By that reasoning, a human is just a collection of cells, and the cells are just collections ofThe 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 — CommonSense
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.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.
An individual "sentience" consists of a set of beliefs, memories, and dispositions processed with an intellectual capability. These all change over time. That's analogous to what goes on in a society over time. All are functional entities that persist in time and interact with the part of the world outside itself.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. — CommonSense
So what?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.
So what?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.
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.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.
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.I'm guessing you just consider transcendent existence preferable. Sure, it would be. But that doesn't make it true.
I didn't make something out of nothing, I simply identified someTHINGS that you had overlooked: family and societies. And as I said, there is meaning and value for a human life within the context of humankind.. Again, this is not something from nothing. About all you can add to that is that this is a transient impact - families and societies disappear or evolve to unrecognizable forms, over time. And they will eventually disappear entirely. This doesn't alter the fact these are things that actually exist, they extend beyond ourselves, and provide something into which our contributions are relevant. In one sense, our contributions to these transient things is more meaningful than would be an afterlife: if there is a heaven, within which our existence continues, is there any reason to think that any one individual soul has a meaningful impact to that broad, extended existence - wherein every soul that has ever existed, and ever will exist, resides? Is that a society that evolves, for either better or worse, and within which we can make a difference?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. — CommonSense
Of course it does. It tells us precisely what results from quantum entanglement.Many Worlds does not help with quantum entanglement — CommonSense
dark matter, etc — CommonSense
Perhaps not "all will be as-if it never was". Most of us can find a bit of solace in the notion that we can live-on in our genes, our children will be our mark on the world. Even if our physical gene-line comes to an end, the memes (memories) that each person has generated may still inhabit the minds of those that survive. Those who have made a more permanent impact on the world, in writings or in deeds, may even "live-on" as historical personages. But that is small comfort for those who can't deal with the idea of non-being. I have no idea where I was before I was born, and no idea where I'll be after death.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. — CommonSense
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. — CommonSense
This assertion is false in General Relativity. In GR, all of space-time exists forever. — Douglas Alan
GR does not imply this. — SophistiCat
What is usually missed is that in addition to no future, Bill has no past because Bill does not exist. — CommonSense
Yes it does. Or at least it does as interpreted by physicists who specialize in GR. E.g. Hawking and Smolin. — Douglas Alan
Also GR allows for "closed timelike loops" which let you travel into the past. You can't travel to something that doesn't exist. — Douglas Alan
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.That's not the best argument I've seen; sliding the word exists from one sense to another.
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 notYes it does. Or at least it does as interpreted by physicists who specialize in GR. E.g. Hawking and Smolin.
.a local notion of a sequence of events, which is a minimal notion of time, and that’s the only thing that remains
To be rational, there must be a rational justification for the belief. I haven't seen one, and I'm not going to read a book to see if it's buried in there somewhere.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. — CommonSense
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. — CommonSense
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. — CommonSense
I carefully explain the reasoning behind this conclusion in the Something Out of Nothing book — CommonSense
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. — CommonSense
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. — CommonSense
That's not a philosophical problem. It's a scientific one.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 — CommonSense
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). — CommonSense
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 — CommonSense
Scientists agree that GR and QM in their current forms do not and cannot explain the non-locality required in quantum entanglement. — CommonSense
The current theoretical uncertainty of whether time and space are fundamental or emergent is perhaps the greatest philosophical mystery of all. — CommonSense
If Hawking and Smolin subscribe to eternalism, and I don't know if they do, that is on them and not on GR. GR has nothing to say on the question of existence, it is not a metaphysical theory. — SophistiCat
This is a red herring. In any theory of spacetime you can travel to the future by the normal means, that is by waiting for it to actualize, but that doesn't imply that the future exists. — SophistiCat
That's not traveling; that's waiting. — Douglas Alan
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.