I don’t know how interesting this will be, but considering I never really know how interesting my thoughts are in the first place… I was thinking last night before I fell asleep about the notions of “my cosmological scheme”, aka my worldview, and how unorthodox they may be from my understanding of the general convention. The standard convention being a religious outlook on life with its notions of an afterlife, and the like.
Well, onto the explanation of the scheme as far as I understand it. It will be somewhat portrayed as a series of questions, and a return of thoughts (rebuttal to the question). Kind of in the vein of old philosophical treatises, I suppose. Along with other tangential thoughts, and maybe some deviations in structure as the article moves along.
-In the pursuit of truth, one must ask every question conceivable, for to do so the light of reason shows forth. Asking a question as ridiculous as, “Am I Dead?”, leads one down this potential path.
-If I’m dead, I wouldn’t be aware of it. My Consciousness, and sense of self would be gone.
-If there’s an afterlife upon death. How can I verify that it is actually post death, and not the present life one is living?
-If a materialist approach of science is followed to explain things. There would be no loss from a system perspective, for the Universe conserves; energy, mass, information…etc. There is no escape from a closed system as far as I know, but the universe isn’t quite known to be closed.
– Then what is Death? Is it a breakdown of coherency of a system? Think of the notion of coherency as maintaining a set pattern. A person’s body would be a pattern, and the breakdown of coherency at any level (molecular -> aging, physical reality -> limb loss…etc) would be death. This holds true for energy, and information packets. What gives an identity to a set “system”?
-Although if we are just patterns that are coherent, how’d I become to be originally? I wasn’t aware prior to birth, and I won’t be after Death. By definition of these terms.
-Therefore, what do I fear? The notion of non-existence? To be Nothing?
-Is this tied to the notion of limiting factors? What is the limiting factor? Finite Resources? Over-consumption? Although if virtual particles may become “real” particles simply by sticking around ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle ). Then what is “Real”, and is there Loss?
-Where does the limitation begin?
-Is Death a ground state? That one is less active/aware, but never truly gone? Due to conservation of energy/mass…etc. Much like an energy state in quantum mechanics? A form of “immortality”? If Death is Nothing, including an awareness that comes after expiring, awareness of Nothing. Then what is Life?
-Life is the active/energetic state.
-Death is Nothing, it is the null set composed of that which is limiting/unbelievable. The sinkhole, or perhaps “black hole” into which all is consigned that doesn’t work/agree. Information feed into the “Nothing” is lost, but gained. Black holes may be different “Universes”. In which the loss is a gain. One loses that which does not work, but gains a new possibility (a virtual notion that if worked with remains).
-Thus Death is the realization of stuff. Mainly be the Self. All because if the Self is gone, who’s to know?
-The possibilities of information relatedness is; Self, Other, Observer, and Unknown. The Self is the integration of concepts, and components into the predominant perspective of “I”. The Other is you, and every concept that hasn’t quite made it’s way into the the integration of Self. An Observer is the notion of a detached perspective that witnesses the Transformation of components of Other to Self, and vice versa. Whereas the Unknown, is the topics, and entities that simply cannot be deduced. Either at present times, or at any limits of awareness. It is true “Ignorance”. It is like assuming that one is going to “Die”, and that there is “Nothing” afterwards.
-Belief is an assumption that I shall remain, but it can’t be verified except by the self. Thus does one experience Death? No, for to do so would contradict the notion of integrating thoughts from the Other into the Self. It’d undermine Observer notations, and create a feeling of Ignorance/Unknown for those who aren’t the Self. It can’t be explained.
-The catch is “Relativism”, I’m an Other to the Other’s Self. Therefore I may die in their perspectives, but if said information ever reaches me. I can’t accept it because it’d deny my “Self”. Instead I may observe the processes, and deduce/enunciate possible patterns. To espouse my beliefs, and assumptions thinking that they’re valid. Much like the Realization of Truth for Plato with his Cave Allegory. One is in a cave of shadows, beliefs that aren’t their own, or lies. And once they realize this they leave the cave, but they return with their own Truth. Trying to negate the lies for Others. Although one’s personal truth isn’t necessary a truth for Others. Thus creating another Shadow/Lie in the Cave.
-The limitation is the Self, what I can, and can not accept. I can accept some truths if I can relate them to prior truths I agree with. Thus integrating them into my world schema, but if they’re too far removed, or explained in a distant way. I am lost. The Self rejects said notions because they contradict, or are an affront to the senses of the Self.