So when we die and become eternal

[magnifier661]

Here's something to have a philosophical discussion.

Let's just pretend that all of us go to some eternal consciousness when we die.

How would you think this plays out? Since time now isn't an issue, would that mean you could see all that existed and will exist too?

 

[MarAzul]

Oh that's way beyond my vision. My wee brain can only conjure up a short view.

I get to spend quite a bit of time with one grandson, he's eight years old now. Just last week, when we were having one of our many discussion, he told me, " Grandpa, you are just like me!" I had to confess, it was probably a keen observation.

So the vision is hardly as far as you are looking, but...

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

And I'm just sitting here in my underwear watching football... You're on another level today my friend lol

 

[jlprk]

To the 7th dimension, time is the 8th dimension. They move more slowly than icebergs. It's almost impossible to see out of the Arctic fog.

 

[barfo]

I get to spend quite a bit of time with one grandson, he's eight years old now. Just last week, when we were having one of our many discussion, he told me, " Grandpa, you are just like me!"

He meant that you'd both peed your pants....

but bonding is bonding. Keep up the good work.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You can't "see" anything because your brain is dead, there's no connection between the optic nerve and the brain anymore, etc. You could not recognize anything you "saw" because your brain is dead and you have no memory or power to recognize anything.

You never can see the present. It literally takes light time to bounce off of and to travel the 3ft from someone sitting across the table from you. Since light travels at ~983,571,056 (a random, un-god like perfect sort of number) feet per second, that would be 3/983,571,056ths of a second. So you are seeing that person that far in the past.

Not only that, when the light hits your eye, it takes 8ms (8 x 1/1000th of a second) before your brain acknowledges seeing it in the first place. It takes another 125ms (1/8th of a second) before the cognitive part of your brain recognizes exactly what it is you've got your eyes focused on. So you're seeing even that much further in the past. Never the present. Never the future.

The 3 x 1/983,571,056 of a second should give you an idea of how you are looking at a time machine. If you look at the sky, you are seeing some light that took billions of years to reach your eyes. So you are seeing the source of that light billions of years in the past.

 

[julius]

You can't "see" anything because your brain is dead, there's no connection between the optic nerve and the brain anymore, etc. You could not recognize anything you "saw" because your brain is dead and you have no memory or power to recognize anything.

You never can see the present. It literally takes light time to bounce off of and to travel the 3ft from someone sitting across the table from you. Since light travels at ~983,571,056 (a random, un-god like perfect sort of number) feet per second, that would be 3/983,571,056ths of a second. So you are seeing that person that far in the past.

Not only that, when the light hits your eye, it takes 8ms (8 x 1/1000th of a second) before your brain acknowledges seeing it in the first place. It takes another 125ms (1/8th of a second) before the cognitive part of your brain recognizes exactly what it is you've got your eyes focused on. So you're seeing even that much further in the past. Never the present. Never the future.

The 3 x 1/983,571,056 of a second should give you an idea of how you are looking at a time machine. If you look at the sky, you are seeing some light that took billions of years to reach your eyes. So you are seeing the source of that light billions of years in the past.

Thanks Captain Obvious.

 

[Denny Crane]

Thanks Captain Obvious.

Duh

 

[julius]

Duh

I wasn't sure which comment to go with..."Nerd!" or the one I went with. I think both would've garnered laughs, but "Nerd!" seemed too simple, and predictable.

 

[Denny Crane]

I wasn't sure which comment to go with..."Nerd!" or the one I went with. I think both would've garnered laughs, but "Nerd!" seemed too simple, and predictable.

The question in the opening post asks what you see after you're dead.

 

[julius]

The question in the opening post asks what you see after you're dead.

Yeah, I know. I loved the Spock type response you gave.

 

[magnifier661]

You can't "see" anything because your brain is dead, there's no connection between the optic nerve and the brain anymore, etc. You could not recognize anything you "saw" because your brain is dead and you have no memory or power to recognize anything.

You never can see the present. It literally takes light time to bounce off of and to travel the 3ft from someone sitting across the table from you. Since light travels at ~983,571,056 (a random, un-god like perfect sort of number) feet per second, that would be 3/983,571,056ths of a second. So you are seeing that person that far in the past.

Not only that, when the light hits your eye, it takes 8ms (8 x 1/1000th of a second) before your brain acknowledges seeing it in the first place. It takes another 125ms (1/8th of a second) before the cognitive part of your brain recognizes exactly what it is you've got your eyes focused on. So you're seeing even that much further in the past. Never the present. Never the future.

The 3 x 1/983,571,056 of a second should give you an idea of how you are looking at a time machine. If you look at the sky, you are seeing some light that took billions of years to reach your eyes. So you are seeing the source of that light billions of years in the past.

We are dealing with philosophy and conceptualism. 2 things you lack.

See in philosophy, anything is possible and discussions are about the what ifs. And since you tend to tread more on the "if I don't see it, then it's not logical".

So you can just choose to ignore the discussion or act like a tool and prove you are nerd for Star Trek and pointy ears

 

[Denny Crane]

We are dealing with philosophy and conceptualism. 2 things you lack.

See in philosophy, anything is possible and discussions are about the what ifs. And since you tend to tread more on the "if I don't see it, then it's not logical".

So you can just choose to ignore the discussion or act like a tool and prove you are nerd for Star Trek and pointy ears

So you're saying philosophy doesn't require a brain. Apparently not.

You win this one!

 

[magnifier661]

So you're saying philosophy doesn't require a brain. Apparently not.

You win this one!

No philosophy actually requires a part of the brain you shut down.

You're right I do win

 

[Denny Crane]

No philosophy actually requires a part of the brain you shut down.

You're right I do win

But not the pointy ear logic part of the brain.

Whatever.

Your "philosophical" mumbo jumbo is an impossibility. You ascribe things like sight without eyes. You say, "take time out if it" and then contradict yourself by asking if one could see (without eyes!) the past. Past, you know, indicates "time" so you contradict yourself.

Teach us philosophy and more of that pointy eared stuff.

 

[magnifier661]

But not the pointy ear logic part of the brain.

Whatever.

Your "philosophical" mumbo jumbo is an impossibility. You ascribe things like sight without eyes. You say, "take time out if it" and then contradict yourself by asking if one could see (without eyes!) the past. Past, you know, indicates "time" so you contradict yourself.

Teach us philosophy and more of that pointy eared stuff.

You are attacking words and semantics and still won't address what you believe could happen if it was a possibility.

And if time and space can bend, like Einstein theorized, then it's not that "illogical" that one could "observe" past, present and future all at once.

 

[Denny Crane]

You are attacking words and semantics and still won't address what you believe could happen if it was a possibility.

And if time and space can bend, like Einstein theorized, then it's not that "illogical" that one could "observe" past, present and future all at once.

I directly addressed it. No eyes or brain, it's lights out. You experience nothing. You have no nose to smell the flowers. No nervous system, so no sense of touch. No ears or brain, so you can't hear. Get it?

Even more, no brain means no synapses means zero cognitive power as we know it.

This "philosophy" stuff is right up there with palm reading and astrology.

You're insulting actual philosophies.

 

[magnifier661]

I directly addressed it. No eyes or brain, it's lights out. You experience nothing. You have no nose to smell the flowers. No nervous system, so no sense of touch. No ears or brain, so you can't hear. Get it?

Even more, no brain means no synapses means zero cognitive power as we know it.

This "philosophy" stuff is right up there with palm reading and astrology.

You're insulting actual philosophies.

Lmao bro, you are absolutely ridiculous. It's pretty obvious what was asked, and even announced "a hypothetical concept". Instead you try to turn it around to some math project. You have no artistry obviously.

 

[Denny Crane]

Lmao bro, you are absolutely ridiculous. It's pretty obvious what was asked, and even announced "a hypothetical concept". Instead you try to turn it around to some math project. You have no artistry obviously.

Is this better?

Since reality has no place in this discussion, why not have unicorns there. And leprechauns. And all the gold I could possibly spend. And a genie to make my wishes come true.

This philosophy stuff is fun.

 

[magnifier661]

Is this better?

Since reality has no place in this discussion, why not have unicorns there. And leprechauns. And all the gold I could possibly spend. And a genie to make my wishes come true.

This philosophy stuff is fun.

No start your own thread and try not to derail mine. Obviously my ass whopping on the God is Dead thread I gave you created some animosity.

 

[Denny Crane]

Lulz

 

[MarAzul]

Lulz

Geez! That was more rude than anything PapaG ever did.

 

[magnifier661]

Says the man that claims someone must have created an eternal entity.

 

[magnifier661]

Geez! That was more rude than anything PapaG ever did.

I was rude to him before. I can take it!

 

[Denny Crane]

Geez! That was more rude than anything PapaG ever did.

He said something funny. I laughed.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Since everyone has asked this is what I think...

The bible is not the best source when it comes to time and definitions of time. Most mentions of time are continually reinterpreted by modern Christians. The story of creation? God created everything in 6 days, rested on the 7th is often reinterpreted as, "well a day for god isn't the same as a day for humans. A god day could be a billion years so he could have created everything in 6 billion years and then taken a billion year vacation when he was done."

So what the bible says is eternal is as open to reinterpretation as the story of creation is. Eternal in the bible might be a day, a week, a year or even a billion years. Any scientific based debate on the biblical meaning of eternal is an eternal waste of time.

 

[julius]

He said something funny. I laughed.

Don't play it off so coyly Denny. What you said is 80 billion times worse than anything papaG ever said. You sir, should be ashamed. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?!?

 

[MarAzul]

Don't play it off so coyly Denny. What you said is 80 billion times worse than anything papaG ever said. You sir, should be ashamed. At long last, have you left no sense of decency?!?

You might have burned that one.

 

[HailBlazers]

So Denny, you don't consider other dimensions a possibility?

 

[Denny Crane]

So Denny, you don't consider other dimensions a possibility?

My understanding is that other/multiple dimensions beyond our own are purely hypothetical. The math is elegant, but there isn't a mountain of real observations to support them.

That said, the math is more compelling than voodoo.