A Speculative Case for Eternal Life
Entropy is claimed to be the end of the physical universe by most modern physics. Eventually, according to Einstein, et al., all the matter in the universe would wind up sucked into black holes, and that's all the universe would be. Then Stephen Hawking pointed out that the seething quantum foam sometimes produced virtual particle pairs that erupted right at the Schwarzchild radii of black holes, where one of them would get sucked in, but the other would not, and some of the mass of the black hole would be transferred to the new actual particle that was born thereby.
This put the kibosh on Einsteinian predictions that black holes would persist by demonstrating that even the largest black holes would eventually evaporate by this means, and the universe would truly become empty of matter.
Now, however, it seems this mechanism isn't confined to black holes, but is a feature of all massive bodies, from Uranus to your hat. My favorite pop science content provider Anton, whatdamath on Odysee , published this brief video explaining the new research that physicists published stating that since all massive bodies bleed off mass by this mechanism, the universe would become devoid of mass much sooner than Hawking's fuzzy black holes provided.
But this isn't what I want to discuss. I have for a while now understood that consciousness is a complete mystery. Research has shown that consciousness does not arise in brains, because single celled creatures - that by definition do not have neural networks of brain cells - demonstrate consciousness by taking actions that require conscious thought, such as remembering where food is, choosing to take a route through a maze (of sorts), actions that show consciousness is something these cells possess. Further research has shown that our gut fauna participate in human intellectual processes, explaining why we have as many neurons in our guts as we have in our brains (roughly speaking). So, even though we experience ourselves as singular, the evidence suggests our consciousness is a collective comprised of multiple species.
All sorts of speculation regarding what consciousness is and where it comes from have been discussed, but without any evidence suggesting any particulars. We know only a few things consciousness is not, because we have empirical evidence for those things not being the case. We can assume that consciousness is not EMF, so not light, electricity, magnetic, or etc., because we do a lot of exotic things with EMF, such as radio, lasers, and extremely powerful magnetic fields, none of which are shown to impact consciousness itself. We can destroy our bodies, which eliminates our ability to make and reveal conscious decisions by our actions, with those forces (such as by cooking in a microwave oven, or near powerful radar antennae, or etc.), and this very strongly suggests consciousness isn't any form of EMF or we'd have changed it with some of the kinds of EMF tricks we play.
We have very strong evidence consciousness doesn't arise in brains, because single celled creatures, like slime molds, that don't have brains, make conscious decisions, remember things, and etc. The only way we can detect consciousness is by creatures taking physical actions, such as choosing to go towards where the food is, or the many ways people demonstrate consciousness, such as tap dancing. Then we can indirectly tell a creature is conscious. There is no meter that detects consciousness directly. Because of this, as preposterous as it may seem, we cannot tell if rocks or inanimate objects are conscious, because they aren't capable of taking actions that demonstrate they make conscious decisions. That doesn't mean they aren't conscious. It only means they aren't able to take actions that reveal conscious thought. Since we have no other means of detecting consciousness, we have no evidence whatsoever that electrons, rocks, or planets aren't, or are, conscious.
I mention this in the context of the heat death of the universe because we have no evidence that suggests that event will affect consciousness in any way. Whatever our conscious minds are, all we know about them is that we subjectively experience ourselves, and they have no known connection we can experimentally demonstrate to matter. We know anecdotally we experience being in meatsicles. We don't know how or why, or what it is we actually are, that is being in our bodies. We don't know that we aren't really trapped in our meatsacks, and can actually just astrally project away, nor that we are trapped and can't.
So there is no evidence that suggests the heat death of the universe will affect consciousness in any way, or that the death of our bodies will either. Life after death has neither evidence for it - other than anecdotal claims of some people that have been dead briefly - nor against it. Obviously no one that has died and ceased to exist as a conscious being has come back and told us that there isn't any life after death. In fact, even though the evidence we have is entirely anecdotal, hearsay, and subjectively experienced, it is evidence. It's just not quantifiable in any way. We can't say a damn thing about it scientifically, as frustrating as that is.
It is pretty difficult not to consider consciousness our spiritual essence, and affirm we are spiritual beings having a material experience, based on the very scant and unquantifiable evidence we have. A variety of claims are made by folks regarding our spiritual beings, and we have no way of judging any of them, no way to test them, count them, weigh them as more or less true. It is unreasonable to suppose we do not have consciousness, because we demonstrably personally experience having it. That is the only quantification of it we can apply: we have it, therefore it exists. We have evidence other creatures have it too, so it is reasonable to make that same claim about creatures that demonstrate what we know are conscious decisions. They also have consciousness.
But the claims some people make about continuing to have consciousness after dying aren't able to be confirmed, can't be tested, nor quantified in any way. There is so much we don't know about biology we cannot be sure that whatever links our bodies to our minds doesn't remain operant until our bodies are shat out by worms. However, there are additional aspects of these claims regarding supernatural beings, love, light to go to, and etc. Anecdotal in it's entirety, and utterly unable to be tested or quantified in any way, but evidence nonetheless.
I am led to conclude that, as crappy as the evidence is, such that we have suggests our spirits outlive our bodies, at least as functional living creatures. Given a fairly substantial body of claims that we will persist as spirits thereafter, the only evidence we do have suggests that is the case. Whether we are reincarnated, live as conscious entities in a spiritual realm, or some other continuance, there is no firm conclusion able to be drawn from different faiths.
But I see no evidence whatsoever that the heat death of the universe matters at all to us as spiritual beings. Do you?
Awesome insights customer. It's a pity philosophy like this probably doesn't get much readership, especially on Hive which is mostly folks of other interests.
Indeed non-localized consciousness appears to be the order of the day. And all systems are temporary and reduce via entropy to something less than they are, including this entire universe.
Will we go with a bang or a whimper?
I think so. Depends on temperament, I suppose.
Thanks!
Life itself is a mystery, what we are and what we mean is a real enigma, I just hope that someday we will find an answer to all that.
Many traditions maintain that when our spirits are freed from their meat prisons - when we die, IOW - all our questions will be answered.
Thanks!
!LUV this share.
When you reach complete spirituality you start to learn how to manifest what you need from ever expanding entropy. Perhaps, the God that many speak of is just entropy at work. That useless energy that most ignore or do not understand. !LOLZ
Have you considered that consciousness may be a summation of many vibrations? Good vibes, bad vibes and many natural frequencies interacting from various stimuli's?
May Positive pepEntropy be with you.
@valued-customer, @fjworld(3/10) sent you LUV. | tools | discord | community | HiveWiki | <>< daily
lolztoken.com
A courant bush.
Credit: reddit
@valued-customer, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of fjworld
(7/10)
Delegate Hive Tokens to Farm $LOLZ and earn 110% Rewards. Learn more.
As you might have noticed, I try to wrap my head around the very simplest of principles from observations of evidence. What are we, the spiritual beings having a material experience? What I conclude from that is 'I don't know.'
So, going beyond the (very sketchy) evidence is waaaaay above my pay grade.
Thanks!
Dear my respected senior @valued-customer !
American elementary school students will not understand your great and excellent English sentences!
I'm sorry for saying that maybe I can understand your writing only when Joseph from Oregon can understand it!😂
However, I am a reckless and foolish person, so I dare to say my criticism of your article!😆
I want to make it clear first that I am a Christian and do not believe in evolution!
The Bible says that Yahweh created the universe and the Earth for humans. I agree with that. While all the planets in the universe are dead worlds where life cannot exist at all, only the Earth is teeming with countless lives.
The universe is a world of death, like hell, but the Earth is full of beautiful and abundant life forms.
So, I believe that the existence of the Earth proves the existence of Yahweh!
There is an extreme difference in that space is a space of death, but Earth is a space of the birth of life.
In conclusion, I believe that the heat death of the universe has nothing to do with Earth!
I hope you can understand the awkward and rude English of American elementary school students!
I hope your health and long life!😄
There is no place in the Bible where that is stated. That is not Biblical.
Thanks!
I believe that Yahweh created the universe and the earth for humans. Therefore, humans cannot live in a dead universe outside of the earth, which is the boundary set by God.
If there are other life forms in the universe besides humans, they would be spiritual beings.
Jesus had both a physical body and a spirit like a human being. So I believe that if there is life in the universe, it would be a spiritual being without a physical body!
Although we have very little information and evidence about the universe to date, the truth is clear: life forms like ours cannot be born and survive in the universe!
When I saw the existence of black holes, I thought that if there were intelligent beings in the universe, they would have bodies made of thermal energy different from humans!
Perhaps humans will call them angels and devils!
Thank you!
Well, I believe you can believe whatever you want to.
Dear @valued-customer !
Looking at the countless shining stars in the infinite space, I always thought that only Earth is teeming with infinite life forms!
Do you know why only Earth has such a rich and vast ocean and countless living creatures?
Why is the moon next to the Earth called the planet of death?
I believe that the life forms that exist only on Earth are proof that God created the universe!
The fact that only Earth has life in the infinite universe makes atheists want to commit suicide, but for Christians like me, it makes us worship the greatest God!
Only by believing in God can we see the truth!
Thank you!
I note that while our individual perspectives are unique, we both believe that our true nature is as spirits, and that far more than we see with our eyes is awaiting us beyond this vale of wrath and tears.
Congratulations @valued-customer! You received a personal badge!
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
Darkness, the time before we were born, and then we open our eyes and there is light.
Whatever life is, it is wonderful to be about to share it with others - consciousness is is the greatest miracle there is - we get to share the miracle together.
Interesting read!
Thanks!
Browsing around this morning, I just moments ago found this panpsychism (universal consciousness) site. While most speculation to date links consciousness to matter, I see no reason that consciousness depends on matter. Just because we observe that some living things have consciousness does not mean that consciousness necessarily must only exist in living things. We must keep in mind the iceberg effect, which expresses that what we can observe is but a fraction of what exists. It's entirely possible that consciousness involving matter is simply a tiny fraction of the spiritual universe.
What is known is demonstrably only a tiny fraction of what there is to know, and the older I get the more certain I am that most of what is important to me, that really exists, is beyond my ability to perceive, or even conceive, during my experience in the material world. I hardly dare to imagine having the blinders of my physical form removed, and my perception and understanding unleashed upon spiritual reality, lest my yearning for that release become too powerful to resist. I am determined to run my course as a corpuscle of meat that is ordained, that I might attain the fullest benefit of my grant of existence here.
Thanks!
@valued-customer, I paid out 0.658 HIVE and 0.166 HBD to reward 7 comments in this discussion thread.
Whenever you find yourself saying 'we', as if you know what everyone knows - you should reconsider ;)
The evidence for the topics you are addressing are not 'crappy', they are extensive. However, you will need to go through certain processes to have the necessary experiences in order to know for yourself - there is no other way.
The death of 'heat' or 'the universe' implies a total loss of vibrational power. The death of will. Spirt cannot survive this - all aspects are ultimately one. You cannot go on killing yourselves and expect (even unconsciously) to continue on forever.
That's not bad advice. However, saying we doesn't mean that everyone who is part of us has the same knowledge or perspective. We all have the same Earth, and that makes us an us. There's no implication as to knowledge, understanding, or agreement in that we. However, I am confident that you and I do share a way of experiencing consciousness as natural men. In that we are both natural men I can speak of we, because we share many attributes, such as neurons, gut fauna, and so forth.
The evidence of spirit is 'crappy' in the sense it isn't quantifiable, except we can quantify the number of reporters. Nothing about consciousness is able to be scientifically considered. There are no experiments we can run to make observations of, because we can't even detect consciousness directly. We can't observe it. We can't measure it. This is the sense in which the evidence is crappy. It isn't scientifically useful.
Your final paragraph is speculation that consciousness and matter are somehow linked, as far as I can tell. Much of the OP was about no such link being demonstrable. We appear to be inhabiting matter, but we don't really know how, or why. That appearance has no relevance to consciousness that isn't us, unless you can demonstrate it is. I sure wish you could.
You are still using 'we' as if you know everything that everyone knows. You do not.
This is an example of what I am talking about here.
You are making big claims based on what you perceive to be the state of the entirety of life that exists - but you do not have access to that and most likely, no-one does. After extensive exploration of the topics you are addressing here, I know for sure that:
a) a very small percentage of valid scientific experiments on these topics are ever made public. the power involved is too great for those 'in power' to want or allow that.
b) science is not something that can only be done in labs, with funding and that requires publication. the essence of science is fundamentally the essence of exploration in life and it is typically used by most people on most days to some extent. since you are addressing the fundamentals of being a living being here, that means that there is a massive wealth of experimentation and learning to draw on - far more than will ever be allowed to be published in 'journals'.
Consciousness is 'being aware' / 'noticing'. What do you need to prove about it? If you notice any detail about the situation, you have proved it exists. It seems that you are referring to non physical self by using the word 'consciousness' - is that right?
You can absolutely experience, explore and learn about/from your non physical parts/aspects. In my experience, I needed to do extensive detoxification and quite a bit of internal healing to do this. This includes the understanding that judgement itself is counter productive and holds away right understanding. Judgements are limiting thoughts which obscure actual truth.
Discussing this without the necessary direct internal experience is not enough.
That's a mischaracterization of what I did say. I didn't say anything about life, except that some of it demonstrates consciousness. My comments are about consciousness.
a) is speculation.
b) isn't factually correct. I'm not addressing the fundamentals of being a living being. I'm addressing consciousness, and in fact state we have no way of knowing that consciousness is limited to living things, but can only detect it indirectly because some living being take actions that demonstrate it. You're mischaracterizing my statements.
That's part of it. Consciousness is also a noun, and that's what I am referring to, which is obvious if you read what I've said without bias. A lot of the problem we have with wrapping our heads around consciousness is that we don't even have very good words to discuss it, because we know so little about it.
Our disagreements seem to be caused by bias. You are mischaracterizing my statements to create straw man arguments that you can knock down.
You explain your bias here. Also your confusion. How can you understand unless you can judge between what is factual and what is not? Without judgment there is no understanding.
We have different definitions of the words being used.
For me, judgement is a limiting form of thought that skips over depth of reality in order to form a decision on something - which then tends to take hold as if it is fact. Discernment is the replacement for judgement, which holds space open for new thoughts.
consciousness as a noun refers to: "the state of being aware of and able to think, perceive, and experience" - which we typically correlate to 'living'.
unconsciousness also exists.
both are states of the essence of self/god.
in my way of parsing reality, you are grappling with existence and calling it consciousness.
What we call unconsciousness isn't not being aware and able to think. It's simply being non-responsive. It is well proven our minds are active during periods of 'unconsciousness'. A lot of our apparent disagreements are at least exacerbated by the very poor language we use to describe consciousness, likely because we have no idea what it actually is.
Are you saying you don't have neurons and aren't part of the group that has neurons?
You're wrong. I'm not claiming to know everything, and you mischaracterize my comments by saying I do. You are part of we the people. In discussions of we the people, all people are part of what's being discussed. It's silly to claim otherwise.
you are telling me I am wrong, without enquiring what I might know.
you are also stating repeatedly that 'we know this' and 'we don't know that'. regardless of whather I am part of 'we the people' or not, you do not know what all of 'we the people' knows. this is surely obvious, no?
You have stated that I think I know everything, and you are wrong.
I never made any such statement. You don't address the point I make above that we have neurons, so using the word we to refer to the group that has neurons isn't inaccurate, and certainly doesn't claim to know what those neurons are doing.
You're putting words in my mouth that don't go there.
If you phrase your ideas in ways such as "But the claims some people make about continuing to have consciousness after dying aren't able to be confirmed, can't be tested, nor quantified in any way."
You are stating as if you know this to be a fact and that you know what everyone else has ever done or knows. It has taken me most of my life just to even identify the various groups of thinkers in this world who all explore quite differently to each other - outside of the mainstream. Actually understanding the depth of their knowledge is a full time job. The mainstreams scientific people repeatedly deny the possibility that such groups know more than they do, yet when these scientific people often reach the same conclusions years later, they then usually continue their denial. Instead of crediting these other groups with knowing something before they did, they act as if the other groups don't exist and then try to take credit and power/status as a result.
I'm not saying you are doing this. I am saying that it has been a major hurdle in human evolution / healing / balancing and I want people to notice it and stop feeding in to it.
I understand empirical evidence. Anecdotes do not meet that standard. Such reports cannot be other than anecdotes, because they're incapable of being undertaken experimentally under controlled conditions. How does that mean I know everything? You're just making that accusation up out of nothing. Nothing I said has anything to do with that claim you're forcing into my mouth.
Stop that.
You're claiming to know everything everyone else knows.
Stop projecting your claim to understand everything everyone knows on me. I make no such claim, and you are the only person I have ever spoken with that does.