LIFE AFTER DEATH, NIHILISM, AND MODERN PHILOSOPHY
NIHILISM, LIFE AFTER DEATH, AND MODERN PHILOSOPHY
What Nihilism and Nihilist philosophies – including Rationalism, Humanism,
Agnosticism, Existentialism, and other ideas from Modern Philosophy Really Say
About Your Future
Do you believe that life does
end, or may end, at death? Everyone who believes that death may be the end
should read the following essay from cover to cover. It represents a serious
attempt to identify what may be a critical flaw in the foundation of many modern
philosophies. It will help those who study Nihilism, Rationalism, Humanism,
Agnosticism, and Existentialism, recognize questions that are probably already
on their minds. It will address essential questions that you need to seek
answers for. We will suggest that, whether they realize and admit it or not,
anyone who does not believe in a life after death, an "afterlife", be they
Rationalists, Humanists, Agnostics, or otherwise, is necessarily a Nihilist.
What is nihilism? The
Webster's Dictionary definitions of nihilism that we will be using are that
nihilism is a doctrine that - "beliefs are unfounded and that existence is
senseless and useless”, and a doctrine “that denies any objective ground of
truth and especially of moral truths” ((c) 1997 by Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated). We will be discussing the idea that true nihilists "believe in
nothing". In doing so we will be questioning the very foundation of the works of
modern philosophers who argue that one may find or create "value" in a world
without a life after death, a nihilistic world.
First, let me state
emphatically that I believe life has positive meaning. I am not a nihilist, and
I do not believe that the conclusions of nihilism are correct. I am a theist who
believes in a non-physical soul, and who does not in fact believe that the
logical consequences of the death of a purely physical being are the actual
consequences we face on our death. This essay is primarily philosophic and
scientific in nature, and does not address the nature of life after death.
However, near the end of the text you will be invited to read other essays that
explore my theist beliefs and my belief in a life after death. In this essay
provide you with a brief, objective, look at the unknown future we all face.
So why would I want to
discuss something that I do not believe in? There are several critical reasons.
Nihilism is far from the isolated, oddball, radical philosophy many consider it
to be. I would suggest that nihilism is the logical "conclusion" of most modern
humanistic philosophies. More importantly, I believe that nihilistic death is
accepted, though not recognized, as the universal destination of humankind by
all who do not believe in a life after death. I would suggest that if we embrace
a modern secular philosophy, or no philosophy/religion at all, we must embrace
nihilism. We will assert that if you believe that your existence may end at
physical death, you are accepting the idea that "nothing" may follow death, and
you are by definition accepting the possibility that "nihilism" is correct. Once
we realize that the acceptance of nihilism is a necessary consequence of our
humanistic beliefs, or non-beliefs, we will be able to decide for ourselves if
what we currently believe to be true, is what we really want to believe is true.
Until we understand the nature of "nothing", we may well have difficulty
appreciating "anything".
Most readers will want
to read this summary first, and then if they want to explore our views in more
depth, read the sometimes difficult to understand, somewhat rambling,
occasionally boring, full version. For those who want to start with a detailed
explanation of our thoughts on nihilism,
please read the full version of this essay by clicking here.
Warning! There
is a risk that when someone who is "depressed" considers the consequences of
their own death, he or she may misunderstand the possibilities, and may become
dangerously depressed. In fact the opposite should be true! Those who understand
death should conclude both that there is nothing at all to fear from a death in
which they would cease to exist, and that there is abundant hope in the
alternatives which may exist. We are not suggesting in this essay that there is
no "reason to live", in fact we are saying the opposite. If you are distressed
by what you read, you should carefully reconsider what is being said, and
understand that there is no reason whatsoever to be disturbed by the conclusions
about nihilism. Toward the end of the essay we will suggest other readings that
discuss reasons for living. We have abundant hope that if you search for meaning
and value in your life you will find it. If you are still "depressed" by the
possibility of a nihilistic death, you are misunderstanding what is being said.
Anyone who is, or becomes, seriously depressed, should seek professional help
immediately! [If you find yourself distressed or depressed by our conclusions
please read the note at the end of this essay.]
Please note that support for internet
publication of this essay is provided by:
If in fact you do exercise meaningful
freedom of choice, what good is it to be a unique human being if at your death
you cease to exist? If you do not continue to exist in some form after death,
what good are all the experiences, decisions, triumphs, defeats, all the moments
of your life? If you do not survive the grave, if you return to the state of
being that preceded your birth, then I suggest to you that nothing in fact does
matter. While over the ages men and women have sought to perpetuate themselves
through their children, their place in history, their role in society, and
through intricate philosophical webs of existentialism and other essays on
physical man's importance, the fact of physical death remains. If each
generation's death means the end of those individuals, then we are all faced
with an endless cycle of creation and destruction, the meaning of which, if any,
is beyond comprehension.
If there is anything in life we can count on occurring without fail,
it is physical death. The successful bank president, the champion athlete, the
housewife, the famous, the unknown, every human being, you, I, die. While all
acknowledge the certainty of their eventual demise, few think about death until
they are faced with it. The simple fact of death is not news to anyone, yet the
reality of its impending occurrence is ignored by virtually every living person.
The very nature of human life denies death and shrouds it in the cloak of future
events, events that are not yet real and need not be dealt with in the present.
Living is too important and time consuming to be concerned with mortality. The
fact that you are moving steadily toward your death is most likely, and
literally, to be the last thing on your mind.
Observing the inevitable death of every creature that inhabits the
earth, we may have a recurrent feeling that death is the end. On the other hand,
it is virtually inconceivable to us that all we are, all we have been, all we
will be, will be rendered void in that moment of death. It goes against human
nature to visualize the effective destruction of our past, present, and future,
which accompanies death without existence beyond death. Yet if each human being
does cease to exist, then all human beings are, or in the case of generations
yet unborn will be, waiting their turn to cease existing. If each and every
human being ceases to be, then the feeling of continuity that pervades the human
race is false (please note, we will explain later why we do not believe that
life is in fact destroyed by physical death).
In their arguments for humanism, existentialism, etc., philosophers
have spent lifetimes trying to construct a difference between the apparent
continuity of humankind, and the periodic death of individual humans. Most of us
think of our ancestors as a link to the past, and our children as a link to the
future, yet if we do not survive the grave each generation dies an isolated
death that mocks any assertion that humankind has a continuing existence apart
from its individual members. If each person's death results in their no longer
existing, then no manner of historical recording, social progression, or other
remembrance in the minds of those whose time to die is yet to come, can in any
way affect, preserve, or make any difference whatsoever to those who no longer
are. No one will survive to remember. If each of us ceases to be, then your life
has no meaning and your choices make no difference.
We admit that this logic seems counter intuitive, and even wrong,
but if we are willing to dissociate ourselves from the incredible biologic urge
for self-preservation, both of the individual and the species, and are willing
to apply purely objective reasoning, the logical conclusion, while
discomforting, is perhaps inevitable (there is at least one possible logical
loophole we will discuss below that might give permanent meaning and value to a
finite physical life). This is a very difficult conclusion to accept, it goes
against our intuitive feelings about the continuity of human life, and against
our assumptions that individual physical lives have some kind of meaning and
value. Yet if we are little more than doomed animals, our intuitive feeling of
meaning and value would not be surprising. From the very beginning, to assure
survival of any species, evolution would certainly have instilled in living
creatures the feeling that there is a reason for them to exist, a reason for
them to crawl out of the ocean and build cities. If there is no life after
death, and our lives are in fact consumed by "nothing", it is no wonder that our
genetic heritage argues so strongly against that possibility.
Because it is so difficult to accept, we will consider our
conclusion in more detail. It is logical to assume that if each person's
consciousness is the product of their physical bodies, then individual physical
consciousness exists only during that person’s physical life on earth. If each
of our physical lives proceeds from birth to death, then the consequence of each
person's death necessarily follows their death. Who can be affected by that
death? Certainly those who survive may be affected, but here is the "problem",
the death cannot be of any consequence to the purely physical human being who no
longer exists! The moment before the death of a human being perhaps it can be
said that their impending death affects that being, but the very moment after
the person dies, he or she is no longer around to be affected!
Let us assume, for example, that a comet collides with the Earth at
some time in the future before humans have colonized space. Assume further that
all life on Earth is annihilated by the collision. It is very hard to accept,
but if consciousness is nothing more than a physical phenomena, if there is no
non-physical continuation of life after death, the most logical, I believe the
only logical, conclusion is that the complete annihilation of humankind is of
absolutely no consequence to humankind! While the words may sound bizarre and
counter intuitive, in fact they are not. The moment after the total destruction
of humankind it can be said with some certainty that the destruction of
humankind had no affect whatsoever on humankind, simply because humankind no
longer exists to be affected.
If you accept that time has direction (we believe that even absent a
“fundamental time”, all events follow a causal, sequential, chain), then cause
and effect, action and consequence, occur in a fixed order, the former always
"preceding" the latter. Keeping that in mind, the idea that after the total
destruction of humankind there would be no one left to be affected should not
seem as bizarre. Assuming that one event will always precede another event in
order of occurrence, if the event that is called the death of a human being is
equivalent to the physical annihilation of that human being, the consequence of
that event necessarily follows the event. If there is a causal sequence to
events, then the annihilation cannot be of any consequence to a human being who
no longer exists. Again, the moment before the destruction of humankind perhaps
it could be said that the impending destruction affects humankind, but the very
moment after humankind is destroyed there is absolutely no humankind left to be
affected. Assume that the comet annihilates humankind at 12:00 noon, the
consequence of that destruction occurs at 12:00 noon PLUS a moment in time, and
at 12:00 noon plus the moment in time there is no humankind left to be affected.
Indeed, there is no humankind around that is conscious of the fact that the
comet struck the earth!
The same logic applies to the history of individuals not visited by
a catastrophic event. If you believe that each human being is nothing more than
an individual physical entity, and therefore that there is no life after death,
then at the time of their death each human being experiences the identical
individual annihilation that all humankind would experience together if the
earth and its inhabitants were simultaneously "destroyed". If a human being dies
at 12:00 noon, and there is no life after death, at 12:01 they are not "around"
to be affected by their death. If an individual named Bill dies at 12:00 noon,
at 12:01 Bill no longer exists to be affected by his death. If Bill is a
physical entity that does not survive death, after 12:00 noon (i.e. - after
completion of the sequence of causal events that precede Bill's death) you could
search the entire universe for Bill and you would not find him (some readers are
probably thinking that Bill continues to exist as his world-line even after his
physical death, we will discuss that later). Bill's death occurs at precisely
12:00 noon. Not minutes, or even moments, later. If there is no life after
death, the very moment after the event known as Bill's death, Bill no longer
exists. After 12:00 noon Bill cannot be affected by anything, including his
death.
The logic goes even further. If you do not believe that human
consciousness continues to exist after physical death, then death not only
annihilates each individual's present and future, but also annihilates their
past. Most people would agree that for an object to have a present and a future
the object must exist. Yet many would make the distinction that while an object
cannot have a present and a future if it does not exist, it somehow can have a
past. It is clear that the present and future of an object are bound to the
existence of the object, but so to is the object's past. Much of the problem
lies in the popular usage of the words past, present, and future both to
describe that which is part of an object (a "past" that belongs to the object,
like a person’s memories that “belong” to the living individual from birth to
death), and to describe the existence of the object from a third party's view (a
“past” which is a chronological description of the object, like a photo album
containing pictures of an individual who has died).
It is a misconception to equate the fact that there is a "history"
of all beings or objects that is set in the "past", with the statement that a
being or object that no longer exists has a "past". The first idea simply states
that the being or object existed over a finite period that is apparent to those
who currently exist. The extension of the concept of such a history to the idea
that somehow the object or being that no longer exists still possesses a "past"
confuses the distinction these two words can convey. Once an object or being no
longer exists it obviously has no present or future, similarly the object has no
past. While it may be difficult to accept, a mountain that no longer exists has
no past, present, or future for the simple reason that there is no such
mountain. There is a current history of a mountain that once existed, but there
is no mountain we can point to and describe the "past" of. This is far more than
semantics. A person who lived a thousand years ago had a historic life that
those who are alive can be conscious of, but the person no longer has a past
that is their past, which they can be conscious of.
The English language lacks the words that would make it easy to
convey the difference between a “history” set in the past that is the sum of all
lifetimes, and a “past” that is unique to and dependent on the existence of an
individual life. Perhaps humankind has avoided the initially discomforting
possibility of "finite pasts" by not distinguishing them from the infinite.
Perhaps the majority simply do not accept the possibility of the perpetual
annihilation of human beings.
There are many arguments that purport to counter this logic,
including assertions that a person's life before physical death has
“existential” meaning in and of itself, yet all the alternative arguments are
set in the time before death, within the causal sequence of events that precede
death. Every humanistic theory is based on the biophysics of existence before
physical death. We believe that none of the arguments adequately address the
period after death (perhaps with the possible exception suggested by modern
physics that is discussed below), and therefore none answer the question of how
a person who no longer exists can have a past, present, or future?
If death is the end of your existence, should you be frightened by
the certainty of your destruction? If indeed you cease to exist, you need not
fear death, for after your death you will feel neither pain, nor pleasure, nor
peace, nor torment. "You" will no longer exist, therefore "you" will feel
nothing. The resulting void is just that, a complete and total void. There is
nothing to fear, for there will be no one to experience anything negative. There
is nothing to look forward to, for there will be no one to experience anything
positive. The only way you can visualize what is usually called a "nihilistic"
death is to picture yourself after death as being in the same state you were in
before birth (of course you were not really in any state at all). Trying to
project yourself into the void that precedes life helps you understand the void
that may follow death. This ultimate void would in a single moment consume your
past, present, and future. No matter what philosophers may tell us, such a fate,
while it would offer no hope, would leave nothing to be feared.
Admittedly, our conclusions about physical death are totally
opposite to our "common sense" understanding of life. Virtually everyone is
certain, for example, that if they are eleven years old now, they have already
experienced their tenth year of life, and nothing can take from them the past
experience of being ten years old. It is this assumption, that our past somehow
exists forever, that is at the heart of all humanistic belief systems. Indeed,
belief in some kind of physical persistence of a human being's past is the only
rational argument for the universal humanistic conclusion that even if physical
death is the end, living a "good life" gives meaning and value to human
existence. However there is a deep, deep, problem with the humanist's view.
"Humanistic" philosophers seem to accept that human consciousness is
purely physical in nature, and acknowledge the end of consciousness at physical
death. Yet almost all modern humanist philosophers tell us that a finite life
can have meaning and value. The problem lies in failure to accept the rational
and logical consequences for each human being if individual consciousness ceases
to exist on the physical death of the mind and body. All of the humanist
philosophers either ignore or misunderstand what the future holds for us after
physical death if we are nothing more than physical beings.
Philosophers often speak of the void that would follow such a death
as the abyss, the unknown, the approaching void, etc. All of these suggest that
we are on a journey to a "place" which lies at the end of our physical
lifetimes. If on our death we cease to exist, this idea that we are traveling to
our ultimate destiny is false. What the philosophers are doing is giving
substance to nothing. We are not traveling to an abyss, the void, or the
unknown, for these words suggest that we are moving toward something. I
recognize the seeming absurdity of the language, yet if on our death we cease to
exist, then "nothing" totally consumes us.
This is the heart of the problem, we cannot in any way whatsoever
understand or visualize "nothing". The moment we attempt to comprehend or
visualize "nothing", the comprehension or visualization interjects something
into "nothing", preventing us from reaching our goal. When we define "nothing"
we give it the quality of being definable, a quality that can only be given to
that which is more than "nothing". Nothing might be thought of as the total
absence of physical reality, yet even this assigns a definition to the
indefinable. The moment we think about "nothing" we make it an object that can
be thought about, we make it an object that can only be more than "nothing". The
only way we can answer the question "what is nothing?" is to answer it by not
asking it, for if we ask the question we destroy the answer. Most people fail to
recognize the fact that "something" simply cannot comprehend "nothing". If we
are no more than physical beings, and if “nothing” follows our physical death,
then at the moment of our physical death, "nothing" totally consumes us.
What does science have to say about all
this? We need to recognize that the very difficult conclusions we reach in this
section are not necessarily supported by conventional interpretations of general
relativity and quantum mechanics. The current understanding that human being’s
have of the physical universe is fundamentally incomplete. Early concepts of
space and time as absolute metaphysical entities would seem to be fully
consistent with our analysis. However, modern physics tells us that the universe
is much more complex than it was once thought to be. At the start of the third
millennium, it is generally accepted that we exist in some kind of four
dimensional “space-time”. The mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who helped
formalize the math of space-time, said "…henceforth, space by itself, and time
by itself, have vanished into the merest shadows and only a kind of blend of the
two exists in its own right."
Space-time is essentially the history of
the entire universe, containing every "event" that ever happens. A "world-line"
is the history of an object / observer in "space-time". Each point on the
world-line of a human being is generally thought to be a real physical event
that represents a unique sequential moment in the life of that individual, from
birth to death. Conventional wisdom is that the world-line of a human being is
the "human being", so that human life is in some sense a permanent part of
space-time. If this is so, perhaps we have a permanent physical past that is
etched in the fabric of space-time.
To see why we do not believe that
science provides us with a physical past, we need to look at three
interpretations of cosmologic theories. The first possible interpretation, the
one that we strongly favor, brings into question the very nature of space-time.
At first glance, the concept of a permanent physical space-time seems to imply
that human beings have a physical past, present, and future. Most people assume
that the math of space-time describes a permanent physical reality that
surrounds us, a very real, very physical, space-time in which we exist. This may
not be the case.
The limited number of physicists who
understand the incredibly difficult math, realize that the theory of general
relativity tells us that the universe may be completely described without using
a "fundamental temporal variable", without even defining what we call "time".
The time we measure on a stopwatch that we use to clock a foot race is derived
from comparing the motion of the runner from the starting line to the finish
line with the motion of the hand rotating around the face of the watch. The time
on the stopwatch is not, as Newton thought, a fundamental quantity in nature,
rather it is a comparison of the motion of the person running down the track
relative to the motion of the hands of the stopwatch. Therefore, we may be
justified in concluding that "time" is derived from relative motion, but that
relative motion does not necessarily require the passage of time. It may be true
that “fundamental time” simply does not exist.
This is a shocking idea for human beings who are confronted with the
ticking away of years, days, hours, and seconds. Even so, if you think about it,
a year is nothing more than the relative motion of the earth going around the
sun, a day is the relative motion of the earth rotating around its axis, an hour
is a fraction of the motion we call a day measured by a quartz "moving" in a
watch, a second is very close to the relative motion of a beating heart, etc. We
don't expect to convince you in a few paragraphs that time is an illusion, it
took years of reading and thought for us to reach that conclusion, but we do
want you to recognize that there is a strong possibility that fundamental time
does not exist. If this is a correct interpretation of general relativity, it
can lead to the conclusion that there is no temporality of any kind associated
with our universe.
There are extremely serious objections to this line of thought. In
its most popular forms, the other 20th century revolution in physics,
quantum mechanics, incorporates a fundamental temporal variable. Some scientists
believe that general relativity will be found to be incomplete, and that quantum
mechanics tells us that time does in fact exist. Other physicists agree that the
universe lacks a fundamental temporal variable by which the universe evolves,
yet they also believe that in some very real sense the universe exhibits
fundamental "temporality". None-the-less, there are a few respected physicists
who believe that we should accept what general relativity is telling us, that
there is no fundamental temporal variable in the universe, and find a way to
modify quantum mechanics to eliminate both "time" and "temporality" from quantum
theory. Given the success of general relativity in predicting experimental
results, we strongly believe that this is the correct approach. We are convinced
that if and when physicists discover a broad model that incorporates both
relativity and quantum theories, what is usually called a theory of quantum
gravity, it will not have any kind of fundamental temporal variable associated
with it, and we will find that the universe is fundamentally "atemporal" in
nature.
If the theory of general relativity is in fact part of the illusive
theory of quantum gravity, and if we do in fact live in an "atemporal" universe,
one extremely speculative result might be that physical events in our lives
either exist, or do not exist. The statement that a point on a world-line exists
in the universe may be false, true, false, with no sense that “false” is
“before” or “after” true! If so, then it may be quite literally true that your
tenth birthday does not exist, does exist, does not exist in the universe.
Perhaps you believe that your tenth birthday is a permanent part of your past
only because it is part of your current memories, not because it exists in some
kind of permanent physical space-time. We need to emphasize that this is a very
speculative idea, that at the beginning of the third millennium is considered
nothing more than science fiction by most, perhaps all, cosmologists.
If we live in an essentially "atemporal" universe, and there is no
non-physical existence after death, we are convinced that physical death
consumes each human being's physical past, present, and future. This is very
difficult to understand and accept, yet the idea that there is no fundamental
temporality, and that this fact leads to the annihilation of our physical past,
intuitively appears to us to be the correct interpretation of our physical
universe. When you finish reading this summary you may have questions about some
of our conclusions, especially about the very complex relativistic and quantum
science behind this part of our essay. You may want to read the full version of
our essay, and/or obtain a copy of our book, read what we call our LifeNotes,
and consider the other notes and comments that we release from time to time
(internet, postal, and email addresses are provided at the end of this summary),
where we try to present a broader picture of the foundation and logic that
supports the conclusions.
The reason that we end up relying on intuition, and cannot be more
certain that our conclusions are correct, is simply because no one knows what
physics will look like if and when relativity and quantum theories are united.
Furthermore, there is no way to tell how long it will take to find answers to
the basic questions raised by modern physics. Indeed, it is quite possible that
we will never know the answers to many of our most fundamental questions. We
believe that the universe is essentially atemporal, and that physical death
annihilates our physical (but not any non-physical) past, present, and future,
but we may be wrong!
OK, let's say that you are unwilling to even think about "time" not
existing, would the existence of "time" restore a meaningful physical past to
your life? The second possibility we will look at is based on the fact that most
popular interpretations of modern physics suggest that the physical existence of
each human being somehow persists in space-time in the form of the individual's
"world-line”. Classical interpretations often say that an object is the entire
world-line of that object, or that a human being is his or her entire
world-line, but they do not really explain what is meant by this. They do,
however, almost universally conclude that each event in a human being's life
exists as an event in space-time, so that if we could observe the point on a
world-line that is the tenth birthday of someone who is now eleven years old, we
would see that person experiencing their tenth birthday. We would not see a
"copy", or a "repeat", of the particular day, we would see the person's tenth
birthday as it is occurring, period!
It would seem that this characteristic of all popular space-time
theories leaves us without tools for building a rational model of a universe
that contains a "conscious" world-line that is the "me" reading this book.
Rather it tells us that there is, and always will be, a set of unique "me's"
that somehow exist in space-time at every single event on my world-line. We
might want to say that I am the "sum" of all the points, yet the assertion that
a human being is his or her entire world-line, from birth to death, does not
appear to be consistent with the general consensus that every event along a
world-line has a singular existence that cannot be preferred over any other
event on that world-line.
The theory of relativity
tells us that all of the laws of physics are the same for every inertial
observer. If we live in a fully relational, relativistic universe, we simply
cannot prefer observations made in the inertial frame of reference of one
observer over observations made in the inertial frame of reference of any other
observer, no matter where they may be “located” in space-time. An apparent
consequence of this fact is that for one observer your tenth birthday occurs
before your eleventh birthday, while for another (spatially separated) observer
your eleventh birthday occurs before your tenth! Relativity tells us that both
observers are 100% correct in their observations. The cosmos appears to be a
very strange place!
Classic interpretations imply that each individual exists as
discrete human consciousness in the billions of discrete events located at every
point along that individual's world-line. Some physicists describe this by
saying that there are many "now's"; others say there are billions of approximate
"isomorphs" of "me"; many claim there are billions of other worlds in which
various versions of "me" co-exist; etc. It seems reasonable to conclude that
modern physics tells us that if time exists, literally billions of discrete,
very real, versions of each of us occupy space-time! This may seem like
science fiction, yet surveys of theoretical physicists and cosmologists confirm
that most believe we must adopt some form of many-worlds, multiple existence,
theory. Remember, this is currently accepted as the most promising approach to
the problems of space-time, and not merely a speculative idea.
If there is a "me" that exists on my world-line for
every event in my physical life, or if there really are an infinite number of
parallel universes in which I exist, then there is no singular "me". Rather
there are billions of isolated "me's" either lying along my world-line, or stuck
somewhere in totally isolated universes. If the scientists are correct, it would
seem to be impossible to find meaning and value for a singular "me" in the
collective existence of each of the billions of instances of individual
consciousness, no single one of which is the real true "me" who can live a
meaningful life. All of the popular interpretations of relativistic and quantum
theories seem to lead us to the same conclusion, if you do not have a single
permanent existence, your life has no meaning and your choices make no
difference to “you”, simply because there is no single physical "you" that
exists before or after physical death (please remember, we believe that life has
meaning and value).
There is a third possibility, that the intuitive feeling human
beings have that their physical past exists as a singular entity is based on
some real, yet unknown, physical model of our universe.
The intuitive feeling is very strong that our physical
life makes a positive or negative contribution to human existence, and that our
physical life is a permanent part of the physical universe. Perhaps there
is some single physical consciousness that incorporates all of the events along
our world-line, and that preserves our physical past, present, and future. We
cannot rule out this possibility, if for no other reason than the fact that it
is theoretically impossible to prove a negative. In other words, we might be
able to prove that physical consciousness after death exists in the universe by
observing it, but we can never prove that physical consciousness after death
does not exist because we have not observed it (we discuss this limitation in
some detail in our book).
The third
possibility seems to require the existence of a physical consciousness that is
not bound to events on a world-line. Some physicists suggest that consciousness
has unique physical properties so that human beings become sequentially “aware”
of events on world-lines that are essentially frozen in a “block universe”. Yet,
as we have already said, in every currently popular physical theory the universe
“evolves” as a sequential progression of space-time “events”. It seems
intuitively true that if human consciousness is a physical phenomena, that can
be explained either by current theory or by physical laws that are not yet known
to science, it is in some real sense inextricably bound to each of these
space-time events. It seems intuitively difficult, or impossible, to accept that
such a dynamic physical consciousness could incorporate individual predetermined
“block” events into a singular human being without violating the basic tenets of
relativity. While it is true that a physical consciousness that is not bound to
physical events might represent a unique singular existence, it is also fair to
say that there is no known reason to believe that physical consciousness is not
inexorably linked to individual physical events, making the third possibility
seem to be almost an impossibility.
There may be many “me’s” that are
experiencing past events in the “past”, and I may have a memory of past events
in the present, yet the intuitive conclusion is that my physical consciousness
does not experience past physical events “now”. It seems intuitively true that
if consciousness of past events can be lost when memories fade or are damaged,
then physical consciousness has not incorporated those past events into a
permanent singular “me”. Einstein only briefly addressed this matter when he
said “An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my
comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise…. Enough for me the mystery of the
eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality,
together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so
tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.” [click
here for more information on spacetime]
It seems that if we are to believe
that there may be some kind of singular physical (rather than non-physical)
consciousness that survives physical death, then we must accept that there is
some unique physical consciousness that is "me", that somehow incorporates all
of the conscious events of my life, and that is not dependent on the continuing
physical existence of my biologic body. While current interpretations of popular
theories do not totally rule out the possibility of a perpetual individual
physical consciousness, there is no known method that is both rational and
realistic (i.e.- a theory that appears capable of modeling physical reality), to
construct a physical (as opposed to a non-physical) model that preserves the
singular human physical consciousness of an individual after the physical death
of that person. Modern theories suggest the possibility that multiple instances
of a physical “me” exist in space-time, but they do not offer even a clue as to
how to unite all of those instances into a single physical “me” whose
consciousness spans space-time. Indeed, current interpretations of quantum
superposition seem to deny the possibility of a “single” physical reality in
which a unique “me” might exist.
I can visualize and accept a “non-physical consciousness” that
survives physical death, yet I am unable to have any confidence at all in the
existence of a singular “physical consciousness” that survives the physical
death of a human being. To do so, it would seem that I would have to discover a
new physical process that incorporates all the “events” in a human life, and
that creates a unique, singular physical consciousness that continues to exist
in space-time as that human being, or at least as something that we can call a
singular past that belongs to the human being. This seems to me to be an
impossible task. I may be wrong, yet I simply cannot find an accepted physical
theory that supports a unified "physical" consciousness that survives physical
death. Furthermore, I do not know of any credible objective physical evidence
that such a “physical” consciousness might exist. I can say that after many
years of thought I am thoroughly convinced that any attempt to construct a model
of permanent physical consciousness does far more damage to the centuries of
accumulated scientific knowledge, than does the acceptance of the possibility
that a permanent non-physical consciousness may exist.
We have concluded that no current, or reasonably foreseeable,
rational theory provides us with a singular physical consciousness that
continues to exist after physical death, so that a single physical "me"
continues to exist after my death in my physical “past”. We have said that if we
do not have a singular physical or non-physical consciousness that continues to
exist after physical death, then those who believe in nihilism are probably
correct, and some type of "nihilistic" void awaits all of us. It may be a true
void, like the void that preceded our birth, or it may be a very strange void
where billions of "me" merely co-exist. Whatever physical form it might take, it
would seem to satisfy the definition of a "meaningless" void.
A moment's comment on those who believe they may be able to
physically perpetuate themselves through cryogenics, cloning, etc. If, we live
in a constantly expanding universe, our universe will eventually return to a
state of uniformly high entropy, so that the cosmos will become a hostile
environment in which physical life cannot be sustained. If, on the other hand,
theories that predict endless cycles of expansion and contraction of our
universe are correct, nothing physical can survive beyond the next collapse of
the universe a few billion years from today. While a physical end to all
biologic creatures may seem absurdly far away, your great, great, great (to the
100th. power), grand-clone would find it frightfully real when the time came for
their physical demise, a distant time from now which like all imaginable time is
but a second in eternity. There is simply no cosmologic model that we know of
that offers any hope for a perpetual, physical, human existence.
Even if in some unknown manner multiple clones could survive in an
ever-expanding universe, the idea that they are perpetual extensions of their
donor seems less than credible, perhaps so, perhaps not. Such a perpetual
presence seems to be more like an endless path of meaningless individual moments
than a continuous meaningful existence. Furthermore, if there is no life after
death, it would make no difference if an individual (cloned or otherwise)
continued to exist, or "died" in one hundred years or in one billion years,
because "death" would annihilate the individual's past, present, and future.
If physical death annihilates all individual consciousness then
there is no reason whatsoever to embrace cryogenics, cloning, strong artificial
intelligence, or any other means of extending physical life. Since an
individual's death would carry with it no possible consequence to that
individual, there is no logical reason whatsoever for the living individual to
avoid the "consequences" of death. If an individual no longer exists after
death, that individual has no reason at all to feel anything positive, negative,
or otherwise about death (or for that matter anything at all about life). Again
please note, we do not believe that physical death annihilates individual
consciousness, and we strongly believe that life does have meaning and value.
What should our response be to all of this? We strongly believe that
there is absolutely no reason not to live for the possibility that life has
meaning and value. We think we are right about the transitory nature of physical
consciousness, but we may be wrong. If our conclusions are wrong, perhaps we do
in fact have a physical consciousness that survives physical death. If we are
wrong, we may have a perpetual physical existence that gives meaning and value
to our physical lives, even if there is no non-physical life after death. We
will not pursue this possibility, yet you should recognize that it exists.
If we are right, if our physical consciousness does not survive
physical death, our death may mark the end of our existence. Yet if our physical
consciousness dies, it is still quite possible that we will not face a
"nihilistic" death. Perhaps we have a non-physical consciousness that survives
physical death, and that gives meaning and value to our lives. We consider this
possibility in more detail in our book and in our LifeNotes as we search for a
reason for living.
Beyond the human desire for meaning in life, we would suggest that
the logical consequence of what philosophers call a nihilistic death, "requires"
the search for alternatives to nihilism. Those who believe that the nihilistic
void is approaching are, by the very nature of their humanity, required to
search for something to believe in other than the void. While it appears to be
impossible to scientifically prove that life has meaning and value, it is
equally impossible to prove that life has no meaning and value. No matter what
the person who believes that life is meaningless may believe to be true at any
particular time in their life, the possibility always exists that he or she may
eventually find true meaning and value in their life.
There is no reason to be a "nihilist", no reason to believe that
life ends at death. If nihilism is correct, if life does end at death, it makes
no difference whatsoever if we believe it is correct, or not. If we believe
nihilism is correct, and it is correct, that does not alter the void that would
follow death. If we believe nihilism is not correct, and it is correct, that
does not alter the void that would follow death. If we do not believe anything
at all about nihilism, and it is correct, that does not alter the void that
would follow death. Yet if nihilism is not correct, belief and/or faith in that
which offers a reason for living may well be essential to our existence. If
because we believe nihilism is correct we accept the void, and we are wrong,
then we have doomed ourselves. If we recognize that the humanistic belief that
there is no life after death leads to the nihilistic conclusion that the "void"
will consume past, present, and future, then to escape the quicksand of
nihilistic time we must search for alternatives that provide a reason for
living.
It is very important to recognize that nihilism can never lead to
suicide, for nihilism tells us that if we do in fact live in a nihilistic world,
nothing that happens in our lives, no matter how "badly" we may feel about it at
the time, has any "real" consequence at all. It tells us that what we perceive
to be the very worst events in our lives are no better, or worse, than any other
events. I am absolutely convinced that the philosophical neutrality that
nihilism demands, means that nihilism never suggests or supports suicide as an
option for any human being.
Furthermore, since it
is absolutely clear that we may not live in a nihilistic world, and that
nihilism may be wrong, there can never be any reason to terminate our life, risk
the negative consequences, and abandon the possible positive consequences of
living a meaningful life. We are a small part of the whole. Unless the answer is
revealed to us by the whole, we can never know during our physical lives what
really happens when our physical life ends. Life may have physical or
non-physical meaning and value that we do not, and perhaps cannot until our
physical death, recognize and understand. [If you find yourself distressed or
depressed by our conclusions please read the note at the end of this essay.]
There is no reason at all to reject the possibility that each of us
has some kind of permanent physical or non-physical consciousness. There is
absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to reject the possibility that nihilism
may be false! There is no reason whatsoever not to search for an alternative to
nihilism, to explore the possibility of a permanent physical or non-physical
consciousness, to search for a reason for living. There is absolutely no reason
whatsoever not to live for the possibility, however remote you may believe it to
be, that life has meaning and value.
We have written a book we call “LOVE - In Search of
a Reason for Living”. As we say in the preface, it is “a book about life, and a
book about you. Its purpose is to send you on a journey through your heart,
mind, and soul. If you take the journey you will find in yourself the reason for
living. If you care at all about life and people and yourself, you will take the
journey.” We invite you to download a copy.
On our website
http://www.lifenotes.org we have published LifeNotes, selected in large part
from our book, that are directed toward the vast majority of people who we
believe are unwilling to live the fanatic life that we conclude in our book all
people can and should live.
We suggest that you read LifeNotes first by clicking on the link below, and
then read our book if you decide that you want too.
DISTRESS & DEPRESSION
We
have received comments from readers who tell us that our ideas caused them to be
distressed and deeply depressed. If you are one of those readers you need to
consider the following. As human beings become anxious they often lose their
focus and misinterpret what they are reading. If you understand what we are
saying, there is absolutely no reason to be depressed by our ideas.
Why
not? First, we may be wrong. What we conclude to be true and correct may not be.
Yet beyond the fact that we cannot be sure we are right, the fact is that if we
are right, for the vast majority there is nothing to fear or dread. This fact is
extremely difficult to accept if you are searching for meaning in your life, you
do not believe that there is a life after death, and you are discouraged or
depressed before you start reading. When you read our ideas they may touch raw
nerves, and you may stop understanding what we are saying.
Either there is a life after death or there is no life after death. If there is
no life after death and we are correct when we conclude that physical death
annihilates our past, present, and future, then there is absolutely no reason
whatsoever to be even the slightest bit distressed or depressed. If physical
death annihilates your past, present, and future, then after your physical death
you are consumed by a totally peaceful void, with absolutely no pain or sorrow
or other negative result. There is no logical or rational way whatsoever to
conclude that there is any negative consequence if your ultimate end is a
nihilistic death.
If
your mind is not receptive and clear, then you may have a violent reaction to
our conclusions about death if there is no life after death, a reaction that
ignores the fact that there cannot be anything to fear about such a death. It is
human nature to attack anything that suggests that our life today may be
destroyed by death, yet that reaction can have no rational basis in logic. If
your past, present, and future is annihilated by your physical death, after your
death you will know no pain or sorrow or regrets or anything negative at all,
period.
Furthermore, if your past, present, and future is annihilated by your physical
death, that fact can have no effect whatsoever on today, on now. If a nihilistic
death lies in your future, it cannot effect your present at all. You can live
every day, from now to the moment of your death, to the fullest. It is very
important to understand that every person who is unwilling to believe that there
is a life after physical death can live a positive life for the rest of their
life, loving their neighbor, doing that which is good, with the hope that
physical life does have meaning and purpose. There is no reason whatsoever for
those who are unwilling to believe that there is a life after physical death to
be depressed, there is every reason for them to do that which is good and live
the most positive life they are willing to live. If you are unwilling to believe
that there is life after physical death, there is every reason for you to do
that which is good and live a positive life, with the hope, no matter how tiny
you may believe it is, that your life has meaning and purpose.
Many
who are deeply depressed believe that their lives are meaningless, and to escape
the pain of living they seek the peace of suicide. It you are suicidal it may be
very difficult for you to accept the fact that if there is no life after death
and we are correct when we conclude that physical death annihilates our past,
present, and future, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to commit suicide.
If your physical death is a nihilistic death, there is no reason to end your
life now because you will experience the same “peaceful” end if you die next
year, or twenty years from now. Your mind may be too clouded to understand what
we are saying, yet if you are suicidal you must take whatever time it takes to
fully understand.
If
on your physical death your past, present, and future are annihilated, there is
absolutely no reason whatsoever to commit suicide, because all the physical and
emotional pain you suffer in your life, now or next week or next year, will be
annihilated whenever you die, even if your death does not occur for many, many,
years. It is simple logic that if no matter how far in the future a nihilistic
death occurs, it causes all pain that you ever suffered to be as if it never
happened, then there can be no logical reason whatsoever to commit suicide now
to avoid future pain, period. Committing suicide necessarily eliminates all
possibility of finding meaning and purpose in your life. You cannot know if a
nihilistic death awaits you or not. Even if there is a nihilistic death in your
future you cannot know that there is, so there is no reason whatsoever not to
live for the possibility, no matter how remote you may believe it to be, that in
the future you will find meaning and purpose in your life.
No
matter what we may think or you may think, there is always a possibility that
your life has meaning and purpose, whether there is a life after death or there
is no life after death. If there is a life after death, or if there is no life
after death, there is always a possibility that sometime in the future you will
find meaning and purpose in your life. If in fact there is a life after death
then there is every reason to live for the hope that you will enjoy a peaceful
existence after death. If in fact there is no life after death then there is
every reason to live for the hope that your physical existence right now has
meaning and purpose. Even if there is no life after death and physical death
annihilates our past, there is no reason whatsoever not to live for the
possibility your physical existence has meaning and purpose right now, simply
because during your physical life on earth you can never, never, know with any
degree of certainty whether your life has, or does not have, meaning.
If
you are depressed and suicidal it is extremely difficult for you to see the
absolute fact that there is absolutely no reason not to live every moment of
your natural life for the possibility that you may find meaning and purpose and
happiness in your life. There can be no reason whatsoever to commit suicide and
eliminate the possibility that your life has meaning and purpose. There can be
no reason whatsoever to eliminate the possibility that you will eventually find,
if not joy and happiness, at the very least peace and contentment in your life.
If
you do not yet understand the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to be
disturbed or depressed by our conclusions, especially our conclusion that if
there is no life after death, then your past, present, and future are most
probably annihilated on your physical death, then you still do not understand
what we are saying. Please take as much time as you need to reread and carefully
think about what we are saying, until you satisfy yourself that there is in fact
absolutely no reason to be depressed by our conclusions, and absolutely no
reason whatsoever for any human being to commit suicide.
Depression is a medical condition, if you are depressed, for any reason, you
must seek professional help:
Life is full of good times and bad, of happiness and sorrow. But when you are
feeling "down" for more than a few weeks or you have difficulty functioning in
daily life, you may be suffering from a common, yet serious medical illness -
called clinical depression.
You
are not alone
Every year more than 19 million American Adults suffer from clinical depression.
Young or old, man or woman, regardless of race or income - anyone can experience
clinical depression. Depression can cause people to lose the pleasure from daily
life. It can complicate other medical conditions - it can be serious enough to
lead to suicide. Yet this suffering is unnecessary. Clinical depression is a
very treatable medical illness. So why don't many people seek the help they
need? Clinical depression often goes untreated because people don't recognize
the many symptoms. They may know some symptoms, such as sadness and withdrawal,
but they are unaware of others, including anxiety, irritability, and
sleeplessness. Some incorrectly believe that only people whose depression lasts
for months, or who have completely lost their ability to function, have "real" -
or "clinical" - depression. Many people even wrongly think that depression is
"normal" for older people, young adults, new mothers, menopausal women, or those
with a chronic illness. The truth is, clinical depression is never "normal," no
matter what your age or life situation. Also, people need to know that treatment
for clinical depression really works - and to learn how to go about finding the
treatment they need.
Clinical Depression can be Successfully Treated
Clinical depression is one of the most treatable of all medical illnesses. In
fact, more than 80 percent of people with depression can be treated successfully
with medication, psychotherapy or a combination of both. Only a qualified health
professional can determine if someone has clinical depression. But knowing the
symptoms of clinical depression can help you as you talk with your health
professional.
As
with many illnesses, if treatment if needed, the earlier it begins, the more
effective it can be. And, early treatment increases the likelihood of preventing
serious recurrences.
You
Do Not Have to Cope with Clinical Depression on Your Own
Some people are embarrassed to get help for depression, or they are reluctant to
talk about how they are feeling. Others believe that depression will go away on
its own. You can't just "Tough it out!" Help is available.
Talking to friends, family members and clergy can often give people the support
needed when going through life's difficult times. For those with clinical
depression such support is important, but it is not a substitute for the care of
a health professional. Remember, clinical depression is a serious illness that
you do not have to treat on your own.
http://www.nmha.org/
Depression
A
depressive disorder is an illness that involves the body, mood, and thoughts. It
affects the way a person eats and sleeps, the way one feels about oneself, and
the way one thinks about things. A depressive disorder is not the same as a
passing blue mood. It is not a sign of personal weakness or a condition that can
be willed or wished away. People with a depressive illness cannot merely "pull
themselves together" and get better. Without treatment, symptoms can last for
weeks, months, or years. Appropriate treatment, however, can help most people
who suffer from depression.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/depression.cfm
Also see:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/depression.html
(Copyright (c) 1995-2008 Compact Library Publishers Inc., all rights reserved.
You may make and distribute copies of this essay, or selections from it. You
must include all copyright notices and include this paragraph with every copy.
You may not make any additions or deletions to the text. Any alterations to the
text would be a violation of our copyright. Any comments that you attach to the
text must clearly state that they are not part of the essay, and that they are
the opinion of the commentator and not necessarily the opinion of the author.
Significant portions of this essay were taken from "LOVE - In Search of a Reason
for Living", Copyright (c) 1990-2008 Compact Library Publishers Inc.)
(Third Millennium Final Edition
- corrections and revisions are continuing)
Last major revision: December,
2002
geovisit(); |
|
