EDIT: Why the barrage of downvotes? I thought that was reserved for rude and ignorant posts/people. I know that our beliefs about death are deeply personal, so please know this is not meant as an attack on your beliefs. The point of this was to have an open discussion about a shower thought I once had that brought logic to the argument of life after death. So far this logic has not been refuted- people have acknowledged the odds of my hypothesis, instead deferring their attacks to the concept of a simulation, or other various and far less significant details. So if you are new to this thread, you have my welcome and thanks, and I hope to see you respond in an open-minded way (whether or not you agree with my hypothesis)so that we can have an intriguing discussion. And I ask that you consider were this a simulation, that the job of any simulation is to immerse you. So if you are filled with a feeling of general resistance, but find no reasonable flaws with the logic presented, consider that this could be your default programming, a sort of failsafe protocol of the simulation. Like Dr. Strange was instructed a moment before he was sent hurdling through the unknown, you will need to “OPEN YOUR MIND”
About 15 years ago I had a shower thought that changed my life. I was reflecting on time and the present moment in particular, and had an epiphany that eventually convinced me that this reality is an illusion and consciousness must extend beyond death. The weird part though was that my brain had comprehended the concept in a way that I could not articulate, at least not for a very long time. When I tried to explain it to others I would struggle to illustrate my comprehension, and could see the lack of understanding in their faces.
For years I left it, keeping it as a personal belief but not bothering to discuss it. Then one day I paired walking through a backyard forest with a microdose of shrooms and a friend, and I decided to bring it up. This time I managed to articulate it in a way that I could tell resonated with him. I wrote it down, and started to refine it further. Skip to today and I now possess a much more clear and concise way to present my hypothesis, and have two friends , two family members and a significant other who now all not only understand it, but have adapted it into their personal belief (my intent in telling them was only to have an open minded discussion, I have no desire to change anyone’s personal beliefs, but this was really cool to see).
So I’ve linked a video where I articulate my hypothesis to the best of my ability, with visuals to help. I would love your open-minded feedback- whether it’s pushback on any of the points I make, or if you think there’s a better way I could make them.
Thanks for taking the time!
TL:DR I once had an epiphany that provided me with sound logic as to why consciousness must persist beyond death, indicating that another dimension exists outside of this one. It took me a long time to find a way to articulate it, but now I finally have a presentation of the concept that I’m happy with (via the linked video)
The video makes no sense. It starts with an interesting idea (our observations are limited, which is true) and jumps to “therefore, we can’t assume death is eternal” out of nowhere.
And all the clips are kinda AI sloppy. I mean, the video might not be autospam, but that + the clarity/consistency of the speaker + account age is very sus.
Appreciate the feedback, perhaps I make that jump with too much assumption. The logic behind it is as follows: if the laws of our reality as we perceive it are telling us that the odds are nearly infinite to one that our consciousness should be in a state of non-existence, why do we believe that to be true? Especially when we consider that it is certainly logically possible for reality to be an illusion, and that there’s considerable evidence that is such (the probability argument of Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis, Dr S James Gates discovery of computer code with the equations of supersymmetry physics, and the double slit experiment, etc). We need to make the distinction between the logic of the notion “I think therefore I am” and the empirical observations of the reality around us. That’s why I use the example of loading sentient artificial intelligence into a video game world. They can create a science to explain the logic of that, but none of that logic applies to the truth of their existence.
Argument from Incredulity
False Dilemma
Appeal to Possibility
Cherry-Picking
Bostram’s Simulation Hypothesis is a philosophical thought experiment, not empirical evidence, Dr. Gates’ work involves mathematical structures in physics, not literal “computer code” proving a simulation and the double slit experiment demonstrates quantum behavior, not that reality is an illusion.
False Analogy
Conflating Epistemology and Ontology
Countering an argument by labelling and linking it’s statements seems a very disjointed way to try to enforce your logic. For example you labelled my core argument as a False Dilemma, implying that it creates an oversimplified choice by eliminating alternatives. Care to elaborate exactly how it is doing that, and which alternatives it is excluding?
It would seem to me that you’re someone who takes your reality at the highest value, as in that you not only believe that nothing can supersede the laws defined by this reality, but you also take concepts that have enough social or scientific validation to be true despite not fully comprehending the concepts yourself. I do not mean that as an attack on your intelligence by any means btw, not a single soul possesses the ability to fully comprehend everything humans have scientifically discovered, so at some point we are all relying on the word of someone else.
The fallacy in this is that you are rejecting the notion this could be a simulation before you ever step foot into exploring the logic I presented. Because if this were a simulation, you could acknowledge that everything could be an illusion, the past could be generated, other people could be NPCs, etc, and this is all designed as an experience. At that point you might consider then that an article which states this cannot be a simulation might have been created for the purpose of keeping you immersed, not unlike the Truman Show. That if this were a simulation then it is likely a designed experience, and in the designing of that experience it would likely be known where the limits of your comprehension, and which knowledge you would seek for yourself would be. So then, for example, the experience could serve you an article which states that scientists have discovered that algorithmically this cannot be a simulation, and rather than explore and fully comprehend that notion for yourself, you would instead take it at face value.
This is why it’s so important to not only make distinctions in the levels of logic, with the base being the irrefutable “I think therefore I am”, as well as the presented logic not being so advanced that you’d need to read a textbook to understand it. Because reading a textbook is again taking things at face value. And if you read textbooks that explained the sci-fi world of a video game, as interesting as they may be, they offer nothing but further immersion.
Reality is a simulation is an unfalsifiable claim, it can only be taken on faith, belief. Bootstrapping scientific theories to « prove » that claim is demonstrably pseudoscience. I’ve put too much time and energy engaging with this already.
This right here.
It’s the same reason religions call it faith. Not being able to prove it, is kind of a point.
And no, I have no desire to start a conversation with OP. No offense, I’m just, personally, way beyond this type of philosophy.
At no point do I state that reality is a simulation. What I am stating is that there is more sound logic to support that it is than there is to support the eternal death that we perceive. Then I provide clear examples of this logic (the improbable anomaly of existence coinciding with the present moment, Bostrom’s probability argument of a simulation, the double slit experiment which has provided a foundation for quantum physics, Dr S James Gates discovery, and Jacobo Grinberg’s Syntergic Theory)
Sounds like you’re speaking of the Fermi Paradox, and some related things.
But just because the existence of our consciousness is improbable doesn’t mean you can conclude that it’s literally impossible.
You also seem to be connecting a lot of ideas under the assumption that a human ‘point of view’ is necessarily unique… I think this article touches on a lot of your ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
And, indeed, the bias of a human-centric viewpoint is a huge issue in science and an ongoing point of debate, as seen above. That part of what you’re getting at, I really like.
I’m not saying it is literally impossible, but we can’t ignore just how improbable reality tells us it is. Those odds pretty much indicate a certainty, but even if they didn’t my point still stands. That point being that there’s already a very compelling case for the simulation theory which does not involve my hypothesis. So now when you bring that hypothesis to the table, it significantly bolsters it, like an experiment that supports the thesis with a failure rate so low it’s not observable. So the real question is, do you think a simulation is more unlikely than the odds of your consciousness existing in the present moment?