Afterlife proof?

[Life sucks]

It is hard for me to understand how can anyone prove anything with regard to afterlife (unless someone with no heart beat starts to talk....)

Yes lots of people say that they've seen it. But human perception is flawed. Our eyes can be tricked which is precisely the reason we can enjoy magicians' performances. But unfortunately as a result, we would never know if what we saw is what we think we saw. We can believe what we saw but we cannot use our experience as proofs.

Yes scientists have done lots of researches. But I also cannot say their research 100% proves anything either. Even the scientists themselves do not conclude anything with 100% certainty. Long time ago, people believed in geocentric universe with good reasons. For example, they claim the lack of stellar parallax shows earth does not move. What they actually missed is an instrument good enough to measure stellar parallax. How would we know if we just do not have the technology yet?

So I would say no one has proof. We can believe in whatever we want and at the same time open to the possibility that we are wrong.

Everything can be falsified and we can't force others to believe in quantum mechanics or another topic.

How we do prove the truth of something? First, we must axiomatize something or some statements (assuming its true without proving it), then we can build logical proofs using the axiom(s).
If two persons aren't agreeing on the set of axioms, its a waste of time to discuss because the base is different and will give different logical values.

Its like if someone say God exists and the other say no. If they don't agree on this axiom then whatever they say to each other is useless.

But there are differences with axioms and the better ones to accept are the small and abstract ones. Big and non-abstract ones could not be agreed on but some like arithmetic and basic mathematical operation are agreed on. Humans axiomatized arithmetic and accepted its truth without a proof. If we try to break arithmetic and prove it, we'll end having smaller axioms. So the road of truth is an endless road but we can simply accept some things as axioms.

As for afterlife, we can make two axioms (it exists or not) then build the logic and analysis and see if there is a contradiction or not. If there is no agreement then analysis is useless.

Sorry if I made it looks complicated and I know there are many details but this is just an example of how logic and deduction works.

 

[Sonnenblume]

Mathematics, barring a bunch of theoretical stuff, is basically just putting labels on things we see in the world. Like saying "pick up those 4 apples over there" 4 is just what we've labeled as a particular amount of something. So, it can be proven there is 4 of something in the world. If you labeled it something else instead of 4, it'd still be the same thing.

 

[Life sucks]

Mathematics, barring a bunch of theoretical stuff, is basically just putting labels on things we see in the world. Like saying "pick up those 4 apples over there" 4 is just what we've labeled as a particular amount of something. So, it can be proven there is 4 of something in the world. If you labeled it something else instead of 4, it'd still be the same thing.

Mathematics is wider than that and I'm not talking about mathematics itself but the underlying logic. Mathematics can be seen as a language and there are other different views (Philosophy of mathematics).

Not everything in mathematics is about putting labels and about what we see. For example, number theory has a vast deep stuff that has no real application. This has lead to different thoughts about mathematics and its relationship with reality.

4X doesn't prove or disapprove anything, X is just a variable. But if we put an apple X=apple then we can prove or disapprove it Apple=Apple which is a true statement. If we put another thing it will be a false statement.

 

[Sonnenblume]

Right, I'm just talking basic math. Groups, distance, etc. Apple is irrelevant in the equation (in terms of proof), when know 4 just means a certain number of things, that won't change depending on what it is.

 

[Life sucks]

Right, I'm just talking basic math. Groups, distance, etc. Apple is irrelevant in the equation (in terms of proof), when know 4 just means a certain number of things, that won't change depending on what it is.

The number is an abstract representation but if you relate it to something, you don't separate it. When I want 4 apples, I want both the type and quantity. If you talk about the 4 in the equation, it will get canceled. So I don't know what point you want to prove.

If you mean the number is rigid, I don't see whats the problem. If we assume the number changes, we will have inconsistent measurements and readings at least.
I know not everyone likes the rigidity concept but it can help us understand things more and from a different perspective. But at the end, those rigid stuff are axiomatized and we don't question how four is a collection of four ones. I don't know why our minds accept those things as unchangeable Tbh

 

[Lisa]

What, the double split experiment has nothing to do with an afterlife. It's not really even an accurate experiment, since the parameters are completely contrived by the scientist. Sorry I don't have time to delve into this, busy... believe whatever silliness you want *shrug*.

Please reply to someone else's post as that is not the topic here.

Your opinion is way off and I understand the need to protect your belief system.
Thanks

 

[Lisa]

It is hard for me to understand how can anyone prove anything with regard to afterlife (unless someone with no heart beat starts to talk....)

Yes lots of people say that they've seen it. But human perception is flawed. Our eyes can be tricked which is precisely the reason we can enjoy magicians' performances. But unfortunately as a result, we would never know if what we saw is what we think we saw. We can believe what we saw but we cannot use our experience as proofs.

Yes scientists have done lots of researches. But I also cannot say their research 100% proves anything either. Even the scientists themselves do not conclude anything with 100% certainty. Long time ago, people believed in geocentric universe with good reasons. For example, they claim the lack of stellar parallax shows earth does not move. What they actually missed is an instrument good enough to measure stellar parallax. How would we know if we just do not have the technology yet?

So I would say no one has proof. We can believe in whatever we want and at the same time open to the possibility that we are wrong.

I agree with this. And my original post doesn't ask if you believe in an afterlife. Some people who can't read interjected their opinions which are off topic. No one can say 100% either way

 

[Lisa]

Results are in guys its rate of 69 and intensity over 9000. Wow I better email new scientist and arxiv for concluding my years of research. Gonna win the Nobel prize for this one for sure.

WOW that IS impressive. They may not be able to read or string thoughts together, but this skillset they have beyond perfected. Wonderful

 

[Lisa]

The contradiction of it too is amusing, is it not? "We can't know anything, so you can't saying anything for sure, but I can definitively know anything is possible... because I say so" lol

Hope you are ok

Sorry this discussion wasn't agreeable And I'm sorry for being rude to you

Hope you're not being negatively impacted it was fun going back and forth

I wish you peace

 

[Lisa]

Everything can be falsified and we can't force others to believe in quantum mechanics or another topic.

How we do prove the truth of something? First, we must axiomatize something or some statements (assuming its true without proving it), then we can build logical proofs using the axiom(s).
If two persons aren't agreeing on the set of axioms, its a waste of time to discuss because the base is different and will give different logical values.

Its like if someone say God exists and the other say no. If they don't agree on this axiom then whatever they say to each other is useless.

But there are differences with axioms and the better ones to accept are the small and abstract ones. Big and non-abstract ones could not be agreed on but some like arithmetic and basic mathematical operation are agreed on. Humans axiomatized arithmetic and accepted its truth without a proof. If we try to break arithmetic and prove it, we'll end having smaller axioms. So the road of truth is an endless road but we can simply accept some things as axioms.

As for afterlife, we can make two axioms (it exists or not) then build the logic and analysis and see if there is a contradiction or not. If there is no agreement then analysis is useless.

Sorry if I made it looks complicated and I know there are many details but this is just an example of how logic and deduction works.

Very good comment
Thank You
What you say here is correct

 

[Lisa]

Mathematics, barring a bunch of theoretical stuff, is basically just putting labels on things we see in the world. Like saying "pick up those 4 apples over there" 4 is just what we've labeled as a particular amount of something. So, it can be proven there is 4 of something in the world. If you labeled it something else instead of 4, it'd still be the same thing.

Stop embarrassing yourself

 

[Lisa]

Mathematics is wider than that and I'm not talking about mathematics itself but the underlying logic. Mathematics can be seen as a language and there are other different views (Philosophy of mathematics).

Not everything in mathematics is about putting labels and about what we see. For example, number theory has a vast deep stuff that has no real application. This has lead to different thoughts about mathematics and its relationship with reality.

4X doesn't prove or disapprove anything, X is just a variable. But if we put an apple X=apple then we can prove or disapprove it Apple=Apple which is a true statement. If we put another thing it will be a false statement.

Hi Life Sucks, I had Logic as a required course in law school. They had to grade it on a huge curve. Everything you've said is correct, but it will be difficult for some to understand because that's what we learned most in logic class. Most people's minds can't grasp it. It sounds like you may have more of a mathematical background, did you study it in school too or does it just come to you naturally?

 

[Life sucks]

Hi Life Sucks, I had Logic as a require course in law school. They had to grade it on a huge curve. Everything you've said is correct, but it will be difficult for some to understand because that's what we learned most in logic class. Most people's minds can't grasp it. It sounds like you may have more of a mathematical background, did you study it in school too or does it just come to you naturally?

I've studied part of it but its the not the sole reason because most of other students won't reach this level. I've read and researched by myself long time ago plus I have it naturally (although the thoughts are not formal before studying and knowing the topic).

 

[Sonnenblume]

The number is an abstract representation but if you relate it to something, you don't separate it. When I want 4 apples, I want both the type and quantity. If you talk about the 4 in the equation, it will get canceled. So I don't know what point you want to prove.

If you mean the number is rigid, I don't see whats the problem. If we assume the number changes, we will have inconsistent measurements and readings at least.
I know not everyone likes the rigidity concept but it can help us understand things more and from a different perspective. But at the end, those rigid stuff are axiomatized and we don't question how four is a collection of four ones. I don't know why our minds accept those things as unchangeable Tbh

Right, I don't disagree with any of that. All I was saying is mathematics can be a label, a language, to understand specific conditions, and sometimes, these conditions can be proven. I won't be able to reply any further, ctb today. It's been fun. :)

 

[Life sucks]

Right, I don't disagree with any of that. All I was saying is mathematics can be a label, a language, to understand specific conditions, and sometimes, these conditions can be proven. I won't be able to reply any further, ctb today. It's been fun. :)

I wish you no suffering and hope you find peace but please wait if its a negative effect from this site or somewhere else :(

 

[Sonnenblume]

I wish you no suffering and hope you find peace but please wait if its a negative effect from this site or somewhere else :(

Oh, no no! Not at all. I enjoy discussion, even with disagreement. I just, finally. have everything together. Thank you forr your kind words. :) Take care. :)

 

[Lisa]

I've studied part of it but its the not the sole reason because most of other students won't reach this level. I've read and researched by myself long time ago plus I have it naturally (although the thoughts are not formal before studying and knowing the topic).

Well you're very smart and articulate good combo

 

[Life sucks]

Well you're very smart and articulate good combo

Thanks haha but I don't think I'm smart. Anyone can do this if they like the topic or do some research.

 

[dangier_to_myself]

Considering the evolutive history of our brains, that's 100% impossible

100% impossible?! That's a pretty bold claim!

 

[dangier_to_myself]

Consciousness cannot be supported without a brain. It's an epiphenomenon that arises from interaction of billions of simultaneously firing neurons. You can notice how frail and flickering it is after somebody gets brain ischemia or a stroke: the personality of those people derails, they turn into somebody that they're not supposed to be at all.
Also, memories and perceptions can be altered enormously with simple transcranial magnetic stimulation, Imagine what would happen to them when synapses don't work at all.

FYI, there's a nice read about this subject

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128311.800-a-brief-history-of-the-brain/

Considering that we've not successfully isolated the specific part of the brain that produces consciousness, I think there's tremendous room for doubt here. And since you said "100% impossible" earlier, I have to be pedantic and point out that empirical data can never generate that level of certainty

 

[dangier_to_myself]

I've given up. The "anything is possible, we can't say anything for certain" types aren't going to see reason. People believe what they desire, not what facts support. But good on ya for trying! :P

Well, we CAN'T say anything for certain, except for tautologies and our own immediate experience. And in saying the former, we don't actually say anything at all

 

[dangier_to_myself]

That's true and a strong argument against the afterlife. Why would I, one of billions and billions of people, with billions of species and animals and plants, be entitled to an afterlife? Would a cat get one? What about a tree?

When you understand how insignificant each of us is in the universe it does make you question why there'd be anything after we die, especially if we accept plants and beetles and spiders just die and there is nothing.

Thanks for the replies by the way I'm enjoying reading your responses.

Well plants and beetles and spiders don't have brains

 

[dangier_to_myself]

In the end I know what I saw and I'm not schizophrenic or on meds so I do believe in the paranormal. When I seen that rocking chair start moving my mom and My cousin seen it aswell so unless there was 3 ft by 3ft mini earth quake right under that chair then I'm inclined to believe it was some sort of spirit because there was no drafts or vents or open windows that could have moved it

Quite honestly, with zero snark, a 3 ft by 3 ft earthquake would make more sense, since earthquakes do in fact move things

 

[dangier_to_myself]

Ever heard of mass hysteria?

Have YOU ever tried to get someone to hallucinate by simply saying "Look, that chair is moving by itself"? A second question, how many people have to see something before it you accept it as fact? Because if the number gets too high, all of our knowledge of the world goes out the window

 

[dangier_to_myself]

I think you're missing the point: witnesses, no matter how many they are -- can be unreliable as hell.
Asking for proof shouldn't make anybody upset like this

Whatever, I'm done with this kind of discussions.

There is literally no source of knowledge other than eyewitness testimony. All empirical knowledge comes through our senses

 

[dangier_to_myself]

There goes our entire legal system then.

Please see quantum physics double slit experiment. Wipes out everything you have said.

You're being nearly as presumptuous as they are

 

[dangier_to_myself]

I was thinking of posting a thread about this myself actually. I had a friend who had a near death experience and she says that suicide leads to a bad place, which worries me. Nearly the other accounts I can find corroborate this, which worries me more

 

[Lisa]

I was thinking of posting a thread about this myself actually. I had a friend who had a near death experience and she says that suicide leads to a bad place, which worries me. Nearly the other accounts I can find corroborate this, which worries me more

Yes can you either start that thread or share the experience here please that your friend had?

 

[Lisa]

You're being nearly as presumptuous as they are

I'm not saying there's 100 percent proof of an afterlife. So not quite as presumptive. My stance is that there is not 100 percent proof in either direction. My opinion is that there is likely something after death.

 

[Lisa]

Quite honestly, with zero snark, a 3 ft by 3 ft earthquake would make more sense, since earthquakes do in fact move things

Hmm