So what really happens after we die?
nothing
original.com
The same thing that happens in Paris right now, people go to work, do their laundry, have sex, laugh and go back to bed, except you're not there.
You go back to where you came from.
You wake up from your 100% VR life sim video game.
>>28489060
Really nothing.
Or rather, everything -- the brain rots in its own way and tempo, other organs and tissues in their own ways. Replying 'nothing' betrays a spiritual residue whereby you still think that you're anything but an arrangement of flesh, and that the proper answer describes anything but the manner in which if falls apart.
>>28489060
You remember what it was like before you were born? Yeah it's like that. If you can't cope with reality turn to religion
>>28489111
This anon >>28489079 put it well.
You get born as someone else, at least from your perspective
There is actually only 1 being, the universe itself
>>28489060
Your family inherits what little money/assets you have, otherwise it goes to the gubbermint.
You continue to survive in another dimension where you didn't die.
Your consciousness dies with your body, your body decays and in about 100 years you'll most likely be completely forgot aboutnot that you're worth remembering anyway, meaning everything you ever did, every struggle you've ever had was in vain
>>28489127
I refuse to be one with an idiot of such magnitude as you.
>>28489145
>Your consciousness dies with your body
objectively true
>your body decays
objectively true
>in about 100 years you'll most likely be completely forgot about
objectively true
>everything you ever did, every struggle you've ever had was in vain
and you had to ruin it all with a subjective claim and betray that you're just a pretentious clichelord. Way to go.
We are reborn in a endless cycle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQtVsO6jFyg
>>28489127
>monism
>>28489148
unfortunately not your choice, we're all made of the same stuff at the smallest level.
>>28489148
>>28489201
What are the chances that you would exist? Think of all the possible babies that could exist, there's an infinite amount yet one of them happened to be you.
>>28489176
(To elaborate: your claim made as much sense as 'we're all going to die, therefore nothing we've ever seen was ever beautiful'. 'Being beautiful', just like 'mattering', is subjective, and as such is in no causal relation with any fact, such as one dying. You put a subjective claim (it doesn't matter that it was negative) after a conjunction that just doesn't take it.)
>>28489252
I'm sure this is some sort of fallacy
If there's an infinite amount of babies and an infinite amount of "souls" to fill the body then you have the same chance as anyone else.
We return into the all encompassing collective unconscious.
>>28489252
Reality doesn't function that way m8. Everything that happens, happens for a reason, and that reason is necessary, not contingent, which means that if you were born, there was never a point in time where you could not be born, because that would mean that reality does not function according to physical laws.
>>28489330
fucked up ain't it. everything is written in stone. but it's not, stuff has to happen and we'll never know if we have free will or if we were always supposed to do that.
>>28489264
I was just trying to make people feel shitty on the Internet, that's about as deep as it goes.
>>28489354
>stuff has to happen and we'll never know if we have free will or if we were always supposed to do that.
Pretty much.
>>28489248
>we're all made of the same stuff at the smallest level
Perhaps, but I see no reason to from that posit a superfluous claim that 'we're all the same thing'. It says nothing that 'we're all made of atomic/subatomic particles' doesn't say more accurately and with less connotations. Unless, of course, it is those very connotations and extra faux profundity that you're after.
>>28489252
>What are the chances that you would exist?
You are right >>28489297, it's a common, and completely confused claim. It took me a couple of years of sitting on it before I more or less understood why (such is people's tendency to parrot things without stopping to think if they make sense). 'Chance', probability, only exists within certain empirical data to collect. For instance, you can collect data on cars and the chance that they crash within a year. But this is only real for a given subjective 'selection function' that selects the set of cars and the set of crashes, letting us relate the two numerically. Asking about the probability of 'something being it and nothing else' is absurd because 'you' aren't even a set. Probability operates on sets.
>>28489321
Okay?
>>28489379
do you reckon if we made a supercomputer so advanced it could analyse everything in the universe, we could predict the future, or will that always remain a mystery?
>>28489354
>we'll never know if we have free will
That's not how it works. If you choose to think about things, incl. people, scientifically, and explain their behaviour, you need to reject free will. Free will refers to whether *you* think that things happen on their own, or instead choose to relate them to the past.
>>28489330
>because that would mean that reality does not function according to physical laws
Physical laws are thrown out the window once we study the Universe at the quantum level.
I'm going to find out soon m8
>Thinking he's gonna keep his conscience/self after death
>Not realizing how utterly stupid this sounds
Things improve
>>28489403
In a way it should be possible, as long as we are talking about physical causality.
But the reality is that it is too much information, to properly analyze.
Remember, the universe is 13.8 billion years old, which means that light has traveled for 13.8 billion years.
300000km per second for 13.8 billion years, is so large it's impossible to comprehend.
>>28489421
>Physical laws are thrown out the window once we study the Universe at the quantum level.
They really aren't m8. Newton's law of universal gravitation still applies to the solar system, no matter how much you invoke quantum mechanics.
>>28489421
On the quantum level, reality is strange. On the quantum level, very rational principle works differently from we're used to. On the quantum level, >>28489421 is actually not an idiot.
>>28489060
The only conscious observer that can be 100% confirmed dissapears into nothing and everything you knew or believed was true begins to drift into countless ghost possibilities as reality itself loses it's observer. This means that after death all that was true is now transitioning into a stage of indeterminancy forever REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>28489437
How is it any more stupid than being conscious in the first place?
Think about all the cows we have killed and turned into hamburgers. Your death is the same as one of the cows. It's inconsequential. You aren't special just because you evolved past the monkey stage.
>>28489496
>a washing machine can do the laundry until it breaks down
>'Why is it stupid to think that doing the laundry can survive the washing machine's breakdown?'
>>28489522
>inb4 arbitrary 'you can't compare humans to machines'
Well, YOU prove that we're any different.
>>28489522
The parts of the washing machine can be recycled to make the washing machine again
>>28489421
A while back, I remember watching a documentary about the behavior of atomic particles (I think it was an episode of The Universe called "Microscopic Universe") and they were shooting electrons at a canvas made of... something. What they noticed was that when they were directly observing the experiment, looking at it with the naked eye, the particles behaved as particles, but when they weren't looking at it, they behaved as waves and we could tell this by the results we'd get from the "splash" effect on the canvas. I think that's how it went, I'm a fucking idiot and can't recall this correctly, but the point is, our direct observation seemed to have an effect on the behavior of the particles themselves, which is weird. It's really, really weird. Wish I could explain it properly, I'm probably not making any sense.
>>28489060
nothing, you just cease to exist
>>28489565
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>>28489591
YES, yeah. That shit. Thank you.
>>28489060
You go to a hell that's worse than you could even possibly imagine. Oh the normies aren't going with you there btw, they were born to go to heaven
>>28489562
Of course, but that's clearly not what we're talking about. Of course it's (well, let's say...) possible to just mechanically reassemble one's brain to produce a functionally same personality. But that's just reconstruction. This doesn't mean that the 'soul' that is the brain's/the washing machine's manner of functioning (reacting to the environment) can arbitrarily leave and inhabit stuff without the mechanical external substrate.
>>28489562
The collective of atoms that make up yourself continually change over the years. The ones in your body right now could very well been in Einstein's body at some point. Does that mean that you are Einstein?
>>28489565
Like everything quantum, it's real in the strict sense of what the actual study actually says (and not how it is reposted), but irrelevant to the daily world.
If I lose my memory and never get it back is a new me born?
>>28489176
>and you had to ruin it all with a subjective claim and betray that you're just a pretentious clichelord. Way to go.
He is right though
>>28489648
Like I said man, I'm fucking retarded. I don't even know what you're trying to say.
>>28489620
>>28489629
Also this. In the fervour of 'proving' reincarnation people often forget that it by definition refers to at least a manner of transference of personality, the past incarnation at least in some manner determining the next one. Definitional fuckery of 'lol shared atoms' lacks this aspect, so it's not reincarnation in the exciting sense.
>>28489671
Depends on your definition of 'same'/'new'. Choose whichever you want. You can define identity as same continuous frame of body, exact same atomic structure, whatever.
>>28489676
No he isn't, see >>28489264. It's definition-dependably 'true' that 'nothing matters', but that is not determined by anyone having died or not. That guy spoke of 'mattering' as if it were magically objective until the point you die.
>>28489698
I'm just saying that the very core of what the article said, that particles this-or-that, is true, but any fanciful hopeful overinterpretation of that is rubbish. Religious people reformulate quantum findings into vague claims and from that point rely on equivocation ('let's first define reincarnation as a quantum phenomenon', 'HA REINCARNATION EXISTS', '...and now from now on let's define reincarnation in the usual spiritual sense again').
eternal darkness
