuke (?? i still have the same motivations even if delayed by one day) you are saying that i join the timeline with the best probability for survival. Wouldn't that mean that i wouldn't get in any serious accidents? I have a better probability of survival if they never happened.
Seriously not getting this.
The gun jams every-time i put it to my head?
The bridge happens to be closed the day i decide to jump?
What about other people, do they experience the same in my timeline? What if my mother roping causes me to rope, would i not join that timeline where she ropes because it decreases my probability survival? And so on and so forth..
Ok, ill take your Many Worlds assumption as a compromise.
Now then, after i hug the nuke, wake up in a new reality where i no longer wanted to hug the nuke (?? i still have the same motivations even if delayed by one day) you are saying that i join the timeline with the best probability for survival. Wouldn't that mean that i wouldn't get in any serious accidents? I have a better probability of survival if they never happened.
Seriously not getting this.
The gun jams every-time i put it to my head?
The bridge happens to be closed the day i decide to jump?
What about other people, do they experience the same in my timeline? What if my mother roping causes me to rope, would i not join that timeline where she ropes because it decreases my probability survival? And so on and so forth..
>>169600
I mean, the hypothesis of Quantum Immortality is pretty much that you won't experience your own death, so yeah, you will probably wind up having experienced the most probable ways of avoiding death.
What other people experience is the sum total of everything, remember there are infinite timelines created at every quantum event. Quantum Immortality is a very personal experience, other people will watch you die in their timelines just as you will watch everyone you love die around you. Everyone will be quantum immortal in their own distant, diverging timelines.
Is it fucking weird? Yes, quantum physics gets like that most of the time.
And btw we're talking Quantum Immortality, and assuming many worlds is a prerequisite for the discussion. If the actual nature of reality is something boring like wave-function collapse, then this whole discussion is moot. But QI is one of the philosophical consequences that arises out of the Many Worlds interpretation.
I mean, the hypothesis of Quantum Immortality is pretty much that you won't experience your own death, so yeah, you will probably wind up having experienced the most probable ways of avoiding death.
What other people experience is the sum total of everything, remember there are infinite timelines created at every quantum event. Quantum Immortality is a very personal experience, other people will watch you die in their timelines just as you will watch everyone you love die around you. Everyone will be quantum immortal in their own distant, diverging timelines.
Is it fucking weird? Yes, quantum physics gets like that most of the time.
And btw we're talking Quantum Immortality, and assuming many worlds is a prerequisite for the discussion. If the actual nature of reality is something boring like wave-function collapse, then this whole discussion is moot. But QI is one of the philosophical consequences that arises out of the Many Worlds interpretation.
>>169606
Can you answer these questions directly though?
>The gun jams every-time i put it to my head?
>The bridge happens to be closed the day i decide to jump?
and what about this?
>What if my mother roping causes me to rope, would i not join that timeline where she ropes because it decreases my probability survival?
Or does it only occur for direct suicides or events leading up to it?
I get two explosive chemicals and put them together, the molecules do not react or what?
Please explain if you can
Can you answer these questions directly though?
>The gun jams every-time i put it to my head?
>The bridge happens to be closed the day i decide to jump?
and what about this?
>What if my mother roping causes me to rope, would i not join that timeline where she ropes because it decreases my probability survival?
Or does it only occur for direct suicides or events leading up to it?
I get two explosive chemicals and put them together, the molecules do not react or what?
Please explain if you can
>>169611
You're asking me to answer to rather complicated and specific scenarios. I believe in quantum immortality, but I do not know how it would manifest in those specific scenarios. I believe that you will never find yourself on a timeline where your death is inevitable. The point is that your timeline doesn't just branch at the moment of your death, but also at every instant through your entire life. So there are already infinite timelines where you don't die, and where you avoid circumstances that inevitably lead to your death.
But it's very observer-centric. So I will not tell you that this is a timeline where you will live forever, I will never experience you living forever, and this might be a timeline where your death is already unavoidable. I will only ever observe myself living forever. The same applies from you as an observer to me.
You're asking me to answer to rather complicated and specific scenarios. I believe in quantum immortality, but I do not know how it would manifest in those specific scenarios. I believe that you will never find yourself on a timeline where your death is inevitable. The point is that your timeline doesn't just branch at the moment of your death, but also at every instant through your entire life. So there are already infinite timelines where you don't die, and where you avoid circumstances that inevitably lead to your death.
But it's very observer-centric. So I will not tell you that this is a timeline where you will live forever, I will never experience you living forever, and this might be a timeline where your death is already unavoidable. I will only ever observe myself living forever. The same applies from you as an observer to me.
>>169564
Between your "first" life and your "second" life. It took the universe, I don't know, trillion of years to make you so it will take an infinite large amount of time to do so again
Between your "first" life and your "second" life. It took the universe, I don't know, trillion of years to make you so it will take an infinite large amount of time to do so again
>>169564
I don't think you can make a case that nothingness is an experience.
An experience can only happen upon your mind and the mind causes an experience of itself. There's no suitable substratum to experience nothingness and it's not an experience in the first place.
At least that's what I just came up with.
I don't think you can make a case that nothingness is an experience.
An experience can only happen upon your mind and the mind causes an experience of itself. There's no suitable substratum to experience nothingness and it's not an experience in the first place.
At least that's what I just came up with.
>>169628
If we are to believe the universe is in fact around 14 billion years old, then there's plenty of time for the universe to make you again, considering most estimates for a death of the universe scenario put it many trillions of years away, orders of magnitude longer than it has already existed.
But the crux of the assumption is that there's any meaningful connection between you and any possible future "configurations" of you.
If we are to believe the universe is in fact around 14 billion years old, then there's plenty of time for the universe to make you again, considering most estimates for a death of the universe scenario put it many trillions of years away, orders of magnitude longer than it has already existed.
But the crux of the assumption is that there's any meaningful connection between you and any possible future "configurations" of you.
>>169631
The universe is going to change massively in time, and those trillions of years are going to be dominated by things like evaporating black holes, photons, iron stars, etc. The amount of usable time in the universe for complex life is much less.
The universe is 13.8 billion years old, and it took 4.8 billion years for complex life to develop on Earth. We are unequivocally still at the very beginning of the universe, which appears to be the only time capable of supporting life.
However, it appears the universe may be infinite in spatial dimensions, which would allow for every possible outcome to exist. I wouldn't say "plenty of time" so much as "plenty of space."
The universe is going to change massively in time, and those trillions of years are going to be dominated by things like evaporating black holes, photons, iron stars, etc. The amount of usable time in the universe for complex life is much less.
The universe is 13.8 billion years old, and it took 4.8 billion years for complex life to develop on Earth. We are unequivocally still at the very beginning of the universe, which appears to be the only time capable of supporting life.
However, it appears the universe may be infinite in spatial dimensions, which would allow for every possible outcome to exist. I wouldn't say "plenty of time" so much as "plenty of space."
A theory that I made up myself that gets scoffed at a lot on wizardchan was that you never experience nothingness only being conscious. Even when you sleep you skip the part where you’re asleep, maybe having a dream but you get fast forwarded until the next time you are conscious, when you wake up in the morning (presumably).
So I thought up that when you die since you are not Conscious after that you will fast forward to a time when you are conscious again, even if you have been dead for an eternity it can technically be a unit of time since you fast forward through it instantly.
The only thing is I don’t know anything else about it since I thought of it myself.
I’m not sure if I’m technically a spirit or what one will manifest into next time or where we go, but all I can say is that you won’t be aware of what happens until you are alive again where ever that is.
It’s hard to write it down in words and no one ever understands me here but I’m saying it again.
So I thought up that when you die since you are not Conscious after that you will fast forward to a time when you are conscious again, even if you have been dead for an eternity it can technically be a unit of time since you fast forward through it instantly.
The only thing is I don’t know anything else about it since I thought of it myself.
I’m not sure if I’m technically a spirit or what one will manifest into next time or where we go, but all I can say is that you won’t be aware of what happens until you are alive again where ever that is.
It’s hard to write it down in words and no one ever understands me here but I’m saying it again.
>>169780
Memories are stored in the brain and the brain will be destroyed. Even if your conscious "spark" as it were, were to manifest in a future an eternity away, you'd have no idea you were the same being or remember any of your past.
Memories are stored in the brain and the brain will be destroyed. Even if your conscious "spark" as it were, were to manifest in a future an eternity away, you'd have no idea you were the same being or remember any of your past.
>>169780
>It’s hard to write it down in words
That's how you know it's a retarded statement you are making
>It’s hard to write it down in words
That's how you know it's a retarded statement you are making
>>169798
Yeah I mean you don’t necessarily have to remember who you are either it’s just that you are conscious again
Yeah I mean you don’t necessarily have to remember who you are either it’s just that you are conscious again
>>169780
If you reincarnate but you don't remember your past life, did you really reincarnate at all? I don't see what would make "you" still "you".
If you reincarnate but you don't remember your past life, did you really reincarnate at all? I don't see what would make "you" still "you".
>>169824
you're not yourself anymore you're someone else. I'm just saying that you're only conscious when you are awake so when you die you won't be conscious again unless you're alive again.
And since you might never be awake again a lot of time can pass by very quickly like when you are asleep.
But the prospect of never might be a kind of actual time point since you are fast forwarding at a very fast speed.
You can tell I made this up by myself lol.
I never read up anything about it i just thought about it like that in the shower one time.
you're not yourself anymore you're someone else. I'm just saying that you're only conscious when you are awake so when you die you won't be conscious again unless you're alive again.
And since you might never be awake again a lot of time can pass by very quickly like when you are asleep.
But the prospect of never might be a kind of actual time point since you are fast forwarding at a very fast speed.
You can tell I made this up by myself lol.
I never read up anything about it i just thought about it like that in the shower one time.
File: 1592921103024.jpg (487.71 KB, 862x2428, 431:1214, consciousness theories.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>169570
>but i honestly believe we are just meat with strings. Death is the end.
Why do you believe this?
>but i honestly believe we are just meat with strings. Death is the end.
Why do you believe this?
>>169920
Not him but the premisse is that consciousness doesn't play any special part in the universe and it's just a by-product of chemical reactions. If your premisse is idealism, and I use the term freely here, then consciousness is a very important phenomenon and a key part of how the universe works, which then enables you to embrace more advanced idealistic propositions.
It all depends on what premisse you start with. That wiz obviously is not starting from the assumption that consciousness plays a major, if any part, on how the universe works.
Not him but the premisse is that consciousness doesn't play any special part in the universe and it's just a by-product of chemical reactions. If your premisse is idealism, and I use the term freely here, then consciousness is a very important phenomenon and a key part of how the universe works, which then enables you to embrace more advanced idealistic propositions.
It all depends on what premisse you start with. That wiz obviously is not starting from the assumption that consciousness plays a major, if any part, on how the universe works.
>>169921
Avshalom Elitzur is a quantum physicist who thinks that interactionist dualism is true.
Avshalom Elitzur is a quantum physicist who thinks that interactionist dualism is true.
>>169941
Videos like this are such a terrible way to transmit this type of information, people speak too slow and I can't peruse info properly by 5 secs skips, so you'll excuse me if I don't watch it. I can see by the title card he starts from a cartesian premisse (mind-matter relation), so yeah, of course he'll end up concluding about the preeminence of consciousness, that was the assumption before he even started. lol
This is a very old debate and it's more or less divided in Platonists and Aristotelians, even to this day. This is too long of a thing to explain here and I won't bother but basically platonists assume soul, or consciousness, depending in which millenium the debate is taking place, is transcendent, while aristotelians assume it's immanent. Then each side will have different explanations on how consciousness interacts with "the outside", that is the field of epistemology and also a very long, old and complicated debate, and it goes from giving primacy to the outside-of-mind to denying an outside exists, and ultimately different outcomes for the soul itself. Does consciousness gets destroyed when the brain is destroyed? is one of the questions you'll end up with at this juncture.
There are also people who will deny the debate altogether on "grammatical" grounds, I never read much into it but I think analytic philosophy largely denies the validity of this debate based on a different understanding of what language is (epistemological grounds I guess) but I don't know.
I don't know how much you got into this subject matter but if you're really interested to it and haven't even read Plato and Aristotle yet you should do so, it's really where this whole thing stem from.
Videos like this are such a terrible way to transmit this type of information, people speak too slow and I can't peruse info properly by 5 secs skips, so you'll excuse me if I don't watch it. I can see by the title card he starts from a cartesian premisse (mind-matter relation), so yeah, of course he'll end up concluding about the preeminence of consciousness, that was the assumption before he even started. lol
This is a very old debate and it's more or less divided in Platonists and Aristotelians, even to this day. This is too long of a thing to explain here and I won't bother but basically platonists assume soul, or consciousness, depending in which millenium the debate is taking place, is transcendent, while aristotelians assume it's immanent. Then each side will have different explanations on how consciousness interacts with "the outside", that is the field of epistemology and also a very long, old and complicated debate, and it goes from giving primacy to the outside-of-mind to denying an outside exists, and ultimately different outcomes for the soul itself. Does consciousness gets destroyed when the brain is destroyed? is one of the questions you'll end up with at this juncture.
There are also people who will deny the debate altogether on "grammatical" grounds, I never read much into it but I think analytic philosophy largely denies the validity of this debate based on a different understanding of what language is (epistemological grounds I guess) but I don't know.
I don't know how much you got into this subject matter but if you're really interested to it and haven't even read Plato and Aristotle yet you should do so, it's really where this whole thing stem from.
File: 1593066679521.jpg (298.89 KB, 1920x958, 960:479, Ea06KpDWkAAkqqu.jpg large.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>169570
I think there is a fundamental problem with the assertion of finality of anything, be it our life, or the entire universe. If something happened once, why can't it happen again? And if we assert that something can *only* happen once, well it's really strange to find ourselves in this tiny segment of existence, and not in the infinite void of non-existence. Death is the true, final, infinite, eternal, utter and irreversible end, stretching infinitely far in the future, in time and space, and I will never repeat again, yet I find myself alive and not dead, and thinking about it in the present. It's very strange, but I'm not sure if words can quite convey this confusion.
Assuming finality seems like it unfairly privileges my (or this world's) existence as unique and singular. But not assuming finality, opens the pandora's box of unlimited possibilities. Sure I might die tomorrow, but I might also repeat again and have a different outcome, somewhere, somewhen. And I might die in this world and may be there isn't an afterlife. But in another world, may be there is a powerful AI that simulated my exact (or similar enough, why should we be too picky) life, because in the end I am a limited, conditional being, and should the conditions be replicated, so will I. And there is no way to tell whether you're the instance that will die "for reals", or the instance that is simulated, and if this is true, it's hardly important anyway. Either you die and cease to be, or you die and you continue to be simulated in some kind of afterlife, heaven or hell or reincarnation or an isekai adventure or a repeat or parallel reality where you don't die, because you're always at the mercy of the conditions that make you possible and you're always only able to experience "being" rather than "non-being" by definition.
I do hope this infinite fractal pattern in which I am a mere conditional function is ultimately benign.
I think there is a fundamental problem with the assertion of finality of anything, be it our life, or the entire universe. If something happened once, why can't it happen again? And if we assert that something can *only* happen once, well it's really strange to find ourselves in this tiny segment of existence, and not in the infinite void of non-existence. Death is the true, final, infinite, eternal, utter and irreversible end, stretching infinitely far in the future, in time and space, and I will never repeat again, yet I find myself alive and not dead, and thinking about it in the present. It's very strange, but I'm not sure if words can quite convey this confusion.
Assuming finality seems like it unfairly privileges my (or this world's) existence as unique and singular. But not assuming finality, opens the pandora's box of unlimited possibilities. Sure I might die tomorrow, but I might also repeat again and have a different outcome, somewhere, somewhen. And I might die in this world and may be there isn't an afterlife. But in another world, may be there is a powerful AI that simulated my exact (or similar enough, why should we be too picky) life, because in the end I am a limited, conditional being, and should the conditions be replicated, so will I. And there is no way to tell whether you're the instance that will die "for reals", or the instance that is simulated, and if this is true, it's hardly important anyway. Either you die and cease to be, or you die and you continue to be simulated in some kind of afterlife, heaven or hell or reincarnation or an isekai adventure or a repeat or parallel reality where you don't die, because you're always at the mercy of the conditions that make you possible and you're always only able to experience "being" rather than "non-being" by definition.
I do hope this infinite fractal pattern in which I am a mere conditional function is ultimately benign.
>>169953
Enjoying your thoughts wizzie
If we cannot assert the finality of anything, would negative utilitarian be the way forward?
I know this is bring up a new philosophy outside of the epistemology and such we were talking about, but if your claims are true, and we cannot ever know, then maybe it's best we don't concern our limited brain with this problems too complex for us.
Enjoying your thoughts wizzie
If we cannot assert the finality of anything, would negative utilitarian be the way forward?
I know this is bring up a new philosophy outside of the epistemology and such we were talking about, but if your claims are true, and we cannot ever know, then maybe it's best we don't concern our limited brain with this problems too complex for us.
>>169953
I think I've never read a post so naive, no offense. It's actually interesting. You clearly don't care about withholding your own fancies when trying to make sense out of reality. You look like a guy in a shop, ordering a custom universe. "yeah finitude is an ugly color, what are the options?"
You believing something is weird or not to your liking is not nearly enough to cagtegorize as a "fundamental problem". Thinking something is strange and confusing doesn't make it improbable. Not that you care, obviously, as you clearly draw conclusions based on a pure play of your own most hopeful expectations, something most people would find it nothing short of undiluted wishful thinking.
This post actually reminds me of that one wiz who would go around posting how he reached the conclusion he was God. Then lots of people would come in and ridicule him but he would simply ignore any arguments to the contrary, nothing could convince him that he wasn't God. It was quite funny.
I think I've never read a post so naive, no offense. It's actually interesting. You clearly don't care about withholding your own fancies when trying to make sense out of reality. You look like a guy in a shop, ordering a custom universe. "yeah finitude is an ugly color, what are the options?"
You believing something is weird or not to your liking is not nearly enough to cagtegorize as a "fundamental problem". Thinking something is strange and confusing doesn't make it improbable. Not that you care, obviously, as you clearly draw conclusions based on a pure play of your own most hopeful expectations, something most people would find it nothing short of undiluted wishful thinking.
This post actually reminds me of that one wiz who would go around posting how he reached the conclusion he was God. Then lots of people would come in and ridicule him but he would simply ignore any arguments to the contrary, nothing could convince him that he wasn't God. It was quite funny.
Consciousness is one of the last bastions of there being something "special" about the world.
There is actually no scientific evidence for consciousness even existing. This isn't talking about beings that behave or appear to be conscious, but actual subjectivity or "qualia". You can envision a machine that acts like a human; takes inputted information and acts on it, but has no subjective experience. That's called a p-zombie and would be completely indistinguishable from a conscious being.
If we were visited by a hyper logical robot from space who came to study earth, it would have no reason to believe pain is a real thing. In his mind, it would be just a bunch of soulless meat machines that only act like they experience pain. To the robot, there is no special phenomenom assosciated with a creature claiming to experience pain than there would be with a computer that you program to cry or yell out when you push a button. Would you believe a robot like that is actually "experiencing" anything, or would you think it's just a machine that responds in a certain way to certain inputs? Where does inner experience come in?
This would seem to imply the mind is a special thing, like a soul, but it's clear that the brain and mind could exist without that weird thing called consciousness. Humans don't appear to be "special" in the universe given how we evolved after a long-ass time of nothing, and as the result of seemingly random circumstance with no direction or plan, so why would meat-brains that evolved randomly have something "special" about them?
Yet consciousness does exist; we know that more than anything even though it can't be scientifically proven. It's really paradoxical and weird. We shouldn't exist but we do. That implies something special about existence and the state of being that is seperate from just physical processes and information.
We don't know WHAT it means though. It could just be lights out at the end; that's what it looks like from a purely physical point of view. But consciousness is the weird element that can't be fully accounted for physically. Something weird could happen. Maybe we are born again in a different universe - or eons later (time is nothing to the unconscious mind), or maybe reincarnation is real (though the idea of memories carrying over is difficult to believe). The point is we don't know and might not ever know. Science explains nearly everything we know but it can't even begin to touch subjective experience.
Edward Witten is a string theorist and one of the smartest people in the world and thinks consciousness will be a mystery forever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ
There is actually no scientific evidence for consciousness even existing. This isn't talking about beings that behave or appear to be conscious, but actual subjectivity or "qualia". You can envision a machine that acts like a human; takes inputted information and acts on it, but has no subjective experience. That's called a p-zombie and would be completely indistinguishable from a conscious being.
If we were visited by a hyper logical robot from space who came to study earth, it would have no reason to believe pain is a real thing. In his mind, it would be just a bunch of soulless meat machines that only act like they experience pain. To the robot, there is no special phenomenom assosciated with a creature claiming to experience pain than there would be with a computer that you program to cry or yell out when you push a button. Would you believe a robot like that is actually "experiencing" anything, or would you think it's just a machine that responds in a certain way to certain inputs? Where does inner experience come in?
This would seem to imply the mind is a special thing, like a soul, but it's clear that the brain and mind could exist without that weird thing called consciousness. Humans don't appear to be "special" in the universe given how we evolved after a long-ass time of nothing, and as the result of seemingly random circumstance with no direction or plan, so why would meat-brains that evolved randomly have something "special" about them?
Yet consciousness does exist; we know that more than anything even though it can't be scientifically proven. It's really paradoxical and weird. We shouldn't exist but we do. That implies something special about existence and the state of being that is seperate from just physical processes and information.
We don't know WHAT it means though. It could just be lights out at the end; that's what it looks like from a purely physical point of view. But consciousness is the weird element that can't be fully accounted for physically. Something weird could happen. Maybe we are born again in a different universe - or eons later (time is nothing to the unconscious mind), or maybe reincarnation is real (though the idea of memories carrying over is difficult to believe). The point is we don't know and might not ever know. Science explains nearly everything we know but it can't even begin to touch subjective experience.
Edward Witten is a string theorist and one of the smartest people in the world and thinks consciousness will be a mystery forever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW7n_h7MvQ
>>169961
How do you intent to know consciousness, when consciousness is everything you see? You are not separate from it, therefore, have no place to view it from.
How do you intent to know consciousness, when consciousness is everything you see? You are not separate from it, therefore, have no place to view it from.
those things are just too abstract for me
when I watch docs about dark holes anti matter dark matter and this space crap. I just feel so retarded as I cannot understand this at all
Now imagine einstein and those eggheads they all found this out in a time where they did not even have good enough telescopes to monitor the space at all. It was all based on abstract theories and they derived their findings all from theories and logic alone without having the instruments to confirm their theories.
>>170028
how can mirrors be real when your eyes are not real
when I watch docs about dark holes anti matter dark matter and this space crap. I just feel so retarded as I cannot understand this at all
Now imagine einstein and those eggheads they all found this out in a time where they did not even have good enough telescopes to monitor the space at all. It was all based on abstract theories and they derived their findings all from theories and logic alone without having the instruments to confirm their theories.
>>170028
how can mirrors be real when your eyes are not real
i think the world is perfectly predetermined and we are in a perfect loop. when we die, we lose all our memories and 'start over'. it is not starting over though, we are just skipping over the death and rebirth of the universe and everything happening again that leads to your birth same as before. so if we were to retain our memories, it would appear as though we just start over. so that's what i look forward to. living this same life again an infinite amount of times the exact same way
>>172579
>how can mirrors be real when your eyes are not real
Why would you need mirrors to make your eyes real?
>how can mirrors be real when your eyes are not real
Why would you need mirrors to make your eyes real?
File: 1599419785322.jpg (112.37 KB, 1280x1280, 1:1, 3cc1626f.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>168170
>a concious observer never experiences its own death.
Of course not. Consciousness is based on the ability to sense, and death is the absence of senses. You can't sense death because death by definition is the termination of all senses. Therefore you can't experience it.
As an extension to that, humans can never grasp the concept of death since all understanding is based on measuring things via senses.
>a concious observer never experiences its own death.
Of course not. Consciousness is based on the ability to sense, and death is the absence of senses. You can't sense death because death by definition is the termination of all senses. Therefore you can't experience it.
As an extension to that, humans can never grasp the concept of death since all understanding is based on measuring things via senses.
>>172599
prove many worlds wrong and you'll be a famous millionaire, should be easy with all of that detached wisdom you possess!
>>172594
you just restated the epicurean position and added nothing…the next logical step is since death cannot be experienced, a universe in which there are branching points in phase/measure space [so probabilities, no matter how small of survival] as t approaches 0 or whatever will be experienced, and finally after all possible branch points of conscious awareness are extinguished/maximum entropy is close, a time such as 10^10^200 will pass as if it were no time at all due to there being no observers to experience it. so fast forward again until the emergence of self replicating RNA and other forms of order begin arising, once again warming up for the great struggle to maintain order against the tendency of all systems to disintegrate.
>>172580
i don't think it would be the exact same way because space and time are infinitely divisible/the nature of irrational numbers: if you have say, a minimum distance at the planck scale, for example, a square with that side length "d" would have d*sqrt(2) as its diagonal, of course meaning the length of it can be continuously subdivided, so i think it's unlikely events will repeat exactly as they are, only to arbitrary precision like a limit in calculus. perhaps this opens up the opportunity for change. after all, many arguments against free will are very convincing, with seemingly sound logic, but the issue is definitely not resolved and we do have to acknowledge the fact that we feel we are in control of our choices.
thanks for coming to my schizo rambling TED talk
prove many worlds wrong and you'll be a famous millionaire, should be easy with all of that detached wisdom you possess!
>>172594
you just restated the epicurean position and added nothing…the next logical step is since death cannot be experienced, a universe in which there are branching points in phase/measure space [so probabilities, no matter how small of survival] as t approaches 0 or whatever will be experienced, and finally after all possible branch points of conscious awareness are extinguished/maximum entropy is close, a time such as 10^10^200 will pass as if it were no time at all due to there being no observers to experience it. so fast forward again until the emergence of self replicating RNA and other forms of order begin arising, once again warming up for the great struggle to maintain order against the tendency of all systems to disintegrate.
>>172580
i don't think it would be the exact same way because space and time are infinitely divisible/the nature of irrational numbers: if you have say, a minimum distance at the planck scale, for example, a square with that side length "d" would have d*sqrt(2) as its diagonal, of course meaning the length of it can be continuously subdivided, so i think it's unlikely events will repeat exactly as they are, only to arbitrary precision like a limit in calculus. perhaps this opens up the opportunity for change. after all, many arguments against free will are very convincing, with seemingly sound logic, but the issue is definitely not resolved and we do have to acknowledge the fact that we feel we are in control of our choices.
thanks for coming to my schizo rambling TED talk
I mean, there's no concrete evidence to support it. It's all theoretical and some scientists do express interest the theory but it's fairly fantastical and just un-quantifiable at least for the moment. A leap of faith in its own right.
>>172620
>I mean, there's no concrete evidence to support it
This whole thread should end right there.
>I mean, there's no concrete evidence to support it
This whole thread should end right there.
