So basically the big bang theory is as weak as any other theory since we can't really measure events from 5,000 years ago let alone billions to have an idea? They just needed a space filler (ironically enough)? She really hits the pronunciation of Einstein hard doesn't she?

Not sure if I understand those videos. Is the big bang necessary to have happened might be the better question?

I was hoping for something Star Trekie. How else can they magnify so many times? Lol.

Not sure. Can a magnet bend light or only matter?

A friend of mine who is into some more esoteric stuff says one should rely more on wisdom without knowledge as if they need not be connected.

How do you mean?

I suppose I mean acquired understanding of the nature of something that predictions are possible.

Where can these numbers be found? Is there a government site?

I only ask because I read a poll claiming a certain percent of people of one party affiliation have particular beliefs and I wanted to get a sense of how many people that actually is.

No I mean registered to vote as one party member or another?

Are there many physicists in here?

No I don't remember the topics of my last deleted or criticized questions. At the time they seemed reasonable. Maybe asking for clarity on lightspeed travel versus hypothetically manipulating space to travel faster than light without actually reaching that speed.

Physicsforums.com . And I don't remember the last deleted post.

Can't ideas be stolen from forums?

What is the mind made of that it can't be divided?

Life isn't so bad without knowledge of anything afterwards. Find simple passions. Dopamine is harder to feel with age, but I am hopeful age research will someday help us feel like our best selves again before sleep and back issues were a thing.

They were slow with Covid-19 too. I would think they'd learn better preparation, but many experts really downplayed monkeypox, and now it's an issue.

It says Einstein didn't believe in free will or at least had doubts? I thought he was a religion person talking about "God not playing dice" and what not. Isn't it a main tenant of Abraham religions that everyone chooses and thus can be reasonably punished or rewarded?

It says superdeterminism assumes variables that will make it make sense as deterministic, but hasn't specified what those variables could possibly be?

It seems like this forum needs functions for drawing out what one is describing including venn diagrams.

I don't mean number of points in a math object. Lets say miles or representation of number of countable things.

Our bodies know pain whether it is the end of all for us, or just the beginning.

What world would we live in in which a person would suggest someone drink bleach to their benefit? Lol.

Quick survey. Was Descartes an idiot?

So you're worried personal identity exists only in the body and doesn't move forward in a hypothetical spirit form? If that's what you're saying maybe the hypothetical spirit changes over time too and in a matching way as the nervous system so information is identical, and physical was always built to die?

Find any recent data on the beliefs?

I prefer to not think they’re merely dreams because people consider them far more profound and in a way that changes their perspective basically for life. No everyday dream I might have does that. And certainly none have informed me of anything.

Assuming an afterlife is worse than here. Are we talking brim stone and hellish landscapes? Worse in what way, and why exactly?

I am not familiar with this sixpense dream, but it seems a little too close to the person having the dream to give the idea that they went anywhere to learn about it, and people might lose money near a tree versus a random shoe of known color on a rooftop which is nowhere near the person.

Aren't NDEs often out of body experiences? If one gathers off-limits info while supposedly not in their body shouldn't that act as evidence that it wasn't as likely a dream?

What is sixpence? No I don't think typical dreams are a journey anywhere but into imagination. And I want to believe NDEs are far more than dreams.

I focus on NDEs because I think there might be more research into that than general self reported out of body experiences which might involve drug use for all I know.

I don't make a huge distinction between NDEs and out of body experience without medical death or trauma. If the mind finds knowledge they should by no means have access to that shows we aren't limited to physical means of getting knowledge. This might indicate like some suggest that our brain is more of a receiver than the mind itself.

Personally I don't care if a memory formed when the brain was "off" or sometime unknown to them when they started to come to. It is information that matters. If a person can leave their body without death than to me that is equal to actual impermanent death. The mind found independence from the body somehow. It's all about confirming information.

I appreciate the input.

I don't think I've ever had a dream reveal anything to me that only a person located elsewhere could know. I am not interested in NDEs being similar to each other. That could be biological. It's any information that should by no means be known to the person when they come to. And as has been mentioned repeatly a NDEs may not actually represent a temporary death experience. Perhaps at best it's a psychic experience when knowledge is gained? I'm assuming you do believe in nonphysical existence?

A friend brought it to my attention that many philosophy people in here might be biased against any ideas that border on religious. I personally might prefer agnostics or atheists, but hopefully this doesn't also ensure that there is a natural tendency to shutdown any consideration of continued existence? I hope everyone really is considering my question with a very open mind?

Outside of Dr. Long's stuff, how many other near death experiences showed gained knowledge that the person having the experience couldn't possibly have had access to? I don't care if the NDEs had common features like a tunnel, things seeming "realer than real", a diety, talking to people known to be dead, etc. I am only interested in information gained that it would be a major coincidence if they'd imagined it.

I don't think trying to use logic can stand in place of something that can be physically demonstrated and informationally communicated.

Are you meaning "life" in a strictly biological sense, or could disembodied consciousness work?

Ok, but what better evidence is there of an afterlife if not NDEs? What subjects of study are you focusing on? And certainly the body hurts when injured and we feel that injury, but how do we know it isn't a stubborn puppet we simply can't shed at will (although some mystics claim it is possible).

Not sure what you're saying. Proof and evidence aren't dissimilar. Proof is maybe most solid in math, but I think in most science it is always a very high bar to achieve. Evidence can still be very strong for something.

If the brain was fully dead you'd ultimately have nobody to talk to on the subject. But assuming those that have these experiences acquired knowledge that is too distant from their senses could that not add credibility?