I know for a fact that my nonexistence before conception was temporary, otherwise I would have never been conceived. — Paul Michael

Elaborate on this. How do you know that the past does not extend infinitely in the same way that the future does?

I think we are like waves in an ocean, briefly rising above the water and then just as rapidly returning to it.

Thank you _db for not being an idiot.

There is no evidence to suggest that post-expiration existence is a thing. From a philosophical perspective, that's pretty much all that matters as far as conclusions are concerned.

Maybe good to consider just what "I" is.

Elaborate on this. How do you know that the past does not extend infinitely in the same way that the future does? — _db

If presentism is true, there is no past or future that extends infinitely, there is only a changing present moment. On the other hand, if eternalism is true, then it could be the case that the past and future extend infinitely or in a finite manner, but we would have no way to know which of these possibilities is true. But if eternalism is true, then there is no objective progression of time, meaning that my entire life just exists eternally in the block universe.

There is no evidence to suggest that post-expiration existence is a thing. From a philosophical perspective, that's pretty much all that matters as far as conclusions are concerned. — Garrett Travers

Good point, but there’s no evidence to suggest that post-expiration existence is *not* a thing either.

Good point, but there’s no evidence to suggest that post-expiration existence is *not* a thing either. — Paul Michael

There is no such thing as evidence of something that doesn't exist, as nonexistence leaves no evidence except absence of evidence itself.

There is no such thing as evidence of something that doesn't exist, as nonexistence leaves no evidence except absence of evidence itself. — Garrett Travers

Nice.

Thank you, Tom. You may quote it at leisure, given that you make the appropriate citations. :cool:

From a strictly materialistic point of view, the physical components of myself as a biological organism existed long before I was conceived. However, in every practical sense, ‘I’ did not exist before my conception despite the fact that the material components that would eventually comprise me did exist. — Paul Michael

In light of Aristotle's the totality is not, as it were, a mere heap, but the whole is something besides the parts..., let's define what it is to be you. Certainly, you're not a collection of physical components.

Certainly, you're not a collection of physical components. — L'éléphant

You're right. Paul Michael is not. But I am.

It is a mistake to lump all humans into the same lump of existential qualia. Qualia is not Equalia. Some of us die forever, some of us die temporarily, some of us die indefinitely.

In fact, the ancient Maya culture is full of evidential anecdotes, in which they attribute the existence of death after death to Xouxtacluactan, the god of Snakes and Certified Public Accountants.

But we don't have to leave our own cultural bias to see that death is not permanent in every case it occurs. It can appear, reappear, disappear, and shakespeare at any given time in nonreality.

All is change. — Heraclitus

Nonexistence, re Heraclitus, can only change into existence and vice versa. A loop takes form: Nonexistence $\leftrightarrow$ Existence.

Change is an illusion. — Parmenides

Nonexistence is impossible for that would mean change occurs.

Parmenides/Heraclitus $\rightarrow$ Immortality/Reincarnation.

Good news/Bad news?

Good point, but there’s no evidence to suggest that post-expiration existence is *not* a thing either. — Paul Michael

Absolutely. And that is why it is important to know the true meaning of "we don't know". Speculation without ANY evidence, prior or posterior, is futile. It is best to leave the topic alone, as neither party (pro-death and anti-death after death) can say anything of knowledge, or anything meaningful that makes sense.

Speculation without ANY evidence, prior or posterior, is futile. — god must be atheist

It becomes a different issue though when the mindful inquirer becomes aware of the repetitive structure of the universe and we can nothing else but conclude that those ridiculing a reincarnation (an infinity of them, in fact) are fooling themselves. After you die you are born again the same moment in a universe following up the present one. It's a logical impossibility to reincarnate in the present universe. A follow up is required, an absolute and irrefutably necessary prerequisite. Nature indicates that this necessity is present. So, prepare yourself for your new birth. Hopefully for you, you don't get born as me...

So, what's wrong with:

'Infinite variety in infinite combination,' as a starting point?
Or even finite, but very very large variety, in finite but very very large combination,' as a starting point? to the 'workings/capability of the Universe.'
Random chance as the driver.
Sexual conception starts the 9 months (for humans at least) process of creating the body with the included triune brain system, using universally available raw materials.
At some point during that 9 months 'self-awareness,' switches on, Why? because it can!
(No abortion question sidetracks please!)
Purpose of all this?
The data is still being gathered but it seems to me, our main purpose is to provide significance to the existence of the Universe.
How?
By thinking and communicating with others.
Each human life (developing personality) lived is a variation in form from all available combinations.
Death is due to entropy and from the evidence we have so far, it maybe, ultimately preventable but perhaps not for eternity, due to accident etc.
Increased human lifespan may result in better science due to more time to learn, gain experience.
How much brain capacity is currently used? Not that much! So.........
The solutions to lack of resources, living space, population size, inter-personal relationships on an individual/group/national/global scale etc is within the capabilities of our scientific, political and social policy making and the fact that the Universal space available, is vast!!! 8 billion people is a small drip in the cosmic scale.
According to the cosmic calendar we have only arrived in the last few seconds. We have only been thinking and communicating in any form for maybe 100,000 years but for anything near to a civilisation of any relevant size and significance, bring duration down to only a few thousand years.
Give us a f****** chance (especially any depressing antinatalist or rapture-type spouters out there.)

Back to purpose:
To build civilisations/societies. Then we argue/war about what works and what's fair and what doesn't and isn't. We change accordingly or repeat a few times and eventually change.
Death before technology can save you is unfortunate! You don't come back! But your constituent parts including that which made up 'I' or 'You' are distributed Universally. Back under the control of the random driver, The you that was, no longer exists or ever will again, unless by random chance but you will not be aware of any past existence, even if that incredibly unlikely event occurs.

Our ultimate purpose? To answer all questions!
Why? I dont know, but maybe, if that state is ever achieved, then the Universe will become self-aware.
What happens then? I dont know!
Who am I talking to?
Well, me, myself and I.........and....You! (F*** solipsism!)

Non existence before birth apparently lasted some 13.7 billion years, and yet here I am, here and now! Time is a funny thing as one may go back 100, 200 or 300 billion years and it makes no difference to the advent of NOW! In death, we return to where we have alway been and yet we want to cling to this brief flash of existence we find ourselves in, as if it is somehow important.

Many think that death is one continuous, long state that reaches to the infinite future.

That is a wrong thougth.

Death lasts 4 minutes. After which another death takes over, lasting 4 minute. After which another deat h takes over, lasting 4 minutes. And so on, ad infinitum.

Argue against. If you think mine is a stupid argument.

Now substitute "after which another death takes over, lasting 4 minutes" and substitute it with anything that anyone claims happens after life is over.

Non-existence is not a state, it is an absence of a state. You will get so many years of existence, then you will cease to be. That is it. Your brain and body die, and because you are 100% your brain and body, you die as well. Do not live with the idea that there will be something after, live with the idea that what you have is a precious moment in all of existence that will never be repeated again.

Do not live with the idea that there will be something after, live with the idea that what you have is a precious moment in all of existence that will never be repeated again. — Philosophim

Who says our state doesn't appear again in a follow up big bang? All material particles in the present universe will be annihilated in the far future. All that will be left is a diluting photon gass sending fleeting remembrances of all happy happenings into oblivion at infinity. This state can induce a new bang and fresh particles can condense on a new planet around a new star into new you's, me's and everyone's. Just a thought.

Who says our state doesn't appear again in a follow up big bang? All material particles in the present universe will be annihilated in the far future. All that will be left is a diluting photon gass sending fleeting remembrances of all happy happenings into oblivion at infinity. This state can induce a new bang and fresh particles can condense on a new planet around a new star into new you's, me's and everyone's. Just a thought. — Dijkgraf

Who says it would? Lets see what we know. First, we do not know if there will be a follow up big bang. That is as much heaven or hell as anything else.

Second, you are who you are because of yourself, and the circumstances you are in. If you were cloned today, you would not be your clone. You would be in one location, while they would be in another. You would not share consciousness. On the second of creation, your paths would diverge. In the incredibly unlikely scenario of an exact repeat of existence trillions of years later, it would not be you, just someone very like you. You will be dead and gone. You will never come back.

Second, you are who you are because of yourself, and the circumstances you are in. If you were cloned today, you would not be your clone. You would be in one location, while they would be in another. You would not share consciousness. On the second of creation, your paths would diverge. In the incredibly unlikely scenario of an exact repeat of existence trillions of years later, it would not be you, just someone very like you. You will be dead and gone. You will never come back. — Philosophim

The clone argument doesn't hold for serial big bangs. I have good theoretical arguments for them to occur. You can get born like you in an infinite variety of planets and situations on them. We will come back...

The clone argument doesn't hold for serial big bangs. I have good theoretical arguments for them to occur. You can get born like you in an infinite variety of planets and situations on them. We will come back... — Dijkgraf

Yes it does. If you are cloned after a big bang, that is not you. You will not come back. You will never come back. I don't say this to hurt you. I say this so you recognize reality, and are able to live your life free from a fantasy otherwise.

You can't be reborn in this universe. The clone is not you. It's impossible you are reborn in this universe, as the particles you are made of have a unique history. If all particles here will be gone in the future, new particles appear in a new big bang, leading to a new you.

Yes it does. If you are cloned after a big bang, that is not you. You will not come back. You will never come back. I don't say this to hurt you. I say this so you recognize reality, and are able to live your life free from a fantasy otherwise. — Philosophim

I don't say it to hurt you either, but the new you is you. All is gone here, everything starts again in zillion years. But it seems the blink of an eye. But if you don't believe this, it's up to you.

You can't be reborn in this universe. The clone is not you. It's impossible you are reborn in this universe, as the particles you are made of have a unique history. If all particles here will be gone in the future, new particles appear in a new big bang, leading to a new you. — Dijkgraf

Explain to me why you think that person born in a different universe is you? Its the same as if there was a clone in this universe. It is not you.

Explain to me why you think that person born in a different universe is you? Its the same as if there was a clone in this universe. It is not you. — Philosophim

That's my point. It's not the same as in this universe. All material particles will disappear in time in this universe. New appear in a new bang. A new you and me appear. Why shouldn't they be me or you?

That's my point. It's not the same as in this universe. All material particles will disappear in time in this universe. New appear in a new bang. A new you and me appear. Why
shouldn't
they be me or you? — Dijkgraf

If its not the same as in this universe, then its not you. Beyond the fantastical idea that this will even happen, at best its a clone. Are you your clone? It is identical to you in every way, even with your memories. It is still not "you". When "you" die, you are dead. There is no coming back. Any clone will not be "you".

If its not the same as in this universe, then its not you. Beyond the fantastical idea that this will even happen, at best its a clone. — Philosophim

That's because you argue from the perspective in this universe. In this universe there can't be a clone of me. It's someone else. The follow up universe is disconnected from this one. By the way, it's even more fantastic to think there is only one big bang.

I see you started a new discussion on this topic! I'm not sure why it makes you mad. It's not like believing in God. It's hard scientific reality.

I see you started a new discussion on this topic! I'm not sure why it makes you mad. It's not like believing in God. It's hard scientific reality. — Dijkgraf

Mind citing what that hard scientific reality is?

Mind citing what that hard scientific reality is? — Philosophim

I can cite myself.