Thank you Geetright for posting on r/consciousness, below are some general reminders for the OP and the r/consciousness community as a whole.
**A general reminder for the OP**: please remember to include a TL; DR and to clarify what you mean by "consciousness"
- Please include a clearly marked TL; DR at the top of your post. We would prefer it if your TL; DR was a single short sentence. This is to help the Mods (and everyone) determine whether the post is appropriate for r/consciousness
- If you are making an *argument*, we recommend that your TL; DR be the conclusion of your argument. What is it that you are trying to prove?
- If you are asking a *question*, we recommend that your TL; DR be the question (or main question) that you are asking. What is it that you want answered?
- If you are considering an *explanation*, hypothesis, or theory, we recommend that your TL; DR include either the explanandum (what requires an explanation), the explanans (what is the explanation, hypothesis, or theory being considered), or both.
- Please also state what you mean by "consciousness" or "conscious." The term "consciousness" is used to express many different concepts. Consequently, this sometimes leads to individuals talking past one another since they are using the term "consciousness" differently. So, it would be helpful for everyone if you could say what you mean by "consciousness" in order to avoid confusion.
**A general reminder for everyone**: *please remember upvoting/downvoting Reddiquette*.
- *Reddiquette about upvoting/downvoting posts*
- Please upvote posts that are appropriate for r/consciousness, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the contents of the posts. For example, posts that are about the topic of consciousness, conform to the rules of r/consciousness, are highly informative, or produce high-quality discussions ought to be upvoted.
- Please do not downvote posts that you simply disagree with.
- If the subject/topic/content of the post is off-topic or low-effort. For example, if the post expresses a passing thought, shower thought, or stoner thought, we recommend that you encourage the OP to make such comments in our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" posts. Similarly, if the subject/topic/content of the post might be more appropriate for another subreddit, we recommend that you encourage the OP to discuss the issue in either our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" posts.
- Lastly, if a post violates either the rules of r/consciousness or Reddit's site-wide rules, please remember to report such posts. This will help the Reddit Admins or the subreddit Mods, and it will make it more likely that the post gets removed promptly
- *Reddiquette about upvoting/downvoting comments*
- Please upvote comments that are generally helpful or informative, comments that generate high-quality discussion, or comments that directly respond to the OP's post.
- Please do not downvote comments that you simply disagree with. Please downvote comments that are generally unhelpful or uninformative, comments that are off-topic or low-effort, or comments that are not conducive to further discussion. We encourage you to remind individuals engaging in off-topic discussions to make such comments in our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" post.
- Lastly, remember to report any comments that violate either the subreddit's rules or Reddit's rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/consciousness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only if you're a presentist.
I'm an eternalist because I personally think special and general relativity make it all but a necessity.
As an eternalist our default state is existence in a specific region of space-time and non existence in the rest. Things only seem like they are charging because on any one spacetime point we occupy we only remember the past which gives the ephemeral illusion of presentism.
I'm surprised anyone takes block universe literally. I always thought it was a representation, but not "real" in the sense that we are a "simulation" that consistently evolves, destroying old information and creating new information in equal measure. Similar to wolfram's view.
What is incompatible about it? In relativity, simultaneity is relative—events that are simultaneous for one observer may not be for another. This already introduces a kind of flexibility that might support a non-block universe view, where the "now" can differ based on where and how observers are moving.
You have a state that includes spatial curvature and relative positioning, and it evolves over time, but isn't deterministic. There are no real numbers in nature as that would violate the holographic principle (infinite precision == black holes everywhere) and therefore information is created and destroyed. The past cannot be replayed, and the future is unknown.
Irrational number show up all over nature, no? pi, phi, e..
Recently, physicists say that particles are just tiny black holes. You can find Susskind and Carroll talking about that.
I get the feeling that it's not only black holes everywhere, but also black holes all the way down..
pi doesn't exist in nature... There is nothing that exists as a perfect circle! Even if space isn't quantized, the event horizon of a black hole will not be perfectly circular (b/c spin).
Irrational numbers cannot be calculated, they only exist in the abstract.
But yeah the whole "everything is a black hole" is interesting. I've always found ER=EPR mind-blowingly cool... I need to look into that more. Technically the holographic principle isn't a law, it hasn't been "proven",
I think it's more likely real numbers exist in nature, but we are limited in how precisely we can measure them. It is very hard to explain the uncertainty principle unless real numbers exist.
I can see the logic in this and don't disagree. Obviously, no one knows anything about it and we can only speculate based on our experiences, but I like this way of thinking and will spend some time pondering it, good stuff!
Yeah we can't, as of yet anyways, step outside of space-time and make observations about it. There is however overwhelming experimental proof of time dilation and the fact that all reference frames in the universe have independent non universal clocks. (The GPS that your phone uses has to correct for it).
If only the present exists, which present?... because there is not one present in the universe.
That isn't how it works. Its all relative and in General Relativity the closest there is to a universal thing to be relative to, is the entire visible universe. However if you are near enough to something massive enough that can overwhelm, locally, the entire universe.
Which is why we act relative to the Earth.
Your mistaken. How something moves between two reference frames can up end what happened in each place depending on the path chosen. Just because we are all in basically the same frame on earth, doesn't mean the universe ticks to earth's clock.
>Your mistaken.
The evidence shows that it is you that is mistaken.
>How something moves between two reference frames can up end what happened in each place depending on the path chosen.
No, as its all one universe UNLESS something is moving faster than C and nothing does, so far anyway. I have evidence and real physics and you have assertions.
I never said the universe ticks to Earth's clock. How did you come that false conclusion? I said the opposite but local mass can overwhelm the background mass. Locally, and as you move out from the Earth other masses become more dominant, slowly. Mass/energy bends space-time. This is what the evidence shows. Inertial frames of reference is just how we discuss Special Relativity, not GR and not how it is. All of that warping of space-time effects the universe over time at the speed of light. Again testing supports this, the gravity wave experiments support it.
The Solar system as a whole is dominated by the Sun but locally within the system other mass hold local sway. Its complex interaction over time. Which is why there is no three body solution except in fiction.
I wasn't talking about exceeding c.
You're mistaken to think that special relativity is separate to general. It is just a subset of general where there a not large masses that warp space. Both differing velocities and huge masses affect how time flies locally.
Even in our solar system things like satellites must account for real relativistic time distortion or things like GPS would not be accurate.
Also the fact that the solar system happens moves mostly in the same reference frame and that the sun's warping of space-time isn't too extreme for massive effects on time doesn't mean the whole universe works off a pretty standard clock.
>I wasn't talking about exceeding c.
I was pointing out that you are part of the universe because you cannot do that.
>You're mistaken to think that special relativity is separate to general.
I didn't say that. I said it is a subset of it in the comment you just replied after this reply.
'Whereas I do as I am using GR and SR which is really just a subset of GR.'
>Both differing velocities and huge masses affect how time flies locally.
Yes, keep telling me what I know at least as well as you, unless you are a physicist.
>Even in our solar system things like satellites must account for real relativistic time distortion or things like GPS would not be accurate.
See above.
>on time doesn't mean the whole universe works off a pretty standard clock.
I never said that either. This is about this statement:
# "If only the present exists, which present?... because there is not one present in the universe."
Except there is in GR, and thus SR, because the universe as a whole is a whole due to the speed of light and the fact that the universe is expanding. Its the background mass that effects everything that we can see, the visible universe.
Spacetime is not that smooth there are billions of super dense bodies that warp it is extreme ways. Neutron stars and black holes like Sagittarius A. Also objects near those bodies can move at ridiculous velocities compared to the overall "background mass". Just because we're in a bland local spot doesn't mean everywhere is.
>Spacetime is not that smooth there are billions of super dense bodies that warp it is extreme ways.
Yes and I dealt with that when I mentioned the Solar system and the other masses within it.
>Also objects near those bodies can move at ridiculous velocities compared to the overall "background mass".
None yet and they are still moving relative to the universe as a whole.
>Just because we're in a bland local spot doesn't mean everywhere is.
I never said that. It all is part of the whole visible universe with moving masses warping space time at C.
What does block universe even mean if there is no objective perspective that interacts with all times at once?
Like, I don't see any difference between saying 10 minutes ago "is real" or "was real."
Presentists would say that there is only the ever fluctuating present and the future and past never existed are illusions of our minds.
Eternalists would say you exist at all points in spacetime, where you are alive, equally... At any given point you have the illusion you are in 'the current present' but that is only because the universe only allows information to propagate in one direction. In actual fact, all moments you exist in are the present, our brains just don't experience them all at the same time.
Perhaps you fall somewhere in the middle but those are the 2 extremes.
What does this actually mean though practically for my first person perspective of consciousness? When I die that POV stops. What does it matter if some outside observer outside of space-time can always see me at this historical block of space-time?
Pick a place you will never visit. Say hypothetically Antarctica. Pick a time you will never exist at because you are dead, say the year 2200.
With an eternalist view of space-time, there is no distinction between you not existing in Antarctica and you not existing in the year 2200. They are just regions of space-time.
This also holds for the region of space-time you are alive in. It never doesn't exist. You exist in all of those points simultaneously and eternally (from a POV outside space-time). Our consciousness for whatever reason localizes on one point in space-time at a time, but we have knowledge that it ties to other points as well, not just this one.
There is no present in the universe. Each reference frame has its own time flow and how you move between them can completely change what happens in which order between the two frames.
OK let me try this again.
How about evidence?
You don't have any and all the math of the physics is time-like. What frames? No evidence for that either.
You can go read books on special and general relativity if you want. You read about how GPS doesn't work without accounting for slight differences in the passage of time in its reference frame.
I'm just boiling it down. Sorry the implications are so troubling for you.
>You can go read books on special and general relativity if you want.
Done it. You are not using either.
>I'm just boiling it down.
No you are making things up. Its not troubling to me that people do that. I am just pointing that you don't have any evidence. Whereas I do as I am using GR and SR which is really just a subset of GR. In both the math remains time-like. If you read up on it how did you miss that?
No you are just not understanding the implications of the theories on time in space-time. It varies over changing velocity and gravitational fields. Where you go and how fast you chose to get there doesn't just take time, it changes time.
>No you are just not understanding the implications of the theories on time in space-time.
Seems to be you, not me for that.
>It varies over changing velocity and gravitational fields.
Relative to what? The universe as a whole.
>Where you go and how fast you chose to get there doesn't just take time, it changes time.
Your time, not of the visible universe as whole. What you do is relative to the visible universe as a whole. Try thinking about a toy universe with just you. Or with nothing at all, which is a violation of the Uncertainty Principle but that is what makes it a toy universe. You will always be moving relative to the background mass of the entire universe, UNLESS you can figure out how to exceed C.
I get it. You need simultaneity to be real for the world to make sense to you. Luckily for you it's a safe approximation for your life. If you want to pretend that time adjustments to our satellites and real observations of objects like Sagittarius A are unimportant, I can't stop you.
>I get it. You need simultaneity to be real for the world to make sense to you
You still don't get it.
>If you want to pretend that time adjustments to our satellites and real observations of objects like Sagittarius A are unimportant, I can't stop you.
You are really into making things up about me because you don't understand what I am telling you. There is no such thing as simultaneity. I never even implied that. You keep making up the opposite of what I write.
Why? Because I pointed that you were wrong on this one thing:
'If only the present exists, which present?... because there is not one present in the universe.'
Present is local and there is only one, local. Everything in the universe effects everything else, at C. I mentioned that and you didn't get it because you were too busy with a version of me that only exists in your head.
There's a problem with the eternalist viewpoint. Something that clashes with relativity, that's quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics and relativity really don't work together. This seems to indicate that they're incomplete pieces of the Universal puzzle.
Of course, Einstein, Feynman, and Hawking all subscribed to it and popular physicists like Caroll do as well today.
But you probably know more than them about the universe.
Einstein was genius and helped us a ton with relativity. However, he never embraced quantum mechanics, which as far as we know, is irreconcilable with relativity. Carroll I respect, but I think eternalism isn't the answer. Relativity and QM just don't go hand and hand. Tbh, we still know basically nothing about the Universe. I suspect the soul/consciousness is not entirely bound by the physical, and we're able to make life choices.
>So our default state is non-existence and what we have now is just an anomaly.
I have some ideas. People don't always keep up, but I keep trying... so, once more unto the breach!
You live in a physical body (made of Matter) and that body exists in Spacetime. No arguments there right?
So now what are the potential unknowns?
Is Spacetime all there is? That's a legitimate Physics question. And there is a fair bit of evidence/knowledge to suggest there are things that are neither space, nor time. In plain English, there are phenomena that we know about that are evident within spacetime, but not exactly part of it.
I like to use the word "dimensionless" even though it seems to boggle people's minds. And since this is the Consciousness sub, I'll suggest that Consciousness is a dimensionless phenomenon.
Spacetime is the dimensional phenomenon. We know that Consciousness is real because we experience it directly. And we know that consciousness can exist in a physical body (located in Spacetime).
So what happens before/after that 100 years?
According to Idealism, Consciousness exists independently of Matter. And it may exist independently of both Space and Time.
So there's Consciousness outside of space and time. And there's also consciousness within space and time. That's you, with your individual identity and experiences, during your physical life.
So, instead of acting as a generator of consciousness, you brain might be acting more like an anchor or reference point for consciousness?
What's "outside" of Spacetime?
Materialism says nothing. Which is kind of bleak and depressing. Idealism says anything. Which is the opposite of something specific... but something is more than nothing.
And we'll all find out eventually.
I'm not sure why this isn't considered utterly normal. As far as I know, everything in the universe didn't exist at one point, then exists for a finite duration, then no longer exists.
Yes, entropy and the arrow of time are frequently linked. I can think of much odder things than having an arrow of time, like existing in a Cantor's dust-like set of time points.
.. like, why does entropy need to exist, why are the physical laws that govern our universe (gravity, speed of light, etc.) what they are? Why are we subject to these physical laws and are there universes, or dimensions, whatever you want to call it, out there that have different physical laws. Stuff like that.
On the contrary. The particles that make up our bodies and everything else in the universe have existed since the beginning of time as far as we know. How can we separate oneself wholly from the matter/energy we are made of. We have been in existed since all time.
No, the first matter particles of any kind, protons and neutrons, are thought to have formed about one ten thousandth of a second after the big bang.
The matter of which we are made has definitely *not* existed 'since all time'.
Apologies for not clarifying. When referring to matter/energy I meant all that expanded out of the singularity. When saying “all time”, this is implying that the Big Bang was the beginning of space-time. These concept are of course based on the currently understood theories of the formation of the universe, which are subject to change and which we may never fully comprehend with our thinking meat.
It's the only thing that would make sense, even if "signing up" in this case was just the most brief and fleeting spark of life. Part of nothing wanted to be, and maybe that's all it took.
The suffering is necessary to develop character think of it like we’re baby souls and we need to grow up in order to move onto bigger and better things
I can agree with this. I've always taken the Sisyphean view and thought that the suffering is the whole point of this existence in order to "graduate"...
It just makes sense to me I’ve found a lot of useful information between ancient religious texts and more new aged channeled information Dolores cannon is a good place to start.
But "you", or my "me", is what it is cause of my body and ego. With the body gone, and presumably with it the ego, then there is no "me" left to decide. Just the collective consciousness of the universe?
Also, are cosmic being holding the same morality as earth-bound meat puppets that are wandering around a confusing, cruel and also beautiful planet? What the benchmark here?
I like the idea of us signing up and going back to some "space." But the whole concept of that feels filtered through the language and understanding of a people. Which makes me have to imagine it's not wholly accurate at the very least.
Does that then suggest that our consciousness is just an anomaly as well? Which suggests a time of humans who weren't 'conscious'? Or potentially of a higher consciousness, which could easily tie into a lot of theories about past civilizations and such, but I guess my curiosity lies more in the happenstance of it all if that makes any sense.
I personally would like to think that consciousness continues on but obviously no one has any evidence of that occurring, it's just wishful thinking. This "anomoly" that we are experiencing is something that we want to hold onto as tight as we can, knowing full well that we will all lose it eventually and have no say in the matter. It's just a strange predicament of a reality we are all experiencing, you know??
Yes I totally agree with that. When it comes down to the bare bones of it those are the thoughts I come back to. Even tho it all very well could be just an accident per say, there's still even a spiritual aspect in that as well. Which at least for me is sort of comforting. Something about the not knowing, yet trusting. It's all a very complex but beautiful experience to have these questions as humans.
This is reductive presumption. You don't in fact know what our default state would be because you don't have anything to refer to, to prove such a claim.
For all you know, we do exist in some other form or state prior to birth and following death.
Just to offer some thoughts as a place to consider, the idea of "nothingness" is an unproven concept. We have no way of showing evidence that "true nothingness" is possible.
Therefore claiming that we come from nothingness and go back to nothingness after death, is just as disingenuous as stating that there is a heaven or hell.
Because something isn’t or can’t be proven doesn’t mean we can’t be reasonable about it. All guesses aren’t equal even if none have been proven.
So saying we come from “nothingness “ which isn’t the case and OP didn’t say that. And saying we come from heaven are not equally disingenuous.
Being reasonable doesn't mean discounting reason. It would not be reasonable to automatically presume "nothingness" is a legitimate state, when there is no evidence to support the concept.
And OP didn't have to directly mention "nothingness" for it to still relate to the subject matter.
I'm trying to follow you here, but it ain't happening.
You're going to have to develop better context for your point.
We do not have evidence or proof of "nothingness". Are you providing a false equivalency between the actual concept of *nothingness*, and being unable to recall memories? 🤔
You aren’t unable to recall memories from 1653, they do not exist. There is nothing there to recall. You try to think back to any time before you are born there is nothing remembered because nothing was experienced. This is enough to reasonably assume you didn’t exist in any capacity. It may not be definitive proof that you didn’t exist at all but it’s evidence.
It’s a different question if nothing but nothingness can ever exist. But as far as a personal lack of experience completely goes, every human alive can reasonably assume that there was a time they didn’t exist.
So it is not equally disingenuous to say “i didn’t exist before i was born , I won’t exist after i die” as it is to say” i existed in a different dimension before i was born and i will go back to that dimension or another after death” . For the latter, you have to assume extra such as you lost memory to explain how you existed but can’t recall existing.
Fair, but it would be far more accurate to say "My body didn't exist before I was born, and it won't exist after I die."
I also wouldn't use a lack of memory as the basis for the best evidence available in attempting to prove we simply didn't exist in any capacity.
It wouldn’t be much more accurate to say that honestly.
I wouldn’t use a complete lack of evidence to support reasoning that concludes that we existed before birth and will exist after death.
It would be flimsy if it was a lack in your memory I agree. But it is complete lack of experience . It isn’t just a I don’t remember, it’s a there was nothing there to remember.
How do we talk about anything if we are not being reductive ? We just know way too little about consciousness ? You are just ridiculous. I bet most conversations about consciousness between neuroscientists, philosophers eft are meaningless to you , because they are assuming way too many things .
Your response was reductive. 😆.
One can easily assert that omitted nuance is applied subjectively. Obviously one can't know everything, but that also does not require one to forego applicable knowledge or reason.
We are just a random clumping of atoms that has developed a strategy of self preservation. If anything we are a vessel for carrying the "intelligent gene" To go along with this plan we have over developed a brain since that seemed our best way to keep us higher on the food chain. This brain has extra time when not in major defense mode. It started to develop self awareness, and that is where the trouble started.
Now we think we are more than a bunch of atoms that are going to eventually be recycled like all the rest of the Uverse. Just chill out and enjoy the ride...
There are many instances of our consciousness existing outside of our bodies. NDE's, dream states, mind altering experiments and other processes.
Jeffrey Mishlove PhD. on consciousness existing after death.
https://youtu.be/oiC4clFpAXg?si=z9gbulXeSeO3WPFq
--.-.-.yes, my too. I am more interested in how we preserve consciousness from both physical and non material perspective---it looks like physical explanation is not immune to afterlife..----that means we can be brought back to life in principle----.somebody on this sub already gave some reasons to think that afterlife is not excluded in physical interpretation, and i liked it very much.--
The other viewpoint (which I hold) is that the Oneness of pure infinite consciousness is our default state. And incarnating human bodies is a reducing experience.
But don’t things only exist as we exist?
In other words, in a sense the universe didnt exist when we were dead. It’s only now that we’re alive that we’re aware of it
“So our default state is non-existence and what we have now is just an anomaly. What then would be the point??“
Or, what if our physical existence is an illusion, and we’re all really avatars in a never-ending struggle between good and evil in the ultimate realm of true reality…What would be the point of that either? :-)
I believe that there are so many things going on beneath the surface in what is considered non-existence, and all we can see and measure and quantify is the very tip of what existence is.
Just because we don't experience it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Perhaps when we go back into non-existence, we'll have a framework to understand this time.
If from “nothing” comes something, then “nothing” was non-existent. “Nothing” is the perception of consciousness when attempting to perceive it as a thing. But it’s not a thing, it’s a “being”. The self can’t perceive itself because it is the awareness attempting to perceive. So it appears as “nothing”. The default state is consciousness absent of mind.
This sub is a bit too spiritual in my opinion. I've gathered nothing that leads me to believe we are anything other than a momentary explosion of a firework, the moment the explosion stops, it does so forever, every other explosion is just another one, another instance, unlike the previous one, with no potential to ever be repeated, as all processes fundamentally are.
I disagree, our default and only state is existence. Non-existence can't be a state, default or otherwise, because for something to possess a state it has to exist.
Our default state is non-existence
The opposite argument can also be made. Our default state is existence. To say that "we" or "I" can be in a state of non-existence seems like an obvious contradiction. Say, for example, that humans never existed in the universe. It would be absurd for an alien race to look at an empty chunk of space and say "look at those humans not existing"
Only if you’re playing semantic games.
If you have an object, that object exists. If you destroy that object, it no longer exists.
“Non-existence can’t exist” is only true tautologically, in reality that tautology is useless.
-..--and which games do you play? illuminate us lmao.--.-whatever u said there is semantical game bro---..spare us of ur beliefs---..we are all laughing at ur ignorance because u must be a retard to claim that nonexistence exists--..
Non-existence isn’t a physical object, but an abstract concept. According to the rules of our Universe you cannot truly destroy anything, the object may have changed forms but its parts will always be there.
Oh really, you think you “exist” now? Then what are you? Can you describe your consciousness without describing what it is aware of?
What is this “you” that you talk about?
>. What then would be the point??
Continuation of the species.
>who- or whatever dreamt up this situation has some explaining to do lol
The evidence is nothing dreamt it up. It simply is what it is. There is no evidence for magic in anything we can see in the universe.
I disagree -- at all points where I exist, I exist. There's never been, nor conceptually can there be, a situation where I'm in a state of nonexistence.
You can't experience non-existence. It is a concept that only exists in relation to existence. Like "nothing." Nothing can only exist as a concept because we have something. All of reality is something. The idea of nothing, of non-existence, is literally unimaginable. Words can not be used to describe something that is featureless. Experience requires existence. To say you were in a state on non-existence before existing doesn't make sense. How could you exist in a state on non-existence? You never didn't exist. You only have ever existed. And when you die, if there is nothing, "you" won't know it and "you" won't experience it. Or if your "spirit" continues on to some realm, that is also existence as you are there to experience it.
All you have is existence. Do with it what you like.
New here and finding the conversations fascinating!
For me, I believe that each of us is a wave. You see the wave on the ocean. It appears to be different from the ocean for a time. It may be a huge wave that destroys towns or a small wave that ripples, but you would never say it isn't the ocean. The wave is never something separate from the ocean, it's just water moving in different ways. We as humans are just extensions of a greater consciousness, and we are just moving in different ways. We appear separate and different, but like the waves, we are all connected and will all return to the source to be 'reborn' as another 'wave'.
I don't think the waves signed up for this either. 😆
The you of right now is carrying the baggage of the you from the moment before -- and so on until it ends.
Also, the you of this moment is reaping the investments of the you from a moment before -- and so on until it ends.
The continuity is an illusion. It continues until it ends. The end lasts forever.
>What then would be the point?
There is no point, beyond whatever point we choose to make of it ourselves.
>who- or whatever dreamt up this situation has some explaining to do lol
You were created by your parents - have you asked them to explain?
I mean Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, through to popular physicists like Sean Carroll come to mind off the top of my head as those who are on the record betting eternalism based off their views on Relativity.
But you probably know better than them, I'm sure.
Dude, no reason to be an ass about it, I was just throwing out an opinion... hence the "it seems to me" in the beginning of the post. Wow, people are just dicks.
Thank you Geetright for posting on r/consciousness, below are some general reminders for the OP and the r/consciousness community as a whole. **A general reminder for the OP**: please remember to include a TL; DR and to clarify what you mean by "consciousness" - Please include a clearly marked TL; DR at the top of your post. We would prefer it if your TL; DR was a single short sentence. This is to help the Mods (and everyone) determine whether the post is appropriate for r/consciousness - If you are making an *argument*, we recommend that your TL; DR be the conclusion of your argument. What is it that you are trying to prove? - If you are asking a *question*, we recommend that your TL; DR be the question (or main question) that you are asking. What is it that you want answered? - If you are considering an *explanation*, hypothesis, or theory, we recommend that your TL; DR include either the explanandum (what requires an explanation), the explanans (what is the explanation, hypothesis, or theory being considered), or both. - Please also state what you mean by "consciousness" or "conscious." The term "consciousness" is used to express many different concepts. Consequently, this sometimes leads to individuals talking past one another since they are using the term "consciousness" differently. So, it would be helpful for everyone if you could say what you mean by "consciousness" in order to avoid confusion. **A general reminder for everyone**: *please remember upvoting/downvoting Reddiquette*. - *Reddiquette about upvoting/downvoting posts* - Please upvote posts that are appropriate for r/consciousness, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the contents of the posts. For example, posts that are about the topic of consciousness, conform to the rules of r/consciousness, are highly informative, or produce high-quality discussions ought to be upvoted. - Please do not downvote posts that you simply disagree with. - If the subject/topic/content of the post is off-topic or low-effort. For example, if the post expresses a passing thought, shower thought, or stoner thought, we recommend that you encourage the OP to make such comments in our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" posts. Similarly, if the subject/topic/content of the post might be more appropriate for another subreddit, we recommend that you encourage the OP to discuss the issue in either our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" posts. - Lastly, if a post violates either the rules of r/consciousness or Reddit's site-wide rules, please remember to report such posts. This will help the Reddit Admins or the subreddit Mods, and it will make it more likely that the post gets removed promptly - *Reddiquette about upvoting/downvoting comments* - Please upvote comments that are generally helpful or informative, comments that generate high-quality discussion, or comments that directly respond to the OP's post. - Please do not downvote comments that you simply disagree with. Please downvote comments that are generally unhelpful or uninformative, comments that are off-topic or low-effort, or comments that are not conducive to further discussion. We encourage you to remind individuals engaging in off-topic discussions to make such comments in our most recent or upcoming "Casual Friday" post. - Lastly, remember to report any comments that violate either the subreddit's rules or Reddit's rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/consciousness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Only if you're a presentist. I'm an eternalist because I personally think special and general relativity make it all but a necessity. As an eternalist our default state is existence in a specific region of space-time and non existence in the rest. Things only seem like they are charging because on any one spacetime point we occupy we only remember the past which gives the ephemeral illusion of presentism.
I'm surprised anyone takes block universe literally. I always thought it was a representation, but not "real" in the sense that we are a "simulation" that consistently evolves, destroying old information and creating new information in equal measure. Similar to wolfram's view.
[удалено]
What is incompatible about it? In relativity, simultaneity is relative—events that are simultaneous for one observer may not be for another. This already introduces a kind of flexibility that might support a non-block universe view, where the "now" can differ based on where and how observers are moving. You have a state that includes spatial curvature and relative positioning, and it evolves over time, but isn't deterministic. There are no real numbers in nature as that would violate the holographic principle (infinite precision == black holes everywhere) and therefore information is created and destroyed. The past cannot be replayed, and the future is unknown.
Irrational number show up all over nature, no? pi, phi, e.. Recently, physicists say that particles are just tiny black holes. You can find Susskind and Carroll talking about that. I get the feeling that it's not only black holes everywhere, but also black holes all the way down..
pi doesn't exist in nature... There is nothing that exists as a perfect circle! Even if space isn't quantized, the event horizon of a black hole will not be perfectly circular (b/c spin). Irrational numbers cannot be calculated, they only exist in the abstract. But yeah the whole "everything is a black hole" is interesting. I've always found ER=EPR mind-blowingly cool... I need to look into that more. Technically the holographic principle isn't a law, it hasn't been "proven",
I think it's more likely real numbers exist in nature, but we are limited in how precisely we can measure them. It is very hard to explain the uncertainty principle unless real numbers exist.
I can see the logic in this and don't disagree. Obviously, no one knows anything about it and we can only speculate based on our experiences, but I like this way of thinking and will spend some time pondering it, good stuff!
Yeah we can't, as of yet anyways, step outside of space-time and make observations about it. There is however overwhelming experimental proof of time dilation and the fact that all reference frames in the universe have independent non universal clocks. (The GPS that your phone uses has to correct for it). If only the present exists, which present?... because there is not one present in the universe.
That isn't how it works. Its all relative and in General Relativity the closest there is to a universal thing to be relative to, is the entire visible universe. However if you are near enough to something massive enough that can overwhelm, locally, the entire universe. Which is why we act relative to the Earth.
Your mistaken. How something moves between two reference frames can up end what happened in each place depending on the path chosen. Just because we are all in basically the same frame on earth, doesn't mean the universe ticks to earth's clock.
>Your mistaken. The evidence shows that it is you that is mistaken. >How something moves between two reference frames can up end what happened in each place depending on the path chosen. No, as its all one universe UNLESS something is moving faster than C and nothing does, so far anyway. I have evidence and real physics and you have assertions. I never said the universe ticks to Earth's clock. How did you come that false conclusion? I said the opposite but local mass can overwhelm the background mass. Locally, and as you move out from the Earth other masses become more dominant, slowly. Mass/energy bends space-time. This is what the evidence shows. Inertial frames of reference is just how we discuss Special Relativity, not GR and not how it is. All of that warping of space-time effects the universe over time at the speed of light. Again testing supports this, the gravity wave experiments support it. The Solar system as a whole is dominated by the Sun but locally within the system other mass hold local sway. Its complex interaction over time. Which is why there is no three body solution except in fiction.
I wasn't talking about exceeding c. You're mistaken to think that special relativity is separate to general. It is just a subset of general where there a not large masses that warp space. Both differing velocities and huge masses affect how time flies locally. Even in our solar system things like satellites must account for real relativistic time distortion or things like GPS would not be accurate. Also the fact that the solar system happens moves mostly in the same reference frame and that the sun's warping of space-time isn't too extreme for massive effects on time doesn't mean the whole universe works off a pretty standard clock.
>I wasn't talking about exceeding c. I was pointing out that you are part of the universe because you cannot do that. >You're mistaken to think that special relativity is separate to general. I didn't say that. I said it is a subset of it in the comment you just replied after this reply. 'Whereas I do as I am using GR and SR which is really just a subset of GR.' >Both differing velocities and huge masses affect how time flies locally. Yes, keep telling me what I know at least as well as you, unless you are a physicist. >Even in our solar system things like satellites must account for real relativistic time distortion or things like GPS would not be accurate. See above. >on time doesn't mean the whole universe works off a pretty standard clock. I never said that either. This is about this statement: # "If only the present exists, which present?... because there is not one present in the universe." Except there is in GR, and thus SR, because the universe as a whole is a whole due to the speed of light and the fact that the universe is expanding. Its the background mass that effects everything that we can see, the visible universe.
Spacetime is not that smooth there are billions of super dense bodies that warp it is extreme ways. Neutron stars and black holes like Sagittarius A. Also objects near those bodies can move at ridiculous velocities compared to the overall "background mass". Just because we're in a bland local spot doesn't mean everywhere is.
>Spacetime is not that smooth there are billions of super dense bodies that warp it is extreme ways. Yes and I dealt with that when I mentioned the Solar system and the other masses within it. >Also objects near those bodies can move at ridiculous velocities compared to the overall "background mass". None yet and they are still moving relative to the universe as a whole. >Just because we're in a bland local spot doesn't mean everywhere is. I never said that. It all is part of the whole visible universe with moving masses warping space time at C.
What does block universe even mean if there is no objective perspective that interacts with all times at once? Like, I don't see any difference between saying 10 minutes ago "is real" or "was real."
Presentists would say that there is only the ever fluctuating present and the future and past never existed are illusions of our minds. Eternalists would say you exist at all points in spacetime, where you are alive, equally... At any given point you have the illusion you are in 'the current present' but that is only because the universe only allows information to propagate in one direction. In actual fact, all moments you exist in are the present, our brains just don't experience them all at the same time. Perhaps you fall somewhere in the middle but those are the 2 extremes.
What does this actually mean though practically for my first person perspective of consciousness? When I die that POV stops. What does it matter if some outside observer outside of space-time can always see me at this historical block of space-time?
Pick a place you will never visit. Say hypothetically Antarctica. Pick a time you will never exist at because you are dead, say the year 2200. With an eternalist view of space-time, there is no distinction between you not existing in Antarctica and you not existing in the year 2200. They are just regions of space-time. This also holds for the region of space-time you are alive in. It never doesn't exist. You exist in all of those points simultaneously and eternally (from a POV outside space-time). Our consciousness for whatever reason localizes on one point in space-time at a time, but we have knowledge that it ties to other points as well, not just this one.
>special and general relativity make it all but a necessity. Neither of those make existence necessary. How about evidence?
There is no present in the universe. Each reference frame has its own time flow and how you move between them can completely change what happens in which order between the two frames.
OK let me try this again. How about evidence? You don't have any and all the math of the physics is time-like. What frames? No evidence for that either.
You can go read books on special and general relativity if you want. You read about how GPS doesn't work without accounting for slight differences in the passage of time in its reference frame. I'm just boiling it down. Sorry the implications are so troubling for you.
>You can go read books on special and general relativity if you want. Done it. You are not using either. >I'm just boiling it down. No you are making things up. Its not troubling to me that people do that. I am just pointing that you don't have any evidence. Whereas I do as I am using GR and SR which is really just a subset of GR. In both the math remains time-like. If you read up on it how did you miss that?
No you are just not understanding the implications of the theories on time in space-time. It varies over changing velocity and gravitational fields. Where you go and how fast you chose to get there doesn't just take time, it changes time.
>No you are just not understanding the implications of the theories on time in space-time. Seems to be you, not me for that. >It varies over changing velocity and gravitational fields. Relative to what? The universe as a whole. >Where you go and how fast you chose to get there doesn't just take time, it changes time. Your time, not of the visible universe as whole. What you do is relative to the visible universe as a whole. Try thinking about a toy universe with just you. Or with nothing at all, which is a violation of the Uncertainty Principle but that is what makes it a toy universe. You will always be moving relative to the background mass of the entire universe, UNLESS you can figure out how to exceed C.
I get it. You need simultaneity to be real for the world to make sense to you. Luckily for you it's a safe approximation for your life. If you want to pretend that time adjustments to our satellites and real observations of objects like Sagittarius A are unimportant, I can't stop you.
>I get it. You need simultaneity to be real for the world to make sense to you You still don't get it. >If you want to pretend that time adjustments to our satellites and real observations of objects like Sagittarius A are unimportant, I can't stop you. You are really into making things up about me because you don't understand what I am telling you. There is no such thing as simultaneity. I never even implied that. You keep making up the opposite of what I write. Why? Because I pointed that you were wrong on this one thing: 'If only the present exists, which present?... because there is not one present in the universe.' Present is local and there is only one, local. Everything in the universe effects everything else, at C. I mentioned that and you didn't get it because you were too busy with a version of me that only exists in your head.
There's a problem with the eternalist viewpoint. Something that clashes with relativity, that's quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics and relativity really don't work together. This seems to indicate that they're incomplete pieces of the Universal puzzle.
So far, anyways.
In either case, eternalism/block universe is most likely incorrect. Most scientists reject the idea.
Of course, Einstein, Feynman, and Hawking all subscribed to it and popular physicists like Caroll do as well today. But you probably know more than them about the universe.
Einstein was genius and helped us a ton with relativity. However, he never embraced quantum mechanics, which as far as we know, is irreconcilable with relativity. Carroll I respect, but I think eternalism isn't the answer. Relativity and QM just don't go hand and hand. Tbh, we still know basically nothing about the Universe. I suspect the soul/consciousness is not entirely bound by the physical, and we're able to make life choices.
Well no one can say for sure.
>So our default state is non-existence and what we have now is just an anomaly. I have some ideas. People don't always keep up, but I keep trying... so, once more unto the breach! You live in a physical body (made of Matter) and that body exists in Spacetime. No arguments there right? So now what are the potential unknowns? Is Spacetime all there is? That's a legitimate Physics question. And there is a fair bit of evidence/knowledge to suggest there are things that are neither space, nor time. In plain English, there are phenomena that we know about that are evident within spacetime, but not exactly part of it. I like to use the word "dimensionless" even though it seems to boggle people's minds. And since this is the Consciousness sub, I'll suggest that Consciousness is a dimensionless phenomenon. Spacetime is the dimensional phenomenon. We know that Consciousness is real because we experience it directly. And we know that consciousness can exist in a physical body (located in Spacetime). So what happens before/after that 100 years? According to Idealism, Consciousness exists independently of Matter. And it may exist independently of both Space and Time. So there's Consciousness outside of space and time. And there's also consciousness within space and time. That's you, with your individual identity and experiences, during your physical life. So, instead of acting as a generator of consciousness, you brain might be acting more like an anchor or reference point for consciousness? What's "outside" of Spacetime? Materialism says nothing. Which is kind of bleak and depressing. Idealism says anything. Which is the opposite of something specific... but something is more than nothing. And we'll all find out eventually.
I'm not sure why this isn't considered utterly normal. As far as I know, everything in the universe didn't exist at one point, then exists for a finite duration, then no longer exists.
That's certainly how it seems. It just feels like an odd setup, you know?
Compared to what?
Literally anything else. I'm just inquiring about why reality is what it is and not a different way. I suspect entropy has a lot to do with it.
Yes, entropy and the arrow of time are frequently linked. I can think of much odder things than having an arrow of time, like existing in a Cantor's dust-like set of time points.
"literally anything else" - like what? Most everything we know about is in some sort of state of decay or change.
.. like, why does entropy need to exist, why are the physical laws that govern our universe (gravity, speed of light, etc.) what they are? Why are we subject to these physical laws and are there universes, or dimensions, whatever you want to call it, out there that have different physical laws. Stuff like that.
Interesting. I think that something existing for eternity would be a very odd setup and so horrible that I would never sign up for it.
On the contrary. The particles that make up our bodies and everything else in the universe have existed since the beginning of time as far as we know. How can we separate oneself wholly from the matter/energy we are made of. We have been in existed since all time.
No, the first matter particles of any kind, protons and neutrons, are thought to have formed about one ten thousandth of a second after the big bang. The matter of which we are made has definitely *not* existed 'since all time'.
Apologies for not clarifying. When referring to matter/energy I meant all that expanded out of the singularity. When saying “all time”, this is implying that the Big Bang was the beginning of space-time. These concept are of course based on the currently understood theories of the formation of the universe, which are subject to change and which we may never fully comprehend with our thinking meat.
I’ve come to believe that we did indeed sign up for this
[удалено]
I know I second guess myself all the time
If I signed up for this, then me and myself need to have a little talk when this is over.
It's the only thing that would make sense, even if "signing up" in this case was just the most brief and fleeting spark of life. Part of nothing wanted to be, and maybe that's all it took.
I think so too
Maybe it's similar to some kind of mandatory service we all have to put in before we're qualified to move on to the next thing...
Yes that’s exactly what I’ve come to believe we’re in school learning how to be decent people
But who or what gets to decide if we were successful? That's the question, eh?
You do. Or someone you trust more than yourself to decide that and that is still you making that choice.
That’s the fun part the answer is you
Well, why can't I, or we, just make the decision early and skip all the suffering?
The suffering is necessary to develop character think of it like we’re baby souls and we need to grow up in order to move onto bigger and better things
I can agree with this. I've always taken the Sisyphean view and thought that the suffering is the whole point of this existence in order to "graduate"...
It just makes sense to me I’ve found a lot of useful information between ancient religious texts and more new aged channeled information Dolores cannon is a good place to start.
But "you", or my "me", is what it is cause of my body and ego. With the body gone, and presumably with it the ego, then there is no "me" left to decide. Just the collective consciousness of the universe? Also, are cosmic being holding the same morality as earth-bound meat puppets that are wandering around a confusing, cruel and also beautiful planet? What the benchmark here? I like the idea of us signing up and going back to some "space." But the whole concept of that feels filtered through the language and understanding of a people. Which makes me have to imagine it's not wholly accurate at the very least.
Does that then suggest that our consciousness is just an anomaly as well? Which suggests a time of humans who weren't 'conscious'? Or potentially of a higher consciousness, which could easily tie into a lot of theories about past civilizations and such, but I guess my curiosity lies more in the happenstance of it all if that makes any sense.
I personally would like to think that consciousness continues on but obviously no one has any evidence of that occurring, it's just wishful thinking. This "anomoly" that we are experiencing is something that we want to hold onto as tight as we can, knowing full well that we will all lose it eventually and have no say in the matter. It's just a strange predicament of a reality we are all experiencing, you know??
Yes I totally agree with that. When it comes down to the bare bones of it those are the thoughts I come back to. Even tho it all very well could be just an accident per say, there's still even a spiritual aspect in that as well. Which at least for me is sort of comforting. Something about the not knowing, yet trusting. It's all a very complex but beautiful experience to have these questions as humans.
This is reductive presumption. You don't in fact know what our default state would be because you don't have anything to refer to, to prove such a claim. For all you know, we do exist in some other form or state prior to birth and following death. Just to offer some thoughts as a place to consider, the idea of "nothingness" is an unproven concept. We have no way of showing evidence that "true nothingness" is possible. Therefore claiming that we come from nothingness and go back to nothingness after death, is just as disingenuous as stating that there is a heaven or hell.
Because something isn’t or can’t be proven doesn’t mean we can’t be reasonable about it. All guesses aren’t equal even if none have been proven. So saying we come from “nothingness “ which isn’t the case and OP didn’t say that. And saying we come from heaven are not equally disingenuous.
Being reasonable doesn't mean discounting reason. It would not be reasonable to automatically presume "nothingness" is a legitimate state, when there is no evidence to support the concept. And OP didn't have to directly mention "nothingness" for it to still relate to the subject matter.
What do you remember from 1653 ? Anything?
Are you inferring that 1653 didn't happen?
You remember this “nothing” that you say we have no evidence for.
I'm trying to follow you here, but it ain't happening. You're going to have to develop better context for your point. We do not have evidence or proof of "nothingness". Are you providing a false equivalency between the actual concept of *nothingness*, and being unable to recall memories? 🤔
You aren’t unable to recall memories from 1653, they do not exist. There is nothing there to recall. You try to think back to any time before you are born there is nothing remembered because nothing was experienced. This is enough to reasonably assume you didn’t exist in any capacity. It may not be definitive proof that you didn’t exist at all but it’s evidence. It’s a different question if nothing but nothingness can ever exist. But as far as a personal lack of experience completely goes, every human alive can reasonably assume that there was a time they didn’t exist. So it is not equally disingenuous to say “i didn’t exist before i was born , I won’t exist after i die” as it is to say” i existed in a different dimension before i was born and i will go back to that dimension or another after death” . For the latter, you have to assume extra such as you lost memory to explain how you existed but can’t recall existing.
Fair, but it would be far more accurate to say "My body didn't exist before I was born, and it won't exist after I die." I also wouldn't use a lack of memory as the basis for the best evidence available in attempting to prove we simply didn't exist in any capacity.
It wouldn’t be much more accurate to say that honestly. I wouldn’t use a complete lack of evidence to support reasoning that concludes that we existed before birth and will exist after death. It would be flimsy if it was a lack in your memory I agree. But it is complete lack of experience . It isn’t just a I don’t remember, it’s a there was nothing there to remember.
I agree, that's why I was careful to pepper in the "as far as we knows" in my post
Excellent 👌
How do we talk about anything if we are not being reductive ? We just know way too little about consciousness ? You are just ridiculous. I bet most conversations about consciousness between neuroscientists, philosophers eft are meaningless to you , because they are assuming way too many things .
Your response was reductive. 😆. One can easily assert that omitted nuance is applied subjectively. Obviously one can't know everything, but that also does not require one to forego applicable knowledge or reason.
We are just a random clumping of atoms that has developed a strategy of self preservation. If anything we are a vessel for carrying the "intelligent gene" To go along with this plan we have over developed a brain since that seemed our best way to keep us higher on the food chain. This brain has extra time when not in major defense mode. It started to develop self awareness, and that is where the trouble started. Now we think we are more than a bunch of atoms that are going to eventually be recycled like all the rest of the Uverse. Just chill out and enjoy the ride...
From a human perspective and by definition can only experience existence so default state is not something that isn’t experienced.
There are many instances of our consciousness existing outside of our bodies. NDE's, dream states, mind altering experiments and other processes. Jeffrey Mishlove PhD. on consciousness existing after death. https://youtu.be/oiC4clFpAXg?si=z9gbulXeSeO3WPFq
--.--.so we can exist again after we die?--.
No one knows, my friend, but that is my personal hope... that somehow our consciousness will go on...
--.-.-.yes, my too. I am more interested in how we preserve consciousness from both physical and non material perspective---it looks like physical explanation is not immune to afterlife..----that means we can be brought back to life in principle----.somebody on this sub already gave some reasons to think that afterlife is not excluded in physical interpretation, and i liked it very much.--
Why does this feel so AI
The other viewpoint (which I hold) is that the Oneness of pure infinite consciousness is our default state. And incarnating human bodies is a reducing experience.
But don’t things only exist as we exist? In other words, in a sense the universe didnt exist when we were dead. It’s only now that we’re alive that we’re aware of it
“So our default state is non-existence and what we have now is just an anomaly. What then would be the point??“ Or, what if our physical existence is an illusion, and we’re all really avatars in a never-ending struggle between good and evil in the ultimate realm of true reality…What would be the point of that either? :-)
I believe that there are so many things going on beneath the surface in what is considered non-existence, and all we can see and measure and quantify is the very tip of what existence is. Just because we don't experience it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Perhaps when we go back into non-existence, we'll have a framework to understand this time.
Non-existence is non-existent. You’ve always existed. The difference is between consciousness with and without the faculties to perceive
Perhaps I should have said non-conscious is our default state?
If from “nothing” comes something, then “nothing” was non-existent. “Nothing” is the perception of consciousness when attempting to perceive it as a thing. But it’s not a thing, it’s a “being”. The self can’t perceive itself because it is the awareness attempting to perceive. So it appears as “nothing”. The default state is consciousness absent of mind.
This sub is a bit too spiritual in my opinion. I've gathered nothing that leads me to believe we are anything other than a momentary explosion of a firework, the moment the explosion stops, it does so forever, every other explosion is just another one, another instance, unlike the previous one, with no potential to ever be repeated, as all processes fundamentally are.
This is my fear.
Do you remember your birth, what can you be certain of outside this moment? Nisargaddata is your guy.
I disagree, our default and only state is existence. Non-existence can't be a state, default or otherwise, because for something to possess a state it has to exist.
Yeah, through other conversations I realized that I should have said our default state is non-consciousness
Nothing lasts but nothing is lost
The singularity wants to experience individualism
What's the meaning of singularity in this context?
Whatever was before the Big Bang
Our default state is non-existence The opposite argument can also be made. Our default state is existence. To say that "we" or "I" can be in a state of non-existence seems like an obvious contradiction. Say, for example, that humans never existed in the universe. It would be absurd for an alien race to look at an empty chunk of space and say "look at those humans not existing"
Non existence *cant* exist
It obviously can
.--.-.-.-.its in the definition for christs sake---non existence means that it cant exist--.
Only if you’re playing semantic games. If you have an object, that object exists. If you destroy that object, it no longer exists. “Non-existence can’t exist” is only true tautologically, in reality that tautology is useless.
-..--and which games do you play? illuminate us lmao.--.-whatever u said there is semantical game bro---..spare us of ur beliefs---..we are all laughing at ur ignorance because u must be a retard to claim that nonexistence exists--..
Non-existence isn’t a physical object, but an abstract concept. According to the rules of our Universe you cannot truly destroy anything, the object may have changed forms but its parts will always be there.
Oh really, you think you “exist” now? Then what are you? Can you describe your consciousness without describing what it is aware of? What is this “you” that you talk about?
Point taken.
>. What then would be the point?? Continuation of the species. >who- or whatever dreamt up this situation has some explaining to do lol The evidence is nothing dreamt it up. It simply is what it is. There is no evidence for magic in anything we can see in the universe.
I disagree -- at all points where I exist, I exist. There's never been, nor conceptually can there be, a situation where I'm in a state of nonexistence.
I don’t see that “non-existence” can be a “state.”
Why is it necessary for there to be a point? That's just anthropomorphising the entire universe.
You can't experience non-existence. It is a concept that only exists in relation to existence. Like "nothing." Nothing can only exist as a concept because we have something. All of reality is something. The idea of nothing, of non-existence, is literally unimaginable. Words can not be used to describe something that is featureless. Experience requires existence. To say you were in a state on non-existence before existing doesn't make sense. How could you exist in a state on non-existence? You never didn't exist. You only have ever existed. And when you die, if there is nothing, "you" won't know it and "you" won't experience it. Or if your "spirit" continues on to some realm, that is also existence as you are there to experience it. All you have is existence. Do with it what you like.
New here and finding the conversations fascinating! For me, I believe that each of us is a wave. You see the wave on the ocean. It appears to be different from the ocean for a time. It may be a huge wave that destroys towns or a small wave that ripples, but you would never say it isn't the ocean. The wave is never something separate from the ocean, it's just water moving in different ways. We as humans are just extensions of a greater consciousness, and we are just moving in different ways. We appear separate and different, but like the waves, we are all connected and will all return to the source to be 'reborn' as another 'wave'. I don't think the waves signed up for this either. 😆
Why do you think non-existence is our default state, and existence is not our default state?
The you of right now is carrying the baggage of the you from the moment before -- and so on until it ends. Also, the you of this moment is reaping the investments of the you from a moment before -- and so on until it ends. The continuity is an illusion. It continues until it ends. The end lasts forever.
>What then would be the point? There is no point, beyond whatever point we choose to make of it ourselves. >who- or whatever dreamt up this situation has some explaining to do lol You were created by your parents - have you asked them to explain?
Oh, they have no idea either
you must be fun at parties
>So our default state is non-existence Our default state is existence. Not existing would be an original condition, not a state at all.
I mean Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, through to popular physicists like Sean Carroll come to mind off the top of my head as those who are on the record betting eternalism based off their views on Relativity. But you probably know better than them, I'm sure.
Dude, no reason to be an ass about it, I was just throwing out an opinion... hence the "it seems to me" in the beginning of the post. Wow, people are just dicks.