Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

I am returning to the question of life after death, which has always seemed to me to be the most perplexing of all philosophy questions. Often, it is considered in connection with the the existence of God, but not necessarily. I am not even sure that I wish to become immortal because living one life is difficult enough.I do see the various ideas of heaven and hell, reincarnation and the resurrection as probably being symbolic ways of coping with the idea of seeing one's life in the larger scheme of eternity, but I am not certain. The reason why I am writing this thread is as a result of reading an extremely unusual book a couple of weeks ago, and I am rereading it because it gave me food for thought.

The author, Frank J Tipler, in, 'The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead' comes from an initial atheist background, but has considered Teilhard De Chardin's idea of the omega point as a starting point for the idea of the existence of God and the idea of the resurrection of the dead. Even in concluding, he has not come up with any definite belief in God or life after death and, he is simply offering what he calls an Omega Point Theory for scientific consideration. A key aspect is De Chardin's understanding of the Omega Point, and he quotes the following, 'The end of the world: the overthrow of equilibrium (the Heat Death), detaching the mind, fulfilled at last, from its material matrix, so that it will henceforth rest its weight on the Omega Point'.

Tipler suggests that an initial Omega Point Theory was developed by Freeman Dyson, which explored the possibility of immortality in relation to physics. One unusual comparison which Tipler makes is of comparing the Omega Point Boundary with the Holy Spirit:
'a wave function is the all-pervasive physical field which creates and guides all the ultimately Personal_ these are the traditional defining properties of the Holy Spirit'..

In thinking about the idea of 'life', Tiplin sees life and existence in relation to the nature of information. He looks at the idea of computer metaphysics and argues that, 'Much of computer science is devoted to making simulations of phenomena in the physical world.' So, in relation to this, computer science and nanotechnology leads to the possibility of what has once existed being reanimated again, in the form of a resurrected body.

I have offered only a bare, stripped down basis of the arguments in the book because I am trying to keep my outpost as concise as I can. The thread is intended to look at the Omega Point Theory and other ideas and arguments for and against life after death. I am asking you what are your own thoughts and arguments about the concept of immortality?

[LuckyR]

But are life after death and/or resurrection after death, immortality? Commonly, immortality is not dying.

[JackDaydream]

But are life after death and/or resurrection after death, immortality? Commonly, immortality is not dying.

The point you raise shows the blurriness in the understanding of life after death, especially in Christianity and its theology. The idea of immortality of the soul goes back to ideas, such as Plato, in 'Phaedo' to the idea of the soul existing on. However, it was complemented by the idea of a physical resurrection of the body, which may have been based on the problematic nature of the notion of disembodied existence.

From my own reading of the Christian understanding of the resurrection there is a lack of clarity, especially in the idea of the resurrection body. This seems to stem from a glossing over of the issue in the writings of Paul. Even in the Christian belief about Jesus's resurrection there is some disagreement, even though it was claimed that those who saw him witnessed his physical body. Some of the issues surrounding the ambiguity may go back to the conflict between the early Church and the Gnostic thinkers.

However, it does also show how the mind and body problem figures as an aspect of Christianity and theology. It has been answered in various ways and I know the way in which the Jehovah's Witnesses answered it was to say that people would be dead until the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. In my own experience of talking to Catholics and many other Christians I have known there is such a vagueness over the idea of immortality and how it is different from the idea of people being resurrected. This seems to me to be based on a lack of appreciation of the mind and body as an underlying philosophical problem connected to the idea of life after death.
.

[Belindi]

The OP probably means life after death not "immortality".

The idea of life after death depends upon the idea of immortal 'souls'.
Believers in immortality typically believe the human soul is an entity which is not the human body and is not the human mind but is something else which, unlike the body or the mind, is indestructible.


Immortality is impossible for all temporal beings. Timelessness is possible only for a basic element of temporal being. It's the basic element of temporal being that ontologists seek.

[JackDaydream]

The OP probably means life after death not "immortality".

The idea of life after death depends upon the idea of immortal 'souls'.
Believers in immortality typically believe the human soul is an entity which is not the human body and is not the human mind but is something else which, unlike the body or the mind, is indestructible.


Immortality is impossible for all temporal beings. Timelessness is possible only for a basic element of temporal being. It's the basic element of temporal being that ontologists seek.

The reason why I chose the term immortality was mainly because the book was titled 'The Physics of immortality.' However, the idea of immortality does imply a form of permanence, although my experience of many who speak of life after death lacking clarity over whether it is subject to any change. Actually, the ideas which I grew up with may be attributed to John Milton's, 'Paradise Lost' to a large extent, rather than simply the Bible. I was taught to believe that Lucifer, the Lord of Light fell and led humans to rebel. In this picture, the idea of the resurrection was to replace the fallen angels. I am not sure of Milton's source material but it does conjure up a state of final immortal forms.

In thinking about this, there is an obvious mythical aspect but it is not simply about seeing myths in comparison with Western science but also with esoteric systems of ideas. In particular, the theosophists, including Blavatsky, saw evolution more as a process of involution, or a fall into more dense material bodies. This involved the development of root races and the existence of the race of the Nephilim.A lot of this is connected to mythology, including the ideas about Atlantis, which is spoken of by Homer and Plato.

The ideas about life after death vary in aspects of temporality or permanence. In 'The Physics of immortality', there is discussion about the conflicting picture of time, whether it is linear and based on entropy or cyclical. This seems important in relation to immortality which fits in some ways more clearly into the linear model of the cosmos in its idea of a resurrection of the dead at the end of time, although it would be possible to see the cosmic drama of the fall and, battle between good and evil, as a recurrent one too, like in the Zoroastian picture of eternal recurrence.

[LuckyR]

Well it is a psychological imperative that the idea of an "immortal" soul or life after death would be invented in antiquity as a coping mechanism for distraught mourners. This, of course neither supports nor detracts from the likelihood that any of this stuff is real.

[JackDaydream]

Well it is a psychological imperative that the idea of an "immortal" soul or life after death would be invented in antiquity as a coping mechanism for distraught mourners. This, of course neither supports nor detracts from the likelihood that any of this stuff is real.

The difference between the idea of 'an immortal soul' as an aspect of thinking psychologically, or as an actual possibility is important because the two aspects are completely different and should not be confused. Many people may wish to believe that they, or their loved ones, will continue in some shape or form.

This aspect may have contributed to the development of belief in life after death in its various forms. This is the psychological aspect, which is different entirely from the real possibilities, especially in relation to science. In some ways this philosophical difference is essential in the approach to any serious discussion of life after death in any of its various forms. What one would like, as an aspect of wishful thinking, and the real possibilities are entirely different, and awareness of this essential difference may be important starting point for an understanding of the various arguments and beliefs about immortality of the soul, or ideas about any form of potential life after death.

[JackDaydream]

I will add that Tipler has a chapter on the idea of the various ideas on life after death. He argued that most of the religious traditions argue for a form of resurrection of the dead. This is in contrast to the idea of the existence of the immortality of the soul.

The idea of the soul is important, but it is still important to think.what this would mean, as opposed to some kind of disembodied form of existence. What I am thinking is that the idea of sentient forms is so.distinct from the idea of spirits, which may be an aspect of certain ways of thinking about the ideas of an afterlife or the idea of immortality.I am left wondering how the idea of any kind of afterlife , or form.of existence of immortality, may be held, especially in relation to the existence of God, or any underlying spiritual aspect of life. To what extent does the idea of any form of life after death depend on the idea of God, or some underlying idea of spirit?

[ernestm]

There are some sidebars in Green containing quips from my prior writing that people liked.

https://yofiel.com/jesus/afterlife.php

[JackDaydream]

There are some sidebars in Green containing quips from my prior writing that people liked.

https://yofiel.com/jesus/afterlife.php

I did read your ideas in your blog about the afterlife and was a little uncertain of what your position was. In some ways, you seemed to be following the approach of Christianity but, also, taking on board the nature of Gnosticism, for critical evaluation of what happened at the resurrection of Jesus. When I was a student, I had a tutor who spoke of the idea of Jesus being risen up, as opposed to rising. This may have some significance, especially in relation to the idea of the natural and supernatural. I am not entirely sure of the dynamics of the story of the historical Jesus and the story of the resurrection from the dead. Some may see a mere story of people coming up with a supernatural explanation.I come from an open mind but do wonder if what was experienced by the witnesses was something of a nature which goes beyond the conventional understanding of reality, body and mind, but I am aware that what I am saying is open to philosophy dispute and the realist understanding.

[ernestm]

There are some sidebars in Green containing quips from my prior writing that people liked.

https://yofiel.com/jesus/afterlife.php

I did read your ideas in your blog about the afterlife and was a little uncertain of what your position was. In some ways, you seemed to be following the approach of Christianity but, also, taking on board the nature of Gnosticism, for critical evaluation of what happened at the resurrection of Jesus. When I was a student, I had a tutor who spoke of the idea of Jesus being risen up, as opposed to rising. This may have some significance, especially in relation to the idea of the natural and supernatural. I am not entirely sure of the dynamics of the story of the historical Jesus and the story of the resurrection from the dead. Some may see a mere story of people coming up with a supernatural explanation.I come from an open mind but do wonder if what was experienced by the witnesses was something of a nature which goes beyond the conventional understanding of reality, body and mind, but I am aware that what I am saying is open to philosophy dispute and the realist understanding.

Thank you ) I just think of him rising from the tomb after being in a coma. That would explain alot. But in regards to the link I shared, the sidebars in green are about all the other religions I know of, except Islam's, there are variations and I don't know anything much about them.

[d3r31nz1g3]

Immortality implies exponentially compounding amounts. To live a centillion years, for example. To live a centillion years one centillion individual times.

Can you imagine all the memories lost at sea? Even a single living day is 24 hours and to remember every event of that living day would take 24hrs of constant remembering.

The incorrigibility of this certainly implies the absolute impossibility of living eternally.

If "slumber" is immediately eternal in it's possibility, wouldn't it's opposite, existence, not be?

[JackDaydream]

Immortality implies exponentially compounding amounts. To live a centillion years, for example. To live a centillion years one centillion individual times.

Can you imagine all the memories lost at sea? Even a single living day is 24 hours and to remember every event of that living day would take 24hrs of constant remembering.

The incorrigibility of this certainly implies the absolute impossibility of living eternally.

If "slumber" is immediately eternal in it's possibility, wouldn't it's opposite, existence, not be?

I can't remember the song title but I know that there is a Bob Dylan song which speaks of being free to do anything except die. In some kind of nightmare scenario the imagination involves being unable to cease existing as a form of hell, or in the less intense version, as purgatory. Dante describes the imagined existence in hell, purgatory or heaven, although these may be experienced in the here and now as opposed to after death. The various possibilities of an afterlife have been depicted in the arts, including The Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead. A lot may be the symbolic fantasies about what lies beyond the threshold of death, but some, such as Emmanuel Swedenborg, who inspired William Blake, saw it as being a possible depiction of what may lie beyond. Of course, the idea of hell has been used and abused as the coercive aspect of some religious teachings of fear, with heaven being seen as the reward for a life of faith and virtue.

Some may fear nothingness and others may imagine a form of existence which is more intense than this one. Some believe in a bardo state in between future reincarnations, with the possibility of Nirvana. Even the idea of Nirvana is ambiguous because it signifies a 'snuffing out' or extinction, which may be how many Westerners view death anyway. Within Christianity there is also so much ambiguity with an idea of death as a form of rest or as a journey. Even in Christianity, there have been some who see it as being a personal afterlife while it is also possible to see immortality as being remembered in 'the mind of God'. This may resemble ideas in some other cultures as a way of joining the realm of the invisible kingdom of the ancestors.

[LuckyR]

Well it is a psychological imperative that the idea of an "immortal" soul or life after death would be invented in antiquity as a coping mechanism for distraught mourners. This, of course neither supports nor detracts from the likelihood that any of this stuff is real.

The difference between the idea of 'an immortal soul' as an aspect of thinking psychologically, or as an actual possibility is important because the two aspects are completely different and should not be confused. Many people may wish to believe that they, or their loved ones, will continue in some shape or form.

This aspect may have contributed to the development of belief in life after death in its various forms. This is the psychological aspect, which is different entirely from the real possibilities, especially in relation to science. In some ways this philosophical difference is essential in the approach to any serious discussion of life after death in any of its various forms. What one would like, as an aspect of wishful thinking, and the real possibilities are entirely different, and awareness of this essential difference may be important starting point for an understanding of the various arguments and beliefs about immortality of the soul, or ideas about any form of potential life after death.

Yes and no. They are, in fact completely different... to an observer of the origin of the psychological idea. But to those of us in the present day, when it is religious dogma and a central aspect of current culture, the difference is so difficult to see, they can become identical, from a practical standpoint.

[Belindi]

Sanctified perpetuation of ancestors is present in all societies. Ancestor worship may seem not to figure largely in today's scientific times but ancestral sanctification is present in traditional rituals such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, monarchy, and more local celebrations such as common riding in the Scottish Borders that always celebrate the local spirit and a quasi -historical event .

In popular culture there is plenty of ancestor worship. Hollywood makes a large part of its living from ancestor glorification.

Ancestor worship and its less obvious modern traditions is necessary to keep people integrated within their tribes and societies.

So-called 'life after death', where personalities survive death ,is a superstitious spin-off from ancestor worship, and is psychologically attractive for obvious reasons.