Discussion Is death the end?

[WakingNightmare]

I think there must be some sort of reason the universe is here, and looking at the level of suffering living things can experience I don't think we are here for any positive reason.
I agree with you that the Big Bang shouldn't just happen out of nowhere, unless some outside force took an action to initiate the start point. The way energy and matter come together also seem too organised.

 

[ykoizy]

i always believed that after death you would become one of the stars in the sky, or at the very least matter in space. Either that or reincarnation. Maybe god put us in the wrong body the first time and wants to give us a chance to be born again as someone else. I dont believe death is the end, but maybe the beginning of something new..

 

[Praestat_Mori]

Is the death the end? That depends on your pov!

Death = Evolution

Stars (although "unconscious matter") had to "die" to produce the elements that are needed to form conscious life in the universe.

Once we die our bodies decay and return to the cycle of life on earth - that's not an end it's a transformation and a recycling process over and over again. Life on earth will end once the sun dies and the remains of the sun will contain the necessary elements to form a new solar system that may contain life again in the far future.

However, when it comes to consciousness we would first need to know what consciousness is and why we are conscious. Imo consciousness is a result of the chemical reactions in our brains once we're dead we're not conscious anymore.

 

[Apathy79]

Since we're speculating, my hunch is the body, brain and all related processes are done with. The soul/awareness continues formless. Whether it reincarnates again in human form, or enters a different dimension, is largely karmically determined and may involve a choice element. And we continue the cycle. Even Earth disappearing won't stop that.

 

[telemark05]

How can there be a beginning if nothing existed before it? And if something did cause it, then where did that come from?

if you prescribe to the idea that god created everything that doesn't explain what created god the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that something did come into existence from nothing

God as a More Coherent First Cause

If "something cannot come from nothing," then logically, something must have always existed—but that something can't just be stuff. It would need to:

Exist beyond time and space

Not require a cause itself

Have the power to create

Be timeless, necessary, not contingent

That sounds very much like the philosophical concept of God—not necessarily the religious figure, but the uncaused cause, or necessary being.

Everything we know of—objects, people, stars, thoughts—has a beginning and an end.
Everything we observe follows this pattern:

Stars are born from gas clouds and eventually die as white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes.

Organisms begin with birth and end in death.

Civilizations rise and fall.

Even atomic particles decay (e.g., protons may decay over unimaginable timescales).

Thoughts arise in the mind and vanish just as quickly.

In other words, the entire universe appears to operate under temporality and impermanence. Nothing seems truly eternal.

This makes it feel natural—even necessary—to assume that:

The universe itself must also have had a beginning and will someday end.

While I agree that everything we know has a beginning and an end, it is always because something exists in the first place. That's why I believe there is probably more "big bang" to come after this universe ends. Like it will have a new beginning and an end. I still can't wrap my head around how a beginning out of nowhere can occur. That's why I said if we assume that to be true, than a godly being that is not understandable to the human mind is more likely to have caused it than simply nothing. I am not religious, I just can't wrap my head around this lol. The big bang is only real because something was there in the first place, which has to have come from something else, and something before that etc. It's crazy and it doesn't seem like the human mind can understand it, at least not yet. Maybe we evolve to understand it someday. I don't know, it's just fun to speculate

 

[Apathy79]

Made me think of fireworks as a good analogy. Our big bang is like the firecracker going off. And all we know is what shoots out from it. Completely unaware that it is 1 of millions in a show that has always been and always will be.

 

[WakingNightmare]

While I agree that everything we know has a beginning and an end, it is always because something exists in the first place. That's why I believe there is probably more "big bang" to come after this universe ends. Like it will have a new beginning and an end. I still can't wrap my head around how a beginning out of nowhere can occur. That's why I said if we assume that to be true, than a godly being that is not understandable to the human mind is more likely to have caused it than simply nothing. I am not religious, I just can't wrap my head around this lol. The big bang is only real because something was there in the first place, which has to have come from something else, and something before that etc. It's crazy and it doesn't seem like the human mind can understand it, at least not yet. Maybe we evolve to understand it someday. I don't know, it's just fun to speculate

I think the default state could be existence. If you consider a god of this world either they have no reason to exist, or they have their own god in which case the same two option apply to that higher level of god.
At the end of the day some level of creation will have no reason to exist, which leads me to believe things could trend towards existence rather than nonexistence:

 

[soonerreatherthanla]

While I was very depressed and suicidal I started diving into spirituality and that stuff. I have become pretty convinced that there must be something to the universe. The world is very mystical and almost magic in a way if you really think about it. I don't believe that the big bang suddenly created the universe from nothing because something can't just come from nothing. There has to have been something before that, and before that, and before that in an infinite loop. So I think that the universe is infinite which kinda terrifies me. Does that mean there are infinite possibilites and outcomes, and that I am forever stuck in this universe because I came out of the world and not into it? Then how can people say for certain that death is the end when everything im made of comes from the universe itself. Why would I not come back again as something else in a million years? There's so much we don't know or can explain. The only thing we know for certain is your own existence and that you can't remember anything before this life, but most people don't even know who they are and only rely on labels, thoughts and upbringing etc. But if you ask yourself "Who am I?" you realize you're something much deeper than that. It's scary and relieving depending on how you look at it. I just can't stop thinking about this. Im very open minded so please share your thoughts if you agree or not.

It better be the fucking end, but if I know my luck there is probably something even more fucked up waiting on the other side

 

[avoid]

It's a difficult topic so I hope I understand people's arguments.

Why would I not come back again as something else in a million years? There's so much we don't know or can explain. The only thing we know for certain is your own existence and that you can't remember anything before this life

I think this is a "well, technically…" argument. Assuming that the universe has existed and will exist forever, you also have existed and will exist at innumerable times in the form you are now. Molecules will have infinite time to rearrange themselves into perfect copies by chance. But you may be overthinking the concept.

If someone got into an accident and is left with brain damage, amnesia, and a permanently altered personality, would you not say that the person you knew from before the accident has died? Well, technically, the person is still alive. But does this alleviate your grieve over a lost friend?

If you can't remember anything from before a certain point (e.g. "before this life"), would that not mark the end and a new beginning? If you can't build on something, you'll need to start anew. If you can come back into existence a million years from now, why not say that your current self is also a copy of a former self from an immeasurable time ago? Are you an extension of that previous life if it has not ended, or have you started a new life of your own?

My answer is that I started my life at conception, or birth, or at my first memory, or whatever. I have no perception of any former copies, and future copies know nothing about me. So for all intends and purposes, death is the end. (Not getting into theology.)

 

[telemark05]

It's a difficult topic so I hope I understand people's arguments.


I think this is a "well, technically…" argument. Assuming that the universe has existed and will exist forever, you also have existed and will exist at innumerable times in the form you are now. Molecules will have infinite time to rearrange themselves into perfect copies by chance. But you may be overthinking the concept of death.

If someone got into an accident and is left with brain damage, amnesia, and a permanently altered personality, would you not say that the person you knew from before the accident has died? Well, technically, the person is still alive. But does this alleviate your grieve over a lost friend?

If you can't remember anything from before a certain point (e.g. "before this life"), would that not mark the end and a new beginning? If you can't build on something, you'll need to start anew. If you can come back into existence a million years from now, why not say that your current self is also a copy of a former self from an immeasurable time ago? Are you an extension of that previous life, or have you started a new life of your own?

My answer is that I started my life at conception, or birth, or at my first memory, or whatever. I have no perception of any former copies, and future copies know nothing about me. So for all intends and purposes, death is the end without getting into theology.

I understand what you mean, but what im talking about is more consciousness itself and not my current identity. If you get brain damage, then you may forget everything but there is still something that has always been there since you were a baby. You were just not aware at that point. It's always there. It's the only thing that stays still while everything else is constantly changing. Even in your dreams it will take the form and shape of something to observe the world around you in that dream, and I think that is what consciousness just does because it would be the only way for the universe to see and experience itself from a point of view.

 

[Nemaki Arber]

I believe there's something much more complex at play, in a higher dimension we cannot perceive

 

[tiredash]

If you know enough about physics (its not super basic but not very advanced either), like atoms, molecules, how energy works, submolecules... You quickly see that there is no room for ghosts, souls, fate or anything like that... Its just random stuff doing random stuff. So yes, death is the end of consciousness or what you would call it: yourself.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I also tend to believe that something or other always existed. Stuff floating about in space. That seems more plausible to me than all this coming from nothing.

In terms of my individual consciousness being replicated though- I don't see why that would necessarily happen or, need to happen. Nature seems pretty good at building new things.

Also, I don't remember past lives- do you? So- even if it were happening, we're unlikely to realise it if we are born again.

Besides, I tend to view consciousness as an ability, rather than a separate entity. Simply something our brains have evolved to be able to do- presumably because it gave us an evolutionary edge. I suspect the sense of self we feel will die when our brains do. So sure- there will be many sentient humans after me. None of them will be me though. That's my feeling anyway.

To look at it another way- some evil scientist kidnaps you and clones you. The clone is biologically you but- would you expect them to share your consciousness? Surely not. They would be the equivalent of you as a newborn baby with their own immature consciousness presumably.

Plus, we're not born with full clarity or, self awareness. When was your first memory? Maybe a year or two in? So- you lived literally years here without being fully conscious- as we understand it. That surely suggests that this sense develops with the brain, rather than being some independent entity that floats in and out of people- to me anyway.

 

[telemark05]

If you know enough about physics (its not super basic but not very advanced either), like atoms, molecules, how energy works, submolecules... You quickly see that there is no room for ghosts, souls, fate or anything like that... Its just random stuff doing random stuff. So yes, death is the end of consciousness or what you would call it: yourself.

Im not talking about supernatural ghosts, souls or fate though. I don't know anything about that supernatural stuff

 

[avoid]

I understand what you mean, but what im talking about is more consciousness itself and not my current identity. If you get brain damage, then you may forget everything but there is still something that has always been there since you were a baby. You were just not aware at that point. It's always there. It's the only thing that stays still while everything else is constantly changing. Even in your dreams it will take the form and shape of something to observe the world around you in that dream, and I think that is what consciousness just does because it would be the only way for the universe to see and experience itself from a point of view.

Thanks for the reply. Though I have trouble with understanding your point. I consider consciousness limited to the dictionary definition: being aware of itself and its surroundings; a state of being conscious. You lose conscious when you faint and regain conscious when you awake. As such, you lose conscious when you die, becoming unconsciousness. But if you're talking about a higher consciousness then do you mean something immutable such as a soul, or spiritual energy?

I'm not sure how this ties into "death is not the end" without using theological arguments: the existence of a higher being that transcends the universe (physics/biology). I don't subscribe to these believes. I don't think you need consciousness itself (a higher consciousness?) to observe your surroundings or the universe. That would require me to ignore the laws of nature in favor of mysticism. I consider the brain capable of generating audiovisuals (dreams) without the need for something more such as a (higher) consciousness.

To clarify, would you mind pinpointing exactly the thing you believe exists? I understand the concept souls and spiritual energy, but don't understand what you mean by "it's the only thing that stays still while everything else is constantly changing." Does that mean this thing can become part of something new, such as in your example, "coming back again as something else in a million years?" I have trouble wrapping my mind around how such a thing would work.

Edit
I now read your last past: you're not talking about about souls or supernatural things. But I hope my other questions still stand.

 

[tiredash]

Im not talking about supernatural ghosts, souls or fate though. I don't know anything about that supernatural stuff

I meant everything that has to do with super natural stuff, like reincarnation, which is what seemed your original post.

You said you dont believe that big bang stuff but nobody even knows if the big bang happened or not, its just the leading theory. And even there are different kinds of big bangs, for example, the eternal inflation one, or the expansion+contraction. And I dont even know much about that stuff... You are making the mistake of because you dont know it, it must mean its magic or destiny or something controls it (god or whatever). If we didnt know about the universe you would say that you would like to die and go to heaven, like the literal heaven above us, because you wouldnt know better. The parallel universe theory is also that, just a theory that arises from one of the quantum theories, but we really dont know.

Think about what I said earlier, end of consciousness is the end of yourself. Take this very specific example: imagine that after dying, 1 year later, all your exact particles recomposed exactly as you were before dying, with all memories and shit, it wouldnt still be you. Even if before and after consciousness were the same, the continuity was broken, it would be like a clone of yourself, someone else, feeling the same as you.

But in more basic terms... I really dont see the appeal of thinking that in some other universe there is a version of me doing better. Im still screwed. I could see the appeal of thinking that if I die, Ill do better "next" time, being next time heaven or reincarnation or any other kind of continuation... But I dont believe in any of that because consciousness is just neurons and energy states.

 

[telemark05]

I also tend to believe that something or other always existed. Stuff floating about in space. That seems more plausible to me than all this coming from nothing.

In terms of my individual consciousness being replicated though- I don't see why that would necessarily happen or, need to happen. Nature seems pretty good at building new things.

Also, I don't remember past lives- do you? So- even if it were happening, we're unlikely to realise it if we are born again.

Besides, I tend to view consciousness as an ability, rather than a separate entity. Simply something our brains have evolved to be able to do- presumably because it gave us an evolutionary edge. I suspect the sense of self we feel will die when our brains do. So sure- there will be many sentient humans after me. None of them will be me though. That's my feeling anyway.

To look at it another way- some evil scientist kidnaps you and clones you. The clone is biologically you but- would you expect them to share your consciousness? Surely not. They would be the equivalent of you as a newborn baby with their own immature consciousness presumably.

Plus, we're not born with full clarity or, self awareness. When was your first memory? Maybe a year or two in? So- you lived literally years here without being fully conscious- as we understand it. That surely suggests that this sense develops with the brain, rather than being some independent entity that floats in and out of people- to me anyway.

I think it's the opposite. Consciousness is you while your brain and body are tools. Your brain and body are constantly changing, but your consciousness is still. It was there when I was young, but my brain weren't evolved enough yet to make me aware of it being there. If someone clones me, then it won't be a clone of my consciousness but a clone of my identity because my consciousness is the most important factor. Consciousness is fundemental.

 

[avoid]

Think about what I said earlier, end of consciousness is the end of yourself. Take this very specific example: imagine that after dying, 1 year later, all your exact particles recomposed exactly as you were before dying, with all memories and shit, it wouldnt still be you. Even if before and after consciousness were the same, the continuity was broken, it would be like a clone of yourself, someone else, feeling the same as you.

I think the opposite. What if you reduce the time span of a year to 1 minutes… Are you still yourself if you die on the operation table in a hospital and get reanimated 1 minute later? Yes, I think so. Now extend this 1 minute to 20 minutes, or 3 hours, or 14 days, or 1 year. Regardless of the means—cryostasis, perfect cloning, magic—you're the same person.

The problem of "becoming someone else" would happen only if 2 versions of you exist at the same time. Both versions have the same starting point, but diverge from each other as soon as they exist together. Twins, at their conception in the womb, are inherently the same person. But because they exist together, unable to share the exact same experience, they diverge from one another and become different, separate.

Or another example, copy an LLM (AI) and you have two identical versions: one and the same. But as soon as you allow each LLM to "absorb" more knowledge on their own, they become two different versions. But if you were to delete the LLM and use recovery software to bring back the LLM, it's the same LLM as before it was deleted.

 

[telemark05]

Thanks for the reply. Though I have trouble with understanding your point. I consider consciousness limited to the dictionary definition: being aware of itself and its surroundings; a state of being conscious. You lose conscious when you faint and regain conscious when you awake. As such, you lose conscious when you die, becoming unconsciousness. But if you're talking about a higher consciousness then do you mean something immutable such as a soul, or spiritual energy?

I'm not sure how this ties into "death is not the end" without using theological arguments: the existence of a higher being that transcends the universe (physics/biology). I don't subscribe to these believes. I don't think you need consciousness itself (a higher consciousness?) to observe your surroundings or the universe. That would require me to ignore the laws of nature in favor of mysticism. I consider the brain capable of generating audiovisuals (dreams) without the need for something more such as a (higher) consciousness.

To clarify, would you mind pinpointing exactly the thing you believe exists? I understand the concept souls and spiritual energy, but don't understand what you mean by "it's the only thing that stays still while everything else is constantly changing." Does that mean this thing can become part of something new, such as in your example, "coming back again as something else in a million years?" I have trouble wrapping my mind around how such a thing would work.

Edit
I now read your last past: you're not talking about about souls or supernatural things. But I hope my other questions still stand.

I meant everything that has to do with super natural stuff, like reincarnation, which is what seemed your original post.

You said you dont believe that big bang stuff but nobody even knows if the big bang happened or not, its just the leading theory. And even there are different kinds of big bangs, for example, the eternal inflation one, or the expansion+contraction. And I dont even know much about that stuff... You are making the mistake of because you dont know it, it must mean its magic or destiny or something controls it (god or whatever). If we didnt know about the universe you would say that you would like to die and go to heaven, like the literal heaven above us, because you wouldnt know better. The parallel universe theory is also that, just a theory that arises from one of the quantum theories, but we really dont know.

Think about what I said earlier, end of consciousness is the end of yourself. Take this very specific example: imagine that after dying, 1 year later, all your exact particles recomposed exactly as you were before dying, with all memories and shit, it wouldnt still be you. Even if before and after consciousness were the same, the continuity was broken, it would be like a clone of yourself, someone else, feeling the same as you.

But in more basic terms... I really dont see the appeal of thinking that in some other universe there is a version of me doing better. Im still screwed. I could see the appeal of thinking that if I die, Ill do better "next" time, being next time heaven or reincarnation or any other kind of continuation... But I dont believe in any of that because consciousness is just neurons and energy states.

You say consciousness is just neurons and energy states. All the scientific answers are in terms of forms and patterns and we can measure them, and predict their behaviour but what are the forms made of? What's the pattern made of? For example let's say you use a microscope at a carpet. You can see the crystalline structure of the nylon or what it's made of. What are those crystals made of? Turn up the volume and you'll find molecules. Turn up the volume and you'll find wavicles. The wavicles must be of something? What is it? Science can measure the natural forms and patterns of this world, but can't tell you what it really is.

 

[Apathy79]

I think what you're searching for is formless. You won't be able to find or measure it. Unfortunate limitation of science.

 

[DTA]

This idea that consciousness collapses reality stems from early interpretations (e.g., Wigner, von Neumann), but these were philosophical, not experimental.

This idea that consciousness collapses reality stems from early interpretations (e.g., Wigner, von Neumann), but these were philosophical, not experimental. Modern physics has moved away from this idea.

I've also read as you described, but from what I understand that argument on observer/measurement is still very much up in the air.

I guess this points us back to OP's original post. If anyone had any definitive proof one way or the other on existence after death then this debate would not have raged on for 10,000+ years.

 

[telemark05]

Thanks for the reply. Though I have trouble with understanding your point. I consider consciousness limited to the dictionary definition: being aware of itself and its surroundings; a state of being conscious. You lose conscious when you faint and regain conscious when you awake. As such, you lose conscious when you die, becoming unconsciousness. But if you're talking about a higher consciousness then do you mean something immutable such as a soul, or spiritual energy?

I'm not sure how this ties into "death is not the end" without using theological arguments: the existence of a higher being that transcends the universe (physics/biology). I don't subscribe to these believes. I don't think you need consciousness itself (a higher consciousness?) to observe your surroundings or the universe. That would require me to ignore the laws of nature in favor of mysticism. I consider the brain capable of generating audiovisuals (dreams) without the need for something more such as a (higher) consciousness.

To clarify, would you mind pinpointing exactly the thing you believe exists? I understand the concept souls and spiritual energy, but don't understand what you mean by "it's the only thing that stays still while everything else is constantly changing." Does that mean this thing can become part of something new, such as in your example, "coming back again as something else in a million years?" I have trouble wrapping my mind around how such a thing would work.

Edit
I now read your last past: you're not talking about about souls or supernatural things. But I hope my other questions still stand.

Yeah, I'll get back to you after work today :)

 

[WakingNightmare]

You say consciousness is just neurons and energy states. All the scientific answers are in terms of forms and patterns and we can measure them, and predict their behaviour but what are the forms made of? What's the pattern made of? For example let's say you use a microscope at a carpet. You can see the crystalline structure of the nylon or what it's made of. What are those crystals made of? Turn up the volume and you'll find molecules. Turn up the volume and you'll find wavicles. The wavicles must be of something? What is it? Science can measure the natural forms and patterns of this world, but can't tell you what it really is.

Agreed, you can look as far down as quarks which are the building blocks for protons, neutrons etc but all we can see is what they do not what they actually are.
Or maybe more importantly why are they here instead of nothing at all

 

[ididnotconsent]

Since we're speculating, my hunch is the body, brain and all related processes are done with. The soul/awareness continues formless. Whether it reincarnates again in human form, or enters a different dimension, is largely karmically determined and may involve a choice element. And we continue the cycle. Even Earth disappearing won't stop that.

How do you explain people with Alzheimer's losing their entire identity and memories. It seems like your awareness or who you are dies along with your brain.

Unless the brain is just a conduit and you regain your memory/awareness as soon as you die. Sucks to be in such a limbo state for 5-10 years or however long it takes Alzheimer's to kill you. It's kind of the same when you're born, you don't really have any memories until 3-4 years in.

I don't know, with 8 billion people in the world, it just seems to me that our individual consciousness is not that important. I feel like it's our ego that thinks it should go on forever. I'm fine with total non existence after death.

 

[WantingtoLeave]

If not, I am going to be missing my dad, my sisters, my brothers, and my friend in Germany and my friend in New Jersey so fucking much next week.

 

[SomewhereAlongThe]

I really feel like it is, like there's nothing but an eternity of oblivion after we die. If we squash our brains, we're getting rid of the mechanism that perceives reality through and is in itself what makes us as people. I actually disagree with the second post, I think on a fundamental level we can assume that there is nothing left to be experienced after we die and our brains are destroyed.

 

[ididnotconsent]

I don't think it's possible to know for sure either way. Those who claim to be certain that there is no life after death are making the same fundamental error as those who feel certain that there is some kind of afterlife. Personally, I believe hope we get reincarnated. I love the world and I want to live a good life, it's just that the life I'm living right now is unsalvagable

I wouldn't want to re-spawn. If i have the same constitution as i do now, i would be miserable again. I'd essentially have to be a whole other person that's not me.

The way this existence is designed frustrates me to no end.

 

[kitia973]

Death is the end of the individual and all the ego and the memories, but not necessarily death in the cosmic sense, think of it as returning to the universe as a whole again, a kind of rebirth. I don't think we should fear death or what comes afterwards, because whatever happens it will not happen to "us" anymore. In a sense, whatever you wish to be the most desirable end, it will likely be your end, since you already questioned if the universe has infinite possibilities

 

[usernamesarehard]

No one can know for sure. Even people who died and were resuscitated and claim they saw god, don't really know. Techinally they didn't really die. As in their brain stopped functioning and rigor mortis set in. So the neurons in their brain were still firing. Was what they saw basically a dream? Or is it the truth? No one knows until their time finally comes.

Personally, I fucking hope there's not more after this! One life time was enough for me.

 

[suacide]

I don't really know, but I don't really care either because that's where who I love is. I don't mind if it's nothing as long as I can be nothing with my mother. And if it's somewhere, I'm glad. I hope I can see her again, I'd be so happy.