It certainly makes me feel powerless.

Because if I were immortal in any form in a universe where nothing else is, it would become clear that we do matter. It takes only one world ending event to end the cycle of humans.

Because it implies that we didn't matter. We matter to each other while we're alive. But if we cease and get recycled into plant food what mattered to us doesn't matter anymore because we could not keep those matters alive because they are as limited as I hope we're not.

I am not familiar with omega point or omni-memory. My concern is that we do end in all forms after physical death making everything before and after just castles in the sand.

A God isn't necessary in my view. But that we consciously go on after death does matter. Just physically configuring only to be unassembled to be used for another task equally pointless and possibly random doesn't inspire confidence that we or our gift of intelligence ever was held in any esteem by the universe on the whole.

Maybe I am presupposing that any part of us is nonphysical and therefore it interacts with this nonphysical world. I agree only physical interacts with physical and if any new things come along that interact with physical stuff than it too is defined as physical.

I am interested in logical arguments, perhaps taking big leaps, as to why any such realm if it exists would be hidden.

1). Perhaps there is a deity that hides the living from the dead so we live our lives and don't commit suicide thinking it will give us peace.

2). Maybe the physical world is the minority of things and rarely interacts with the physical world. Like all we know being little more than colors on the EM spectrum.

3). Maybe what we call nonphysical actually is physical but is so subtle that our instruments don't come close to perceiving it.

I'd be happy to hear any interpretations of why an afterlife if it exists is so well hidden. I recently had a close relative pass away and have been in a bit of an existential crisis. I appreciate any concepts on this subject.

Fair. But maybe another word instead of hidden. They say dark matter exists despite not interacting with light, but it does interact with gravity? Can't something be hidden even if it doesn't leave obvious clues of its possible existence?

I hope there is experienced peace for us once we die. Life at its worse can make a person question everything.

There is a maximum lifespan for the species and a statistical lifespan over which 50% don't make it? My life will never span past my age at death.

Fair

In that case whose more prone to arrogants? Philosophers or physicists? Physicists at least need to back up most statements but Philosophers touch on many things that aren't necessarily falsifiable?

Are you saying they're full of themselves? Lol.

Does a person really have to separate themselves of ego and thinking they themselves are important in order to successfully be philosophical?

Not sure what you're saying, but surly I've known more words in my youth.

What is a truth table?

How does Mary describe the knowledge? I can describe east and west as being 180 away from one another and each 90 degrees from north. But what knowledge can be described from color? Is it more than an effect that can be tided meaninglessly to other memories?

Somewhere in the video I think he suggested that if 1/3 is correct it suggests that the multiverse might be possible. Don't know how large a leap that is.

When we see color I think we only gain knowledge about the physical phenomenon that allows for the phenomenon of color, namely wavelength? When we dream do we imagine color from memory or can we recreate the perceptions of color? We probably recall that the sky should be blue, but do we experience it again from memory, or is the memory derived from past knowledge of what the perception should be and we basically only get the number reference from a "color by numbers" book?

Yes

I do agree with that statement. I only use the word subjective to mean not objective which might not be mutually exclusive. I probably keep using the terms wrong. Basically inside the mind versus from outside.

I will check it out. I'm not partial to a blind person seeing color as an evidence because color might well be entirely of the mind, and for all we know the occipital lobe might be accessible even when the eyes don't work and can be stimulated.

I guess the answer is 1/3 of being his only child. And it is based on a 1/2 coin flip. But what is the takeaway?

No emotions don't explain anything. But the main attributes described in NDEs aren't terribly informational. Mostly colors, music, and stuff that can easily be imagined. I am just curious what a blind person could possibly say about sight that leaves little doubt that they saw something.

I am looking for a way to not dismiss NDEs as they seem to be emotional experiences and the Parnia experiments involving upward facing numbers are less emotional in nature. I just wonder if there is a quality that can't be faked by a person that literally can't physically perceive it. Or is it all just words and everything can be faked unless it's just letters, numbers, or limited choice shapes being witnessed?

I have been interested in NDEs and OBEs research but haven't found strong evidence to support them as beyond physical. Some have claimed in a near death experiences a blind person has described visual information. But I want to know what they couldn't possibly have known unless they had achieved some form of supernatural sight. What information isn't just remembering spacial information and descriptions given by other people. Such is a setting sun being reddish.

I guess that might help, but tactile senses are different part of brain. I guess emphasis on color, sheen, translucency and stuff that are strictly visual.

I still don't see how the odds are changed if the fair coin is flipped only once. If it were the lets make a deal problem of selecting twice, once initially, and again after one of the doors is removed.

I updated first post with YouTube video title and channel.

I don't understand the video I think is the issue. I have to assume the odds of a single flip must always be 50/50 if it is a single flip. The video is 10 minutes only.

You believe people are corrupt or not corrupt from the start and don't go from one to the other under any conditions?

Perhaps we need to be omniscience about the futures caused by our actions from the near future to the very end of time to even begin to set standards of behavior as moral or immoral. We surely need to see the point and know that our positive intentions aren't negated and neutralized by something else put into motion by the same.

I think studies have been done on children who thought they were being watched versus not, or those who were suggested that an all seeing God is always present. When they thought there were no witnesses they stole from the cookie jar when the adults left the room.

Some greed is for vanity, but many of those excesses aren't perceived to be taking from the resources we all need. Super expensive watches are basically other worldly. Most of the resources people accumulate with no end in sight are common things? Cash, food, clothes, real estate. If we lived in an isolated place where no other human even visits or law enforcement or tax collector tried to interact with us would we only collect what we truly need and nothing more?

What makes an action good? Lets say there was a hod that created us all and only created us to causes us to suffer and die? If this god defines what good and best is than clearly our definition would conflict with that god's ends.

Or perhaps saving a life in the short run allows a chain of outcomes that brings a tyrant into power. There are limits to how far we can see into the future, but ultimately our action wasn't good?

I heard a study that said money doesn't buy happiness beyond $80K. What could prompt someone to do such a study if people had a clear end goal to how wealthy they wanted to be? Certainly medical bills can bankrupt virtually anymore. I still think it is the fear of losing what one has that compells them to continue accumulating wealth and other resources almost regardless of those that might be in greater need. What special quality must one have to give nearly all one has freely? To serve others at or above serving oneself?

Nothing we make will live long after us. DaVinci's Mona Lisa isn't nearly as crisp as it once was. Hasn't even been a thousand years. Our accomplishments shouldn't be physical. Nothing lasts here.

Life can be mundane and it feels like our choices and actions make small difference. This is the appeal of superhero movies. These are people of robust action. That is what highlights the men. Nurturing traits are less short term oriented and might be seen as less interesting but are important in their own way.

There are many people with genius IQs out there. I don't think most of them are responsible for the greatest accomplishments of humanity. Odds are good they elected to do their own thing even if they could of done more for the world.

Master Splinter really helped Michelangelo chill out.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz1n0RHwLqA

Here's a video on simple versus complex and its relationship with order versus chaos.