Eh. Either way it's not a good theory. But yeah, he was arguing timeless from a lack of new perceptive "moments" rather than infinitely slowed time. Thus why he uses the term "timeless" so much.

I don't think that's what Elhmann was arguing. He wasn't arguing a slowing of time but a full stop. His argument is that since we perceive in discrete moments (maybe, most likely its a more complicated model consisting of unconscious processing that's continuous followed by conscious "moments") when we die we can't perceive a moment where we don't exist so we're left in our final moment forever. Not that time slows down but we continue to perceive a progression of moments, but that there are no more moments to perceive, leaving us in that one final moment forever, like a videogame freezing on a specific frame and never unfreezing. Not a particularly great argument but it sure is an arguement, I guess.

This theory has no "evidence" for this theory in the sense that there is any reason to believe it over any other theory or any empirical evidence verifying it. It has proof in the form of logical reasoning, though I don't find it to be particularly convincing reasoning. It's an interesting hypothesis but not much more than that. See jgill's post above.

This seems interesting. Can you dumb this down for me a bit? Im not exactly a math person. Do you actually believe that time perception slows down seemingly infinitely just before death or is this is just interesting speculation? With regards to your post about time perception distorting near death.