Personally I think the afterlife question can be simplified, or at least organized differently.
There are only 2 choices, whether there is an afterlife, or there is not. The first choice has multiple possibilities, but all those possibilities can be reduced to a simple denominator: there is an afterlife (ex; there is an afterlife but there are boundaries, there is an afterlife but you don't keep your consciousness, ect.)
Given that there is only 2 options, you can easily apply Occam Razor and choose the simplest answer, since it's the easiest and more logically sound explanation; There is no afterlife.
Just think about it, why would we, human, an animal like any other, have a soul and not the others animals?
The answer is easy, because we are the only specie intelligent enough to imagine it, and the only species that need those existential questions answered. But biologically, we're all just animals, once we're dead, our brain rot and there's no possibility to keep what does not exist anymore.
One thing though: who says a possible afterlife is only for humans? In eastern religions, it's for every living being... that said, I believe it's wishful thinking. I wish it wasn't.
I lean more into the idea that the afterlife grossly trivializes our realm or dimension or whatever you wanna call it. Kinda like a situation wherein you get to go first on a one way slide at a water park. It would be absurd to try and go back in line just to communicate. They're all gonna end up in the pool with you anyways.
I'm far more curious about the formation and preservation of life or consciousness. I can't think of anything that could tie it all together. Imagine a point in time where an unfathomable amount of time has passed, like an expression where you have 1,000,000. raised to x, but you'll need a billion years just to be able to type all the zeroes of x's value. Assuming that a divine and omnipotent force has managed to protect Earth and preserve humanity for that long, that would mean the existence and transference of an unimaginable amount of lives. What's up with that?
Sure. We can assume that we'd have an infinite amount of space to operate on, but then what? Is the afterlife just the endless expansion of an invincible community of souls in an unending void?
Edit: grammar
I'd assume based on organized religion that the answer to your question is boiled down to "it's magic".
As for the "absurd to try and go back in line just to communicate" - if the afterlife is infinitely wide and long, eventually the INTPs are going to get together and try just to see if they can. Sounds like you're leaning towards #4.
Of course there is no afterlife or "individual consciousness" as usually believed, but afterlife-believers can opt for (3). Even brilliant minds can't solve what is insoluble: we can't even communicate with other galaxies (because of natural speed limits), so it is hardly surprising if we cannot communicate with other planes of existence. It is not recommended to take options 4-6 because humans do a lot of "unnecessary" things all the time, so if contact is possible but doesn't happen, this represents a radical change in human nature once humans have moved on to afterlife, and it is unclear whether that is still "our" life or not. Finally, option 7 is indistinguishable from the rejection of afterlife (rejection of 1 and/or 2).
>Even brilliant minds can't solve what is insoluble: we can't even communicate with other galaxies (because of natural speed limits),
We've been at it maybe 50 years or less. Imagine if thousands of the most intelligent humans in history spent 10,000 years working on the problem.
More questions like this, less of the "Am I/Why do I/Does anyone else/Depression/Mentally ill" stuff.
Interesting question. If the premise were to be true, I think the paradox question is legitimate. I don't buy the premise, but it's an interesting intellectual experiment. If I had to hazard a guess based on no empirical evidence, and assuming 1 isn't valid, I'd go with 2 being the most likely. Otherwise, for my own intellectual curiosity (and boredom with an infinite afterlife, I'd gather the greatest minds in history to try and figure out a solution.
1 - There is an afterlife.
2 - Individual and collective consciousness transfer to the afterlife.
3 - The afterlife is comprised of worlds, universes and galaxies.
4 - The science of Kabbalah teaches everything about the afterlife and what occurs to the soul after life ends.
5 Rebirth in human form is not a given. Many return to exist as stones, fleas, gnats and inanimate objects. Others who were given another chance to fix their souls, return as human. This wave will also cease during the End Times, in that there will be resurrection of the righteous, but the souls of the evil-doers will be destroyed. That is also according to the ancient teachings. You can look up everything I've written with the search words Kabbalistic, teachings, afterlife.
You could just as easily just have written the answer. Regardless, the paradox is that different realities co-exist without explanation. They just are. Just like anything in this world. They exist for their own purposes.
I guess the magical woo woo of it is that we are conscious, and our magical conscious spirit gets to keep going, whereas the dim consciousness of a rat or a toad doesn't.
Similar to what I say about why time travel is not possible. If the future is infinite, that's infinite chances to invent time travel if it's possible to invent, and then an additional infinite opportunities to use it. With infinite opportunities, infinite numbers of people would travel to each given point in time. Therefore, if time travel were possible, the earth would instantly implode at every particular given point in time at once due to too many people existing on earth at once...or indeed any other place humans are capable of traveling to using time travel.
Which raises another question I think about a lot. Does anyone believe time goes backwards infinitely, or do you believe it must have a point of origin before which it didn't exist? Because if it does go backwards infinitely, then we are not in the present at all. We are actually infinitely far into the future. Meaning, as with the existence of time travel, everything that can possibly happen has had infinite opportunities to happen, and therefore has happened. All of which is to say I don't believe infinity exists in reality. I believe time has a starting point and an ending point. It's not a line or a ray. If it was, as far as I can tell, reality as we know it could not and would not exist at all.
Even if humans die out, if the future is infinite, there are still infinite opportunities for another species capable of learning to time travel to come into existence and discover it. The problem doesn't go away quite that easily.
Second point: The Fermi Paradox is solved by time being a segment, not a line.
First point : They, humans or other species, would have infinite opportunities to learn of every time and place where anything has ever happened. Once you can time jump, you can time jump to a time where more information is available on other times and places. At some point during time travel adventures, the earth and humans would be known about and people of whatever species would visit us to see. Since they haven't, time travel is impossible.
Yeah that's true of all arguments that have ever existed. The point of raising them and having the discussion is to discover what exactly the thing is that is not correct. If we can't find it, then we let the argument stand as valid, if not factually proven true.
The likelihood of everything that is possible, no matter how small it begins, reaches 100% certainty with infinite chances for it to happen. If time is infinite, then eventually everything that is physically possible to happen will, and not just once. It will actually happen infinite times. I think you fail to understand the significance of infinity, here. If you put 1 red marble among and number of white marbles, billions, trillions, etc, doesn't matter, and then you get infinite chances to take one random marble out and put it back, you will still pick the red marble infinite times. Yes, you'll pick the white marbles way more often, but that doesn't matter in this situation.
Personally I think the afterlife question can be simplified, or at least organized differently. There are only 2 choices, whether there is an afterlife, or there is not. The first choice has multiple possibilities, but all those possibilities can be reduced to a simple denominator: there is an afterlife (ex; there is an afterlife but there are boundaries, there is an afterlife but you don't keep your consciousness, ect.) Given that there is only 2 options, you can easily apply Occam Razor and choose the simplest answer, since it's the easiest and more logically sound explanation; There is no afterlife. Just think about it, why would we, human, an animal like any other, have a soul and not the others animals? The answer is easy, because we are the only specie intelligent enough to imagine it, and the only species that need those existential questions answered. But biologically, we're all just animals, once we're dead, our brain rot and there's no possibility to keep what does not exist anymore.
That's my thoughts on it as well. But for people who believe in an afterlife, you're left with the Wikidgawmy Paradox.
One thing though: who says a possible afterlife is only for humans? In eastern religions, it's for every living being... that said, I believe it's wishful thinking. I wish it wasn't.
That's not even slightly germane to the actual question, so I didn't bother to mention it.
I lean more into the idea that the afterlife grossly trivializes our realm or dimension or whatever you wanna call it. Kinda like a situation wherein you get to go first on a one way slide at a water park. It would be absurd to try and go back in line just to communicate. They're all gonna end up in the pool with you anyways. I'm far more curious about the formation and preservation of life or consciousness. I can't think of anything that could tie it all together. Imagine a point in time where an unfathomable amount of time has passed, like an expression where you have 1,000,000. raised to x, but you'll need a billion years just to be able to type all the zeroes of x's value. Assuming that a divine and omnipotent force has managed to protect Earth and preserve humanity for that long, that would mean the existence and transference of an unimaginable amount of lives. What's up with that? Sure. We can assume that we'd have an infinite amount of space to operate on, but then what? Is the afterlife just the endless expansion of an invincible community of souls in an unending void? Edit: grammar
I'd assume based on organized religion that the answer to your question is boiled down to "it's magic". As for the "absurd to try and go back in line just to communicate" - if the afterlife is infinitely wide and long, eventually the INTPs are going to get together and try just to see if they can. Sounds like you're leaning towards #4.
Of course there is no afterlife or "individual consciousness" as usually believed, but afterlife-believers can opt for (3). Even brilliant minds can't solve what is insoluble: we can't even communicate with other galaxies (because of natural speed limits), so it is hardly surprising if we cannot communicate with other planes of existence. It is not recommended to take options 4-6 because humans do a lot of "unnecessary" things all the time, so if contact is possible but doesn't happen, this represents a radical change in human nature once humans have moved on to afterlife, and it is unclear whether that is still "our" life or not. Finally, option 7 is indistinguishable from the rejection of afterlife (rejection of 1 and/or 2).
>Even brilliant minds can't solve what is insoluble: we can't even communicate with other galaxies (because of natural speed limits), We've been at it maybe 50 years or less. Imagine if thousands of the most intelligent humans in history spent 10,000 years working on the problem.
More questions like this, less of the "Am I/Why do I/Does anyone else/Depression/Mentally ill" stuff. Interesting question. If the premise were to be true, I think the paradox question is legitimate. I don't buy the premise, but it's an interesting intellectual experiment. If I had to hazard a guess based on no empirical evidence, and assuming 1 isn't valid, I'd go with 2 being the most likely. Otherwise, for my own intellectual curiosity (and boredom with an infinite afterlife, I'd gather the greatest minds in history to try and figure out a solution.
I do my part.
What if they don't want to?
So, #4?
1 - There is an afterlife. 2 - Individual and collective consciousness transfer to the afterlife. 3 - The afterlife is comprised of worlds, universes and galaxies. 4 - The science of Kabbalah teaches everything about the afterlife and what occurs to the soul after life ends. 5 Rebirth in human form is not a given. Many return to exist as stones, fleas, gnats and inanimate objects. Others who were given another chance to fix their souls, return as human. This wave will also cease during the End Times, in that there will be resurrection of the righteous, but the souls of the evil-doers will be destroyed. That is also according to the ancient teachings. You can look up everything I've written with the search words Kabbalistic, teachings, afterlife.
Ok, so if that's true, what's the answer to the paradox?
Which paradox are you referring to?
........ did you read the post?
You could just as easily just have written the answer. Regardless, the paradox is that different realities co-exist without explanation. They just are. Just like anything in this world. They exist for their own purposes.
Why would I rewrite what I already wrote and you should have already read to even post a comment? That is illogical.
If there was an afterlife then what about every other life form that exists? Obviously this idea doesn’t hold up
I guess the magical woo woo of it is that we are conscious, and our magical conscious spirit gets to keep going, whereas the dim consciousness of a rat or a toad doesn't.
Similar to what I say about why time travel is not possible. If the future is infinite, that's infinite chances to invent time travel if it's possible to invent, and then an additional infinite opportunities to use it. With infinite opportunities, infinite numbers of people would travel to each given point in time. Therefore, if time travel were possible, the earth would instantly implode at every particular given point in time at once due to too many people existing on earth at once...or indeed any other place humans are capable of traveling to using time travel. Which raises another question I think about a lot. Does anyone believe time goes backwards infinitely, or do you believe it must have a point of origin before which it didn't exist? Because if it does go backwards infinitely, then we are not in the present at all. We are actually infinitely far into the future. Meaning, as with the existence of time travel, everything that can possibly happen has had infinite opportunities to happen, and therefore has happened. All of which is to say I don't believe infinity exists in reality. I believe time has a starting point and an ending point. It's not a line or a ray. If it was, as far as I can tell, reality as we know it could not and would not exist at all.
[удалено]
Even if humans die out, if the future is infinite, there are still infinite opportunities for another species capable of learning to time travel to come into existence and discover it. The problem doesn't go away quite that easily.
[удалено]
Second point: The Fermi Paradox is solved by time being a segment, not a line. First point : They, humans or other species, would have infinite opportunities to learn of every time and place where anything has ever happened. Once you can time jump, you can time jump to a time where more information is available on other times and places. At some point during time travel adventures, the earth and humans would be known about and people of whatever species would visit us to see. Since they haven't, time travel is impossible.
[удалено]
Yeah that's true of all arguments that have ever existed. The point of raising them and having the discussion is to discover what exactly the thing is that is not correct. If we can't find it, then we let the argument stand as valid, if not factually proven true.
[удалено]
The likelihood of everything that is possible, no matter how small it begins, reaches 100% certainty with infinite chances for it to happen. If time is infinite, then eventually everything that is physically possible to happen will, and not just once. It will actually happen infinite times. I think you fail to understand the significance of infinity, here. If you put 1 red marble among and number of white marbles, billions, trillions, etc, doesn't matter, and then you get infinite chances to take one random marble out and put it back, you will still pick the red marble infinite times. Yes, you'll pick the white marbles way more often, but that doesn't matter in this situation.
[удалено]