Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gooch's dad · 06-13-2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by davidm
It's not that my life will "replay," it's that these versions will continue to exist. I'm suggesting that subjectively, after death, I will re-experience all these "nows" just the way I do currently, sweeping forward from past to future, even though this movement is illusory.

That's the problem right there. You're trying to have it both ways--talking about block time, but also talking about a time "after death" when you have a subjective experience. For your consciousness, there is no "after death". Why would you think that you'd start experiencing the beginning of your life again? What is the "you" that would experience it? There isn't any "you" after death anymore.

True, in the block time paradigm, all the states of you, within your birth and death, exist as fixed events in 4D spacetime. But the conscious experience that is "you" is restricted to experiencing movement along the arrow of time, due to thermodynamics.

davidm · 06-13-2003, 01:18 PM

Gooch's dad,

I can't see the problem you're pointing out. I agree, for my consciousness, there is no after death. But I am not talking about a time "after death" when I have a subjective experience. I am agreeing that I have no such experiences after death, just as I had none before birth. In 4D block spacetime, before birth and after death are those void immensities where I do not exist. So where do "I" exist? Between my birth and my death. How long do I exist there? Timelessly. Those points on my worldline simply "are there," just like everything else in the univere.

You ask what is the "you" that would experience my life again. You say there isn't any "you" after death anymore. Right, "I" do not exist after death. "I" exist between birth and death. "I" have the experience, or illusion of time "moving" from past to future, due to thermodynamics. "I" am the contents of my concsciousness. The contents of my consciousness are arranged timelessly on a world line between birth and death. Since they are there timelessly, someone must be experiencing those contents of consciousness, timelessly. Who is that someone? It is Me, be definition. Therefore I'm postulating that when I die, I am subjectively born, and will reexperience my life. For there is no one else who can have these experiences, by definition.

I think the model of a person experiencing life and than falling into oblivion depends on an outmoded concept of time, in which time flows, and the past, once gone, has vanished. But block spacetime models dispute this. The past never vanishes, and the future exists. To say that "I" cease to exist after I die is like saying that people in 3030 A.D. objectively haven't come into existence yet. They haven't come into existence yet from our subjective standpoint, but from their subjective standpoint, they do exist.

By the way, this is a hypothesis, and I don't hold to it dogmatically. In fact, I hope it's not true. But I can't think of a clear refutation of it, based on the model I have in mind.

paul30 · 06-18-2003, 06:08 AM

As I have maintained in many threads here (and been unconvincingly reprimanded for), time does not exist in reality, but only as a concept in our heads.

(Yes, concepts in our heads have a certain reality; but they may or may not have much to do with what is outside our heads.)

Time is a concept we use to make sense of our perception of change and regular recurrence.

The whole question of "I" is so fraught with variables I (?) hardly know where to start talking about it. When you say "I don't exist after I die," I have no clue what you mean.

What "I" won't exist? Your self-consciousness???

davidm · 06-18-2003, 12:33 PM

Paul 30,

I'm saying if block spacetime models are true, the past continues to exist. The future exists, too. Time is like a dimension of space.

"I" exist on a world line between my birth and death. I must exist there timelessly, if block spacetime is correct.

"I" don't exist in the temporal regions before my birth or after my death.

An analogy would be to say that "I" exist in New York, but not in Boston. Boston is After Death, by analogy. But even though I don't exist in Boston, I still exist in New York.

If this is the case, it seems that some version of "I" must necessarily be having temporal experiences always. For otherwise, what could it mean to say that the past and future exist on equal footing with the present? Since subjectively we experience time "flowing" from past to future, I'm speculating that when "I" die ? when "I" experience a version of myself at my temporal boundary of death ? I will subjectively then begin to experience my life over, from birth. For someone must be having my experiences at all times, and that someone, by definition, is, subjectively, me.

Death == Birth

Jesse · 06-18-2003, 12:44 PM

But davidm, if your theory is right than "you" are just your current moment of experience, nothing more. There would be nothing moving between moments (no moving spotlight) that would justify calling brainstates further up the worldline of your current brainstate "you", any more than you should call brainstates of totally different people "you", or brainstates of parallel versions of davidm if the many-worlds interpretation is correct. There would be no sense in which the "you" I am talking to now will ever experience anything besides what you are experiencing at this very instant.

davidm · 06-18-2003, 01:12 PM

Jesse, I think what you are saying is right, but it still somehow misses the point. How could it be, if block spacetime is real, that a version of "myself" could NOT be experiencing, say, June 5, 1987, at 8 a.m.? I'm saying that this version of "myself" must necessarily be having that experience, even as another version of "myself" is having the experience of typing this reply on June 18, 2003.

I'm suggesting that all versions of myself, from birth to death, are subjectively experiencing their own private "now," timelessly. Each of them supposes that they are experiencing a unique "now" that is real in a way that all past and future versions somehow are not. But I'm suggesting that this supposition is false. It has to be false, I think, if block spacetime makes any sense.

The relativity of simultaneity could serve as another analogy. Users in different reference frames can wildly disagree on the objective definition of "now" depending on their relative motion. Yet both would be correct in identifying their own "now," since there is no universal "now." Likewise, I'm saying that my consciousness divides into a huge series of subjective "nows," from birth to death, and each version thinks its own "now" is the real one.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2003, 01:18 PM	#12
davidm Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 1,617	Gooch's dad, I can't see the problem you're pointing out. I agree, for my consciousness, there is no after death. But I am not talking about a time "after death" when I have a subjective experience. I am agreeing that I have no such experiences after death, just as I had none before birth. In 4D block spacetime, before birth and after death are those void immensities where I do not exist. So where do "I" exist? Between my birth and my death. How long do I exist there? Timelessly. Those points on my worldline simply "are there," just like everything else in the univere. You ask what is the "you" that would experience my life again. You say there isn't any "you" after death anymore. Right, "I" do not exist after death. "I" exist between birth and death. "I" have the experience, or illusion of time "moving" from past to future, due to thermodynamics. "I" am the contents of my concsciousness. The contents of my consciousness are arranged timelessly on a world line between birth and death. Since they are there timelessly, someone must be experiencing those contents of consciousness, timelessly. Who is that someone? It is Me, be definition. Therefore I'm postulating that when I die, I am subjectively born, and will reexperience my life. For there is no one else who can have these experiences, by definition. I think the model of a person experiencing life and than falling into oblivion depends on an outmoded concept of time, in which time flows, and the past, once gone, has vanished. But block spacetime models dispute this. The past never vanishes, and the future exists. To say that "I" cease to exist after I die is like saying that people in 3030 A.D. objectively haven't come into existence yet. They haven't come into existence yet from our subjective standpoint, but from their subjective standpoint, they do exist. By the way, this is a hypothesis, and I don't hold to it dogmatically. In fact, I hope it's not true. But I can't think of a clear refutation of it, based on the model I have in mind.

06-18-2003, 06:08 AM	#13
paul30 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 870	As I have maintained in many threads here (and been unconvincingly reprimanded for), time does not exist in reality, but only as a concept in our heads. (Yes, concepts in our heads have a certain reality; but they may or may not have much to do with what is outside our heads.) Time is a concept we use to make sense of our perception of change and regular recurrence. The whole question of "I" is so fraught with variables I (?) hardly know where to start talking about it. When you say "I don't exist after I die," I have no clue what you mean. What "I" won't exist? Your self-consciousness???

06-18-2003, 12:33 PM	#14
davidm Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 1,617	Paul 30, I'm saying if block spacetime models are true, the past continues to exist. The future exists, too. Time is like a dimension of space. "I" exist on a world line between my birth and death. I must exist there timelessly, if block spacetime is correct. "I" don't exist in the temporal regions before my birth or after my death. An analogy would be to say that "I" exist in New York, but not in Boston. Boston is After Death, by analogy. But even though I don't exist in Boston, I still exist in New York. If this is the case, it seems that some version of "I" must necessarily be having temporal experiences always. For otherwise, what could it mean to say that the past and future exist on equal footing with the present? Since subjectively we experience time "flowing" from past to future, I'm speculating that when "I" die ? when "I" experience a version of myself at my temporal boundary of death ? I will subjectively then begin to experience my life over, from birth. For someone must be having my experiences at all times, and that someone, by definition, is, subjectively, me. Death == Birth

06-18-2003, 12:44 PM	#15
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	But davidm, if your theory is right than "you" are just your current moment of experience, nothing more. There would be nothing moving between moments (no moving spotlight) that would justify calling brainstates further up the worldline of your current brainstate "you", any more than you should call brainstates of totally different people "you", or brainstates of parallel versions of davidm if the many-worlds interpretation is correct. There would be no sense in which the "you" I am talking to now will ever experience anything besides what you are experiencing at this very instant.

06-18-2003, 01:12 PM	#16
davidm Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 1,617	Jesse, I think what you are saying is right, but it still somehow misses the point. How could it be, if block spacetime is real, that a version of "myself" could NOT be experiencing, say, June 5, 1987, at 8 a.m.? I'm saying that this version of "myself" must necessarily be having that experience, even as another version of "myself" is having the experience of typing this reply on June 18, 2003. I'm suggesting that all versions of myself, from birth to death, are subjectively experiencing their own private "now," timelessly. Each of them supposes that they are experiencing a unique "now" that is real in a way that all past and future versions somehow are not. But I'm suggesting that this supposition is false. It has to be false, I think, if block spacetime makes any sense. The relativity of simultaneity could serve as another analogy. Users in different reference frames can wildly disagree on the objective definition of "now" depending on their relative motion. Yet both would be correct in identifying their own "now," since there is no universal "now." Likewise, I'm saying that my consciousness divides into a huge series of subjective "nows," from birth to death, and each version thinks its own "now" is the real one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.