Trailblazer
Veteran Member
In what form?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Afterlife!
- Thread starter SigurdReginson
- Start date
Both.
Everyone outside of a tiny few who have finished their journey.
I don't know.
Seven "planes" in the astral that people naturally inhabit depending on the life just lived.
During the astral review, the learning can be full of happiness or it can be painful depending on the life just lived.
They are made up of matter but not the kind of matter we experience in a physical body.
People can choose their actions here and that determines their afterlife.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. Entropy needs to absorb energy so it can increase.
What this law of science implies is if entropy has to increase, and it needs to absorb energy to do so, net energy is being forever removed, from the universe, by the increasing entropy; second law. Our universe is leaking energy into entropy.
If we assume energy conservation, which is another law of science, this energy being bled from the universe, because of the second is being conserved, in a pool of energy, that is not fully accessible to the material universe. I call this dead pool energy in honor of the dead.
Two laws of physics; entropy and energy conservation, make provisions for the afterlife via the accumulating dead pool energy. I have presented this argument in physics forums. Nobody can refute it, but since so much is at stake, there is silence. Dead pool energy messes up a lot of physics theory like the cyclic universe theory since there is not enough reusable energy to reach the initial state implicit of cyclic. This state of science limbo is fine, as long as it is out there. They need time to think and prepare.
The human brain works based on neurons creating entropic potential. Neurons lower entropy as they isolate and separate cations; sodium and potassium, on the opposite sides of the neuron membrane. This requires up to 90% of the neuron's energy. These two cations would prefer blend to form a uniform solution bot inside and outside; second law. But the brain uses a lot of energy to reverse the entropy. In the brain, a constant entropy potential is created; rest neurons, and the second law is forced to act, in directed ways; memory, allowing each of us to constantly generate dead pool energy.
Conceptually, this means, our memory firing, due to the entropic potential and the second law, generates dead pool energy unique to each of us, via our unique memory firing. The mechanics for another realm is there; dead pool energy, and there is a dead pool energy source within each of us with very specific output characteristics they define each us. The only thing that is not as clear cut, with the laws of science, is if our dead pool energy contribution remains integrated, as us, or it simply merges with the pool.
The bible hints at the solution to this, but hint is not yet science. The Old Testament has the dead, asleep. This would imply our uniqueness is lost into a generic state. One cannot tell the greatest from the lowest if both are sleep, assuming we did not know who was who. Once awake, their consciousness will make it clear who is who. The New Testament has the dead more conscious; resurrection and first fruits.
If we apply these dogma as premises for science, this would imply early humans merged with the dead pool. As the dead pool evolved, it eventually allowed for sustained integration; life after death, but in an energy and information realm, not accessible in full, by the material universe; spirits/souls.
What this law of science implies is if entropy has to increase, and it needs to absorb energy to do so, net energy is being forever removed, from the universe, by the increasing entropy; second law. Our universe is leaking energy into entropy.
If we assume energy conservation, which is another law of science, this energy being bled from the universe, because of the second is being conserved, in a pool of energy, that is not fully accessible to the material universe. I call this dead pool energy in honor of the dead.
Two laws of physics; entropy and energy conservation, make provisions for the afterlife via the accumulating dead pool energy. I have presented this argument in physics forums. Nobody can refute it, but since so much is at stake, there is silence. Dead pool energy messes up a lot of physics theory like the cyclic universe theory since there is not enough reusable energy to reach the initial state implicit of cyclic. This state of science limbo is fine, as long as it is out there. They need time to think and prepare.
The human brain works based on neurons creating entropic potential. Neurons lower entropy as they isolate and separate cations; sodium and potassium, on the opposite sides of the neuron membrane. This requires up to 90% of the neuron's energy. These two cations would prefer blend to form a uniform solution bot inside and outside; second law. But the brain uses a lot of energy to reverse the entropy. In the brain, a constant entropy potential is created; rest neurons, and the second law is forced to act, in directed ways; memory, allowing each of us to constantly generate dead pool energy.
Conceptually, this means, our memory firing, due to the entropic potential and the second law, generates dead pool energy unique to each of us, via our unique memory firing. The mechanics for another realm is there; dead pool energy, and there is a dead pool energy source within each of us with very specific output characteristics they define each us. The only thing that is not as clear cut, with the laws of science, is if our dead pool energy contribution remains integrated, as us, or it simply merges with the pool.
The bible hints at the solution to this, but hint is not yet science. The Old Testament has the dead, asleep. This would imply our uniqueness is lost into a generic state. One cannot tell the greatest from the lowest if both are sleep, assuming we did not know who was who. Once awake, their consciousness will make it clear who is who. The New Testament has the dead more conscious; resurrection and first fruits.
If we apply these dogma as premises for science, this would imply early humans merged with the dead pool. As the dead pool evolved, it eventually allowed for sustained integration; life after death, but in an energy and information realm, not accessible in full, by the material universe; spirits/souls.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Who knows? I'd say anything, everything.
@SigurdReginson has laid out some very good question prompts here. I don't usually attempt to articulate my views on this topic in full because "afterlife" is a framing that, while loosely applicable, is a poor fit. On top of that, the non-simplified version of my views on this topic are difficult to articulate in a culture that has largely stripped itself of meaningful dialogues about the otherworlds. But interestingly, the questions as framed don't actually require me to get into that, so I can cheat. 
Are your ideas of the afterlife dictated according to your religious beliefs, according to your intuition, or a little of both?
I don't really make a distinction between these two things. My tradition is a living tradition or way-of-life; indistinguishable from who I am and whose I am.
If we take this question to mean "did you get these ideas from some pre-established something or other" the answer is no. I looked at all the inconsistencies in adults maps of the territory and simply came to the conclusion that none of them had any idea of the right of it (or that there is no right of it at all). They were making it up as they went along, and so I could too. And doing that on my own terms in a way that made sense to me would result in the creation of a meaningful, living mythology that functions well for me and my life. Like anyone, that process was inspired by things around me, of course. Most especially the sciences and my experiences with the otherworlds.
Do you believe everyone will experience an afterlife?
There's two ways I think about this.
To the first - much of what folks experience in life is a product of their expectations and the map of the territory they're navigating by. As such, folks will experience that which is consistent with their expectations and their maps. Those who don't "believe in" an afterlife won't experience it. Or are less likely to. Or if they do experience, they will tell that story in a way that doesn't involve afterlives. Those who do "believe in" it? There's different stories I tell about that. In the end, I'm way more concerned with folks having a functional living mythology that helps them grapple with existential questions (aka, the main purpose of religion) than the so-called truth of any of these things. Does the story work for you? Good enough.
To the second - in my own view of how these things work, it's impossible for anything to not have an "after" life because "after" life is something of a misnomer to me. I view existence as a continuity and everything is part of that continuity. Human awareness of space and time is very, very limited. Like, super duper limited. That we talk about stuff like "after" life is symptomatic of that - it is a function of constrained space-time perception. What happens if we get outside of that framing? That's the kind of direction my perspective delves into. In the words of the great Doctor:
Can people make impactful decisions in the afterlife that change the experience they have while there? Do you believe in more than one afterlife destination (I.E. Heaven, Hell, Valhalla, Hades, etc)?
Yes/No. Depends on the story I feel like telling at the time, all of which are true, and none of which are correct. Yes, this paradox is intentional. There's certain "at minimum" stories I tell, that are grounded in hard science or basic commonsense observation and thus generally considered matter-of-fact. However, most in this culture don't consider that an "afterlife" narrative, per se. Then there's the stories related to the otherworlds, which has closer analogues to what most in this culture consider "afterlife" but delves into a whole realm of weird ways of thinking about space and time and reality just in general.
As mentioned earlier, we're all just making stuff up. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. This is myth making - the most sacred art of the human species. We're fundamentally storytellers. We will weave tales that hold meaning to us. Ideally, weave tales that relate directly to who you are and whose you are - your values, your people, your duties and obligations, etc. That's basically what I do. The stories change as it suits the need.
Are your ideas of the afterlife dictated according to your religious beliefs, according to your intuition, or a little of both?
I don't really make a distinction between these two things. My tradition is a living tradition or way-of-life; indistinguishable from who I am and whose I am.
If we take this question to mean "did you get these ideas from some pre-established something or other" the answer is no. I looked at all the inconsistencies in adults maps of the territory and simply came to the conclusion that none of them had any idea of the right of it (or that there is no right of it at all). They were making it up as they went along, and so I could too. And doing that on my own terms in a way that made sense to me would result in the creation of a meaningful, living mythology that functions well for me and my life. Like anyone, that process was inspired by things around me, of course. Most especially the sciences and my experiences with the otherworlds.
Do you believe everyone will experience an afterlife?
There's two ways I think about this.
To the first - much of what folks experience in life is a product of their expectations and the map of the territory they're navigating by. As such, folks will experience that which is consistent with their expectations and their maps. Those who don't "believe in" an afterlife won't experience it. Or are less likely to. Or if they do experience, they will tell that story in a way that doesn't involve afterlives. Those who do "believe in" it? There's different stories I tell about that. In the end, I'm way more concerned with folks having a functional living mythology that helps them grapple with existential questions (aka, the main purpose of religion) than the so-called truth of any of these things. Does the story work for you? Good enough.
To the second - in my own view of how these things work, it's impossible for anything to not have an "after" life because "after" life is something of a misnomer to me. I view existence as a continuity and everything is part of that continuity. Human awareness of space and time is very, very limited. Like, super duper limited. That we talk about stuff like "after" life is symptomatic of that - it is a function of constrained space-time perception. What happens if we get outside of that framing? That's the kind of direction my perspective delves into. In the words of the great Doctor:
Can people make impactful decisions in the afterlife that change the experience they have while there? Do you believe in more than one afterlife destination (I.E. Heaven, Hell, Valhalla, Hades, etc)?
Yes/No. Depends on the story I feel like telling at the time, all of which are true, and none of which are correct. Yes, this paradox is intentional. There's certain "at minimum" stories I tell, that are grounded in hard science or basic commonsense observation and thus generally considered matter-of-fact. However, most in this culture don't consider that an "afterlife" narrative, per se. Then there's the stories related to the otherworlds, which has closer analogues to what most in this culture consider "afterlife" but delves into a whole realm of weird ways of thinking about space and time and reality just in general.
As mentioned earlier, we're all just making stuff up. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. This is myth making - the most sacred art of the human species. We're fundamentally storytellers. We will weave tales that hold meaning to us. Ideally, weave tales that relate directly to who you are and whose you are - your values, your people, your duties and obligations, etc. That's basically what I do. The stories change as it suits the need.