If reader entertains "may or may not be" arguments as establishment clauses, then I invite him to consider that he, himself, may, or may not be, a hippopotamus, more likely a jack-ass, or for that matter anything else whatsoever, including nothing whatsoever.

Beyond the possibility that we live in a simulation. which I do not believe, the reason that it is very highly unlikely that I am a hippo is because I am an observable in the scientific sense. A scientist can posit that I exist as a biologic entity and can test their theory by experimentation - do I statistically meet all the criteria of classification as a homo-sapien? That which is not observable because it is outside the range of human ability to perceive, with even the best instruments used to enhance the senses, objectively may or may not exist. I cannot say it is likely that anything exists beyond the observable nor can I say it is likely that nothing exists beyond the observable, I cannot say anything at all about the reality of that which is not observable. Is there anything beyond the physical, I have no way of concluding that there is or there is not, therefore I may simply decide to reject the non-physical (what you call supernatural) but I cannot offer proof I am right.

In the tapestry of time and space, Bill lives forever.

Indeed every event has a effect on the next sequential event, weaving a causal tapestry. However, in a purely physical world after his physical death Bill does not continue exist as a being who is conscious of the tapestry. The block universe interpretation of GR does not give us an individual who exists after physical death, rather it provides a worldline with an infinite number of "me's" no single one of which is a unique Bill who can be said to be the Bill who existed before physical death and contributed to the tapestry. There is no mechanism to explain being and becoming, you simply have an infinite number of approximate isomorphs of Bill strung out along his worldline.

The problem is that we cannot objectively say that it is irrational to accept the possibility of non-physical existence if we cannot make observations to test our assertions. There may be non-physical existence, or there may be no non-physical existence, after physical death, we cannot say it is likely that there is or is not. We cannot say anything objective about that which may exist beyond human observation - that is common sense.

There is no meaning to life. Live with it.

From a purely objective standpoint that is a conclusion that may or may not be true. It is irrational to accept as factually true that there is no meaning to life as long as there is a possibility, no matter how small, that there is a non-physical existence. The idea that one creates meaning by declaring that human beings can assign meaning is the fallacy of Ubermensch.

MWI, there is no spooky action at a distance. It is a completely local and deterministic interpretation of QM.

True - however every time something actualizes it creates a new universe so that there are an exponentially number of "me's" approaching infinite, no one of which is a singular me For which it can be said he or she had a meaningful life..

you still exist/existed/will exist on the points of that worldline

That is exactly right. The issue is what does "existed" and "will exist" mean - are they historical facts available to those who are conscious or are they facts that instantiate a past belonging to the person who does not exist - a past that is their past. The question about the metaphysical implications of tensed language is tied to the answer to our scientific question of whether the universe exhibits fundamental or emergent temporality - are past and future part of physical reality or not. For the spooky action at a distance of Quantum entanglement to work it appears that something like causal set theory, where there are sequential events but no fundental temporality, absolutely must be added to or discovered to be the correct interpretation of GR / QM. This has profound implications for the ontology of human physical existence.

Yeah, you can have that argument to yourself.

actually that is the argument of most naturalists and a majority of presentists - a pretty large group of scientists / philosophers

You are

you cannot describe someone who does not exist at all — SophistiCat

That is my point. That is the essence of nothing. That is the the logical basis of the conclusion all will be as if it never was.

Let me just state my argument again:

If we live in a block universe (eternalism) then there are an infinite number of approximate physical isomorphs of me living in an infinite number of isolated universes (many worlds theory) or an infinite number of me's at every point on my worldline, none of which can be said to be a singular conscious me who exists after my physical death.

If we live in a universe made up of sequential events (causal set theory) then as a conscious physical being I do not exist - I exist - I do not exist.

In both cases after my physical death - nothing. All would be as if it never was.

My argument is that it is far more rational to believe in the possibility (not certainty) of a non-physical existence after physical death than it is to make something out of nothing - to argue for existential meaning in a purely physical existence. That is what humanists who understand science and neuro-existentialists must do if they are to escape Camus' absurdity. Ubermensch, and any other assertions of meaning associated with a purely physical being, are in fact the irrational myths.

I carefully explain the reasoning behind this conclusion in the Something Out of Nothing book (Google Play Store and Kindle Books) - free on Google and Apple - minimum allowed price on Kindle.

Yes it does. Or at least it does as interpreted by physicists who specialize in GR. E.g. Hawking and Smolin.

You are right that Smolin in particular championed an interpretation that includes temporality in his book Time Reborn. It is not as clear if he still supports that position six years later, his contemporary Carlo Rovelli does not

a local notion of a sequence of events, which is a minimal notion of time, and that’s the only thing that remains

.
For my argument it does not really matter if you accept GR, QM, and many worlds as an incomplete block universe model where there are an infinite number of isolated "me's" scattered in an infinite number of universes or existing as an infinite number of points on a worldline, or you accept causal set theory where there is only one transient me - in both cases after my physical death there is no singular me who is aware of my past, or for that matter aware of anything. An infinite number of me's does not equal a singular consciousness that survives physical death.

That's not the best argument I've seen; sliding the word exists from one sense to another.

The problem with most words is that they are consciously or unconsciously "tensed". If you look at the mereological existence of someone who is conscious the word exists is used by me as equivalent to not conscious - conscious - not conscious. Someone who does not exist, is not conscious, does not have a past that is their past, a past they are aware of.

There are many deep philosophical problems to be solved in GR and QM, not the least of which is whether or not space itself is emergent and not fundamental as explained by Lee Smolin in Scientific American. For me, the most important issue is whether we live in a block universe or a universe made up of a sequential series of events (causal set theory). The philosophical significance is that in Many Worlds some sort of permanent consciousness exists in an infinite number of "me's", in the causal set interpretation of GR/QM it appears that physical existence is false - true - false - I do not exist - I exist (physical existence - causal set does not address non-physical existence) - I do not exist . Scientists agree that GR and QM in their current forms do not and cannot explain the non-locality required in quantum entanglement. The current theoretical uncertainty of whether time and space are fundamental or emergent is perhaps the greatest philosophical mystery of all.

I'm guessing you just consider transcendent existence preferable. Sure, it would be. But that doesn't make it true.

It does not make it true, if it is true it is true, if it is not true then it is not true. My point is that it is more rational to accept the possibility that there is a non-physical life after physical death than it is to try to make something out of the nothing that may follow physical death if there is no non-physical afterlife.

Okay, well there's also the mystery of how to unify GR with QM, but I consider that a completely scientific problem that likely doesn't really have any deep philosophical consequences. Except perhaps if we accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM, which I do.

There are dozens of deep mysteries that GR and QM don't solve. Many Worlds does not help with quantum entanglement, dark matter, etc. Quantum entanglement alone has philosophical significance that may never be unraveled.

A human being is something more than a mere collection of particles; it is an organism, which functionally interacts with the world - despite the fact that the actual particles of which it is composed are not fixed.

That is true, but a human being has an individual sentient consciousness, where a society does not have a single physical consciousness. A group of individuals is a family that is part of a society, but the group / society does not have a sentient existence apart from its members. If all sentient life on the earth was destroyed by a comet there would be no society that was aware of the destruction of humankind.
If you believe in panpsychism then, while I would not agree, I would see a logical argument for an anthropomorphic society. Otherwise society and family consist of individual sentient conscious beings who, if there is no afterlife, cease to exist on each of their physical deaths.

The problem with the humankind argument is that humankind is simply a set of all individual human beings, if there is no afterlife it may be true that each generation dies an isolated physical death that negates any assertion that humankind has a continuing existence apart from its individual members. If each person's death results in their no longer existing, then no manner of historical recording, social progression, or other remembrance in the minds of those whose time for physical death is yet to come, can in any way affect, preserve, or make any difference whatsoever to those who no longer are. No one will survive to remember.

When someone named Bill is born he exists. If there is no non-physical life after physical death, after the physical death of Bill he does not exist.

This assertion is false in General Relativity. In GR, all of space-time exists forever. The past still exists and the future already exists. In GR time is kind of like space. My father died when I was young, but in GR, he's still there, just at a different location in time than I am...

Sorry for my unorganized replies - just getting used to the markups. As I replied to 180_proof quoting you - One misconception from relativity is that a block universe implies a permanent me that spans my worldline from head to toe, in a sense I am my worldline as you suggest. However the requirement that no event be given precedence over any other event, means that each point on the worldline is unique.

A fine physicist, John Baez, once said that at every point on our worldline there is an approximate isomorph of me. The fact is that that we cannot identify an individual being on a worldline simply because there are an infinite number of me's on the line. Beyond that is the problem of Being and Becoming, presentism vs possibilism vs eternalism.

GR simply does not have an adequate mechanism to explain being and becoming. In the 5th appendix of the 15th edition of his book on relativity Einstein wrote “Since there exists in this four dimensional structure no longer any sections which represent now objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated.” What did he mean, “…happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended”?

He consoled the widow of a friend, saying that although her husband had preceded her in death it was of no consequence, “…for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one.” Yet he also said “A photograph never grows old. You and I change, people change all through the months and years but a photograph always remains the same. How nice to look at a photograph of mother or father taken many years ago. You see them as you remember them. But as people live on, they change completely. That is why I think a photograph can be kind.”
It is clear that Einstein believed that the past, present, and future coexist, yet he also realized that in some unexplained manner happening and becoming occur, “But as people live on, they change completely.” There is no answer to what being and becoming means in a block universe, indeed Einstein said “An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension.”.

From a scientific standpoint I am pretty much convinced that the evolving causal set theory model, which is consistent with relativity and QM, will prove to be true and will replace traditional block universe models with a timeless model where event X does not exist - X exists - X does not exist.

I still don't understand what you are trying to get at here. Granted, one can only predicate things about something or someone that exists. But what does this have to do with the search for meaning? Bill may or may not find his life meaningful while he is alive. After Bill dies, or before Bill is born, there is no sense in talking about the meaning of his life, except in the past or future tense. So what? (By the way, do you also require that Bill must have an eternal pre-life, as well as an eternal after-life in order for his life to have a meaning?)

You are looking at this from a third party viewpoint. Every living being can look at the history of Bill and discuss his life using tensed language. The past I am talking about is something that belongs to Bill, something that he is aware of. After Bill's physical death he has no past, present, or future simply because he does not exist.

[By the way, do you also require that Bill must have an eternal pre-life, as well as an eternal after-life in order for his life to have a meaning?)

No

We should not think of physical life as nothing, physical life should be lived to the most positive extent possible. The point is that it is most likely that our positive physical life has meaning if there is a non-physical life after physical death, and likely that it does not if there is "nothing". That makes belief in the possibility, even if infinitesimally small, of life after physical death rational, and belief in the myth of existentialism irrational. Remember that even if you believe that the possibility of existence after physical death is minimal, if there is an afterlife then the possibility has
100% probability and is actually a certainty.

I do not believe there is a path to any kind of objective proof. The best we can do is follow intuitive conclusions, Saul Kripke said “Of course, some philosophers think that something’s having intuitive content is very inconclusive evidence in favor of it. I think it is very heavy evidence in favor of anything, myself. I really don’t know, in a way, what more conclusive evidence one can have about anything, ultimately speaking.” Perhaps Kripke is saying that since we cannot know anything with absolute certainty what can be better than our best intuition of what is true based on our rational evaluation of reality. I wrote a theist ebook "LifeNotes" ISBN 978-0965523738 (free on Google and Apple) that admittedly is an emotional plea (based on my thought that I have a reader's attention only 1 time in their life) that discusses what a life after physical death might look like.
From a purely rational basis it seems to me that there are two most probable consequences of physical death (1) that there is nothing and all (including our past) will be as if it never was and (2) that there is a life after physical death. Since if 1 is true there will be no positive or negative consequences to physical death, living for the possibility that 2 is true is the logical choice. Therefore we should live the most positive physical life possible, not based on the humanistic myth that physical life has existential meaning, but rather on the possibility that there is a non-physical life after physical death that gives meaning to both our physical and non-physical lives. We will know if 2 is true after our physical death, if 1 is true we will never know because the question will die with us.

"Worlds are made luckily, but with good odds" is not statistically true. Roger Penrose, an agnostic, put that argument to rest when he "calculated that the creation of a universe in which we could exist required the selection of 1 universe out of 10 raised to the 10th power raised to the 123rd power (1010^123) of all possible universes. This is a deceptively large number, which in fact cannot be written. If you tried to write it out by writing the number 1 on a piece of paper, you would have to write a 0 on every single atom in the universe just to approach the number of zeros that follow the 1, even then you would not be close to writing out the entire number."Penrose - The Emperors New Mind

Note that this is the odds of creation of our universe at the "big bang", it is not the often quoted lesser number for the odds of creation of life out of inanimate matter - an apples and oranges comparison.

The problem is not with the First Act, nor is it with the nature of the Second Act, the issue is summarized by “Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” William Shakespeare, Macbeth. When the First Act is over and the walking shadow enters the dark, does the actor have a Second Act or does the First Act become for him or her "that which never was".
I fully agree that we should live the most positive physical life that we can, even if on our physical death - nothing. Yet that does not change the fact that if "nothing", then for each individual all will be as if it never was. This is vastly different from saying that we can live a meaningful existential life if there is no extension after death, it says that if we do not exist after physical death then all will be as if it never was (which is certainly not to be feared or even thought about). The logical conclusion is that if on physical death all will be as if it never was, then the rational choice is to live the most positive life that we can with belief in the possibility, no matter how slight, that there is a non-physical life after death which gives meaning to both the First Act and Second Act. To do otherwise is to believe in the myth of the Übermensch.

One misconception from relativity is that a block universe implies a permanent me that spans my worldline from head to toe, in a sense I am my worldline as you suggest. However the requirement that no event be given precedence over any other event, means that each point on the worldline is unique. A fine physicist, John Baez, once said that at every point on our worldline there is an approximate isomorph of me. The fact is that that we cannot identify an individual being on a worldline simply because there are an infinite number of me's on the line. Beyond that is the problem of Being and Becoming, presentism vs possibilism vs eternalism.

From a scientific standpoint I am pretty much convinced that the evolving causal set theory model, which is consistent with relativity and QM, will prove to be true and will replace traditional block universe models with a timeless model where event X does not exist - X exists - X does not exist.

A brief comment on "woo woo", which is regrettably an appeal to emotion and not logic. What I "wish to be true" has no effect on what is true or false. The reason for pointing out that we cannot say anything objective about that which is beyond human observation is that the statement is logically true. It does not posit the existence of "woo woo" outside the domain of human observation, nor does it posit that there is nothing outside the domain of human observation, it simply says that human statements about the possibility that there is something or is nothing beyond human observation are products of human nature, hubris, and folly that lead to proclamations that humans are somehow better able than other creatures to understand reality. Neither you, nor I, nor the smartest person on earth know, or can even predict, if there is something beyond the physical, or nothing. (Perhaps that does not reject the value of intuition - Saul Kripke, "Naming and Necessity")

Thanks for the references - I have indeed carefully considered every alternative that seems to have a reasonable chance of being true. In general, I rank possibilities in order of estimated probability (estimated because if we knew which possibility was the right one there would be no possibilities or probabilities - i.e. every possibility disappears when proof shows the probability is 100%). I have an ebook aimed at freshman level students that addresses NDE's, reincarnation, etc., available FREE (I am not trying to sell anything) on Apple and Google books and for the minimum $1 on Kindle "Something Out of Nothing" ISBN 9780965523776 It also goes into depth about problems with block universes and existential reality. It pretty much sticks with philosophy and science, my theist beliefs are in other booklets.

Either something is subject to scientific proof, or it is not. Statistics is the heart of science. We can never be 100% certain that X is true, yet the statistical probability that e = mc^2 is extraordinarily high to the point that it can be and is said e = mc^2. My comfort in that fact is because I can provide physical evidence through experimentation that results in statistical certainty of a very high order.
While some claim proof, I cannot honestly say that I can offer such objective evidence that there is a non-physical existence after physical death. I can even admit that the lack of scientific proof leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely that there is a non-physical existence after physical death. But that feeling I have is objectively irrational.

To be able to scientifically prove something we must be able to test our hypothesis and show that it is statistically highly likely to be true, that no observation has been made that is opposite to what our hypothesis predicts. It is human nature to assume that if we have never observed X, then X does not exist or is highly unlikely to exist. However to make any statistical judgment we must observe how often X occurs, or doesn't occur, over a given interval. If X is beyond human ability to observe, then we cannot say that X did occur or did not occur during the interval. The false conclusion is that because we did not observe X it does not exist anywhere / anytime. In fact we have no scientific way to determine if X exists or does not exist. The result is that we cannot say that it is likely that X exists or that it is likely that X does not exist, in fact we cannot say anything at all about the likelihood that X does or does not exist.

There may or may not be a non-physical existence beyond human ability to observe. I cannot offer proof that there is or that there is not, in fact I cannot say anything at all about the reality of an after-life. But I can say that there is a possibility, or at least that there may be a possibility, that anything (or nothing) exists beyond our physical universe. It is simply impossible to prove that which is beyond human ability to observe. Yet that does not mean that there is no non-physical existence and after physical death, nor does it mean that there is. It simply means that we cannot say anything objective about the possibility. If there is an after-life then the possibility was real, if there is no after-life then the possibility was an allusion and not a possibility at all.

"Unless very important to impede delay I think you refresh in a sea of the dead, and become new life. That either paying debt or just significant enough to select a new life." I think you are suggesting that Bill has a non-physical existence after physical death. My long held belief is that believing in the possibility of some form of life after death is a rational argument for meaning in life, and that attempts to construct meaning in a naturalist physical world are not rational, or at the least given our current scientific knowledge, are magnitudes of order less rational than acceptance of the possibility that there is a non-physical life after physical death.
I would argue that the only non-physical after-life worth believing in is one that exhibits the most positive aspects of our current life. But my initial concern is for humanists to recognize the irrational myth of any form of Übermensch or other attempt to posit meaning for a being for which it is true - being x does not exist.

Agreed that the existential here and now is to be lived to the fullest, yet that does not address, or even attempt to address, that which is or may be after physical death. That is the reality that is most often ignored.

That is true. Yet the possibility of future existence is not equivalent to existence unless it actualizes. After his physical death Bill does not exist as a physical entity, even if the possibility of future physical existence is real. He may have a non-physical existence but not a physical existence.