Dead or Existence? Questions on Life After Death

[Imparcticle]

If someone is dead, do they still exist?

 

[Phi For All]

I believe the consciousness/soul exists after the body is dead. Perhaps consciousness transcends 3-dimensional space, which would place our souls in one or more of the higher dimensions. I also believe you prepare your consciousness in this life with your beliefs and experiences. If you're convinced there is nothing after death, then there probably will be. But if you are capable of believing in something you can't experience with the senses of the body, then your soul can live on after death.

 

[loseyourname]

On what do you base this belief, Phi?

 

[Imparcticle]

I believe the consciousness/soul exists after the body is dead.

That presupposes that consciousness is not a quality of the nervous system. Correct?
The soul implies a separate entity exists within the body...a distinction between the mind and the brain. But, the mind and the brain are one and the same, it is just an illusion that they are seperate. But before I go on, would you do the honors of informing me if I understood your aforementioned (in quotes) statement correctly?

Perhaps consciousness transcends 3-dimensional space, which would place our souls in one or more of the higher dimensions.

Just for the record, have you ever heard of M-theory?

I also believe you prepare your consciousness in this life with your beliefs and experiences.

You prepare your consciousness for what?

If you're convinced there is nothing after death, then there probably will be.

So if I believe there is something after death, then there probably won't be?
{rhetorical}

But if you are capable of believing in something you can't experience with the senses of the body, then your soul can live on after death.

How do you know this? On what basis did you arrive at this conclusion?

if it is impossible for any living thing (in a physical body) to be incapable to experience something, they are therefore not conscious of what it is, correct? If they are not consicous of it, they don't know what it is. If they don't know what it is, they cannot believe in it. They can extrapolate on a possible sensation they cannot imagine and know of but even then their extrapolated sensation would still be based on what they have experienced before or what they know they can expreince.
If I am flawed here, please do the honors of correcting me.

 

[Phi For All]

Since consciousness either does or doesn't continue after the body dies & both possibilities are equally unproveable, I choose the more hopeful approach. Most religions ask us to take the existence of a higher power & an afterlife on faith. I noticed that quantum physics asks the same thing of us concerning wave state. When matter in wave state is observed it collapses to the particle state, forcing us to take it on faith that wave state exists. Take away the body at death & you remove the senses we observe matter with, making wave state possible. Imagine your consciousness/self outside your body after death. You can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch anything. Without an unshakeable belief that there is an existence beyond the body & it's limited senses, you'd be alone in your self for eternity (truly hell). This makes ALL religions right. If they don't get bogged down in detail they fundamentally prepare you to accept that which can't be sensed or proven. To me, the higher dimensions are the logical place to situate the afterlife, or heaven. Consciousness has no spatial attributes, so an infinite number of them should fit in a compacted higher dimension.

 

[Phi For All]

I should have said, if you're convinced there is nothing after death then there probably will be nothing after death for you. If you're convinced there is existence without a body after death, then you have better prepared your consciousness for infinite possibilities. I will take a look at M theory, Salamander. I am new to theoretical physics and have no math. It took me a month to read Dr. Kaku's Hyperspace because I reread each page until I understood it at least conceptually. I know I'm out of my league after reading some of your's and other's postings, but I feel there is a bridge between spirituality & science and I'm grateful for this forum to explore that bridge.

 

[Imparcticle]

When matter in wave state is observed it collapses to the particle state, forcing us to take it on faith that wave state exists.

The wave/particle duality fact insists that the wave and particle states are simoltaneous. Therefore one cannot collapse into the other, they are one.
It is not on faith that we know the wave/particle duality exists; it by logical deduction (i.e., mathematics) based on experimental data.
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is also a very enlightening book that concerns quantum theory, GR & SR and M-theory.

Imagine your consciousness/self outside your body after death. You can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch anything.

If you cannot sense anything, then you are not conscious. There is no consciousness where there is nothing being sensed.

Without an unshakeable belief that there is an existence beyond the body & it's limited senses, you'd be alone in your self for eternity (truly hell).

Interesting idea...in yourself? How do you exist in yourself?

Take away the body at death & you remove the senses we observe matter with, making wave state possible.

What do you mean?

This makes ALL religions right.

You mean polytheistic religions will easily be compatible with monotheistic religoins? There will be no contradiction on the most basic (not the details) prospects or religion?
I am inclined to disagree for obvious reasons (for my questions are rhetorical here).

To me, the higher dimensions are the logical place to situate the afterlife, or heaven. Consciousness has no spatial attributes, so an infinite number of them should fit in a compacted higher dimension.

Spatial dimensions are all dimensions except the temporal (time) demension. Therefore, consciousness MUST be spacial. It occurs through electrical impulses reacting to the environment.

Seriously, it is imperative that you learn about Calibi-Yau space. I will do the honors of directing you this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

 

[Imparcticle]

I should have said, if you're convinced there is nothing after death then there probably will be nothing after death for you.

So then whatever it is you believe is what the truth is. The truth cannot be molded to each person's liking you know.

If you're convinced there is existence without a body after death, then you have better prepared your consciousness for infinite possibilities.

Possibilities one doesn't understand or know about? the spirit realm is not of this world, therefore we cannot imagine outside our box. The idea of thinking outside the box isn't neccesarily true.

I will take a look at M theory, Salamander. I am new to theoretical physics and have no math. It took me a month to read Dr. Kaku's Hyperspace because I reread each page until I understood it at least conceptually. I know I'm out of my league after reading some of your's and other's postings, but I feel there is a bridge between spirituality & science and I'm grateful for this forum to explore that bridge.

I'm just learning too. I'm not a physicist or anything; it's just my hobby to be curious.
This is a great topic. I'm looking forward to hearing your ideas.

 

[Phi For All]

The wave/particle duality fact insists that the wave and particle states are simoltaneous. Therefore one cannot collapse into the other, they are one.
It is not on faith that we know the wave/particle duality exists; it by logical deduction (i.e., mathematics) based on experimental data.
The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene is also a very enlightening book that concerns quantum theory, GR & SR and M-theory.
I have a copy I haven't read (it's second from the top in my stack of To Reads), and I requested the video from the library. I can't wait. Thanks.

If you cannot sense anything, then you are not conscious. There is no consciousness where there is nothing being sensed.
That's assuming the five senses are all there is. How heavily do we lean on what we are familiar with and ignore what could be?

Interesting idea...in yourself? How do you exist in yourself?
Take the conscious self and take away its familiar senses, what are you left with? An intellect with no reference points, a consciousness that struggles to hear voices where there are none, to touch something, anything, for that comforting feel. We've all imagined what it would be like to be blind or deaf, but what if you had no sensation of touch?

What do you mean?
This goes back to my idea concerning why we can't observe the wave state. I think there are other senses (which we may or may not be able to access from these bodies) which, like a blind person developing better hearing, are capable of being better developed when we can no longer see, hear, feel, etc. Perhaps these other senses do not affect the wave state the way sight does.


You mean polytheistic religions will easily be compatible with monotheistic religoins? There will be no contradiction on the most basic (not the details) prospects or religion?
I am inclined to disagree for obvious reasons (for my questions are rhetorical here).
What I mean is that by taking a broader view, in much the same way String Theory broadened physics into multi-dimensions and therefore found the commonality in the physical forces of nature, encompassing relativity and many more theories, we see that if faith in the unproveable is the common thread, then all religions that espouse this must be right. It's interesting that many religious texts refer to heaven as a place that no eye has ever seen, no hand has ever touched. Unfortunately they all seem to prefer their own little details and can't accept that there is NO ONE WAY to faith.

Spatial dimensions are all dimensions except the temporal (time) demension. Therefore, consciousness MUST be spacial. It occurs through electrical impulses reacting to the environment.
Is there no room for something outside our sphere of experience? Do you believe all dimensions must be either spatial or temporal? I can at least see the possibilities of one more spatial dimension, one that would allow you to move away from all sides of a sphere simultaneously (beyond that its tough to wrap my mind around).
Seriously, it is imperative that you learn about Calibi-Yau space. I will do the honors of directing you this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Thanks again for the tip. I briefly checked out M-theory and it seems my Superstring education is out of date.

 

[Phi For All]

I obviously posted that last one incorrectly (newbie!). You'll have to tell me how you can quote and comment multiple times in a single post.

I didn't mean to imply that the truth be molded to suit the individuals liking. Your original question was whether or not a person exists after death. I think a consciousness that spent it's corporeal existence convinced there was nothing after death will not attempt to find anything when death occurs. It is more a matter of effort than truth. The person who has faith in a creator and an afterlife will be looking for them after death. If those things do exist, the person with faith stands a better chance of finding them.

You mentioned the spirit realm. Are these spirits corporeal? Do they have consciousness? Can they access all dimensions or just the lower four? And I didn't get what you meant by the idea of thinking outside the box not necessarily being true. Please elaborate (this is a great topic).

 

[Imparcticle]

Is there no room for something outside our sphere of experience? Do you believe all dimensions must be either spatial or temporal? I can at least see the possibilities of one more spatial dimension, one that would allow you to move away from all sides of a sphere simultaneously (beyond that its tough to wrap my mind around).

M-theory predicts 12 dimensions in all. So I do have a belief that there are other demenosions.
Do believe to understand each demenension, we need to have new senses that we never knew could even be possible (because in our 4D environment, we have no conception of anything above 4D)?

This goes back to my idea concerning why we can't observe the wave state. I think there are other senses (which we may or may not be able to access from these bodies) which, like a blind person developing better hearing, are capable of being better developed when we can no longer see, hear, feel, etc. Perhaps these other senses do not affect the wave state the way sight does.

We can detect and observe the wave state.
There are people who have no external feeling, are blind, deaf and have no voice. But they still have emotion. That is the ultimate thing...but the emotion is somewhat retarded when compared to that of a normal human being with all the standard senses intact and working.

Unfortunately they all seem to prefer their own little details and can't accept that there is NO ONE WAY to faith.

Do you mean to say that there are different ways of attaining faith in something?

Take the conscious self and take away its familiar senses, what are you left with? An intellect with no reference points, a consciousness that struggles to hear voices where there are none, to touch something, anything, for that comforting feel. We've all imagined what it would be like to be blind or deaf, but what if you had no sensation of touch?

We can detect and observe the wave state.
There are people who have no external feeling, are blind, deaf and have no voice. But they still have emotion. That is the ultimate thing...but the emotion is somewhat retarded when compared to that of a normal human being with all the standard senses intact and working.

I was wondering, would you say a spirit is alive or dead?

 

[Imparcticle]

I obviously posted that last one incorrectly (newbie!). You'll have to tell me how you can quote and comment multiple times in a single post.

Okay, to quote a post in separate sections:
1.) Place the portion you wish to quote in the following manner:

and /quote (and have /quote in []). That is all there is to it.
Example:

bajhkerlkerhroirj kjfiroirjaer lkdfhoiehtr;;a jtriearh;
/quote
and by having /quote within [], you'll get this:

bajhkerlkerhroirj kjfiroirjaer lkdfhoiehtr;;a jtriearh;

And for every portion, remember that its like a sentece for the computer. It's like having a period at the end of a sentence and before the beginning of one. So to quote a specific portion, put

in the beginning and /quote within [] at the end of what you want to quote. Then type in your comments. what you leave our of the

/quote (within []) sentence is in normal type.

I didn't mean to imply that the truth be molded to suit the individuals liking. Your original question was whether or not a person exists after death. I think a consciousness that spent it's corporeal existence convinced there was nothing after death will not attempt to find anything when death occurs. It is more a matter of effort than truth. The person who has faith in a creator and an afterlife will be looking for them after death. If those things do exist, the person with faith stands a better chance of finding them.

Because they'll know what to look for? But if whatever it is that happens after death (WITHAD) exists whether or not someone believes in its existence, then WITHAD should occur for everyone.

You mentioned the spirit realm. Are these spirits corporeal? Do they have consciousness?

You said yourself they were conscious.
Apperantly, these spirits are not corporeal. I shouldn;t think so. I've never heard of an incident where someone has touched a spirit, only felt the presence of. (Oh god, now I'm hearing things! This talk of spirits at night isn't very good... )

Can they access all dimensions or just the lower four?

That depends on their level of consciousness. But to tell you the truth, we have no way of knowing.

And I didn't get what you meant by the idea of thinking outside the box not necessarily being true. Please elaborate (this is a great topic).

Yes, indeed it is truly a magnificent topic, especially since you have such free, original ideas.
When someone tells you to think outside the box, they are telling you to think outside of what we already know (unless they say specifically "think outside your own box"). But we can't think outside of what we already know because we would know what we are thinking. Rather, we would end up putting together pieces of a puzzle people didn't see could fit. Those possiblilities within our knowledge already existed, but it would take an analytical mind to weave together the patches of knowledge.

 

[Phi For All]

[Because they'll know what to look for? But if whatever it is that happens after death (WITHAD) exists whether or not someone believes in its existence, then WITHAD should occur for everyone.]

People like yourself, who have an open curiosity about life and afterlife, are probably more capable of staying sane for the time it would take to develope your 'extra-senses' after WITHAD. People with closed minds (I know you've met a few!) would stay in their looped, fear-filled, made up minds until any hope of developing these senses was lost. Perhaps this is the sad spirit you hear late at night, who has the extra-senses available to him but is incapable of imagining they even exist.

 

[Imparcticle]

yikes! okay, here are the instructions again:
put quote in [] and at the end of what it is you wish to quote, put quote after the / in [/].

 

[Phi For All]

Do believe to understand each demenension, we need to have new senses that we never knew could even be possible (because in our 4D environment, we have no conception of anything above 4D)?

I do believe this. It would seem that sight and sound wouldn't do us much good if there is nothing to see or hear. What I'm not sure of is the possibility of accessing those extra-senses while still in this biological body. Are we so rigid in our thoughts and our knowledge based solely on personal experience that we can't imagine beyond the five senses we have?

We can detect and observe the wave state.

It was my understanding, limited though it may be, that we can detect the wave state, but direct observation was impossible. Experiments can show where particles have existed in wave state (much like spreading flour on the floor to detect cockroaches--you don't directly observe them, but you see their tracks in the flour), but direct observation collapses the wave state to the particle state. Therefore we can infer there is a wave state, but not state it as a fact. This would seem to be a judgement based on faith. We KNOW it exists, but we can't prove it directly. Am I wrong in this?

There are people who have no external feeling, are blind, deaf and have no voice. But they still have emotion. That is the ultimate thing...

Emotion would seem to be one of the few things not necessarily biologically based that would continue in our consciousness and therefore define our existence after death.

Do you mean to say that there are different ways of attaining faith in something?

I mean to say that faith in what we cannot observe directly does not need a specific set of rites or rituals in order to be valid. Just the fact that we are willing to think outside of empirical judgements might make us more receptive to an experience for which we can't have any frame of reference.

 

[loseyourname]

By the way guys, the other dimensions are said to be lower dimensions, not higher.

 

[Phi For All]

By the way guys, the other dimensions are said to be lower dimensions, not higher.

Is it just a terminology distinction, or is it due to their being smaller, or is it due to the perceived superiority of the dimensions we're familiar with?

 

[Al]

Hi people,

I'm new to the forum, joined out of curiosity, and thought it would be useful to warn everybody that I'm not a physics/neurology/philosophy expert. I'm however a biologist.

I would like to submit to your consideration a couple of thougths about death. It seems to me that the big question in the hard problem is to know if conciousness is a property of highly organized matter (the brain) or a property of the universe (i.e. time, space, matter/energy) accesed to by the brain. In the first case conciousness is a unique phenomenon, or event, in the history of Universe, and thus, it cannot be repeated. In the second, there is a possibility that a given conciousness is re-accessed by another "brain" (or a system with the analogous properties) and thus there may be a continuity. It seems however not plausible that memories are kept, as they are engraved in the brain. Thus, even in the event of continuity, a new persona is built...

 

[Phi For All]

Hello, Al! I salute a brave biologist who is looking to expand his sphere of knowledgeable topics.

It seems to me that the big question in the hard problem is to know if conciousness is a property of highly organized matter (the brain) or a property of the universe (i.e. time, space, matter/energy) accesed to by the brain.

I think when it comes to the subject of consciousness or soul, there have got to be more than two choices of properties!

In the first case conciousness is a unique phenomenon, or event, in the history of Universe, and thus, it cannot be repeated.

Do you mean that if it is a property of the brain and your brain stays here when you're dead, consciousness can't reappear where the brain isn't? I can definitely see your point there.

In the second, there is a possibility that a given conciousness is re-accessed by another "brain" (or a system with the analogous properties) and thus there may be a continuity.

This makes sense as well. Another possibility is that the brain or any system wth the analogous properties actually restrains our consciousness from its full potential. The body, including the brain, is known to have deleterious effects on the cognitive process. I like to think that Alzheimer's victims are freed from their confusion when they are freed from the need of a biological body. Could the lack of a body be the most wonderful thing that could ever happen to a consciousness?

It seems however not plausible that memories are kept, as they are engraved in the brain. Thus, even in the event of continuity, a new persona is built...

I'm glad you're a biologist, Al, so you can explain to me why memories are engraved in biological matter and not in our more ethereal consciousness. Don't get too technical on me; I'm not a physicist, mathemetician, biologist or anything like that. I'm a believer in pushing the pieces of the puzzle a little closer together every day.

 

[Imparcticle]

By the way guys, the other dimensions are said to be lower dimensions, not higher.

Actually, there are 8 extra dimensions predicted by M-theory which are higher demensions.

 

[Al]

[QUOTE=Phi For All]Hello, Al! I salute a brave biologist who is looking to expand his sphere of knowledgeable topics.I think when it comes to the subject of consciousness or soul, there have got to be more than two choices of properties! Do you mean that if it is a property of the brain and your brain stays here when you're dead, consciousness can't reappear where the brain isn't?  I can definitely see your point there.  This makes sense as well.  Another possibility is that the brain or any system wth the analogous properties actually restrains our consciousness from its full potential.  The body, including the brain, is known to have deleterious effects on the cognitive process.  I like to think that Alzheimer's victims are freed from their confusion when they are freed from the need of a biological body.  Could the lack of a body be the most wonderful thing that could ever happen to a consciousness?I'm glad you're a biologist, Al, so you can explain to me why memories are engraved in biological matter and not in our more ethereal consciousness.  Don't get too technical on me; I'm not a physicist, mathemetician, biologist or anything like that.  I'm a believer in pushing the pieces of the puzzle a little closer together every day.[/QUOTE]


As a biologist I'm forced to stand by the side scientists, which means that I cannot assume the existence of a metaphysic aspect of the universe. The only way I can acces this notion is by proving, by logic or empirically, that physical mechanisms are not sufficient to explain the universe.  

From this point of view, study of conciousness (I'm only starting to gent acquainted with the field) seems to be divided in two major trends, dualists and materialists.  The first think that conciousness is a property of the universe, that there is a consciousness universal "field" in the same way there is space, time, energy and matter. Conciousness would some how arise from interaction with certains types of organized energy/matter systems, as the brain (maybe very complex computers?)  However, the point about this conciousness field being "more" or "less" conscious than the brain level remains obscure.  

The second trend would be materialism, people that think that conciousness is a property created by the brain structure, and honestly it seems to work perfectly well, except in one point:  why, of all possible concousness created by all possible brains, are you experiencing [I]yours[/I]?  (Do I make myself clear?)

About memory, well, neurobiologists have shown it has strange properties, like the short-term/long-term dichotomy and their interaction. For exemple, events are not accesible while the are transiting from one to another.  Try to remember a song you heard only once, three days ago, and try again a moth later, you will see what I'm talking about.  Even if the neurons in charge of memory accession have been pinpointed, it is true that they could onbly be "accesing" and not "storing" information.  I would like to have the advice of a information theorician, as to know if information is necessarily a state of matter, or even if there is such a thing as information, I mean, does it correspond to a real feature of the world or is it only the value that we assign to different states of it.

 

[Imparcticle]

The second trend would be materialism, people that think that conciousness is a property created by the brain structure, and honestly it seems to work perfectly well, except in one point: why, of all possible concousness created by all possible brains, are you experiencing yours? (Do I make myself clear?)

No, not quite. I'm not sure about your final question.

As a biologist I'm forced to stand by the side scientists, which means that I cannot assume the existence of a metaphysic aspect of the universe. The only way I can acces this notion is by proving, by logic or empirically, that physical mechanisms are not sufficient to explain the universe.

 

[Al]

Assigning a property to matter implies that we can appreciate the property in all matter, if not to the same extent. Conciousness is subjective, we cannot appreciate it in other brains. We can only inferre it from the behavior of the others by comparison with our own experience. So defining conciousness as a property of matter organized in a particular fashion does not seem to fit the fact that conciousness is subjective.

Why the way, what did say that is funny? is there green on my post?

 

[Imparcticle]

Assigning a property to matter implies that we can appreciate the property in all matter, if not to the same extent. Conciousness is subjective, we cannot appreciate it in other brains. We can only inferre it from the behavior of the others by comparison with our own experience. So defining conciousness as a property of matter organized in a particular fashion does not seem to fit the fact that conciousness is subjective.

But consciousness, whether it is a characteristic of several other brains, must have a common factor for us to classify it as consciousness.

Why the way, what did say that is funny? is there green on my post?

no, it wasn't funny. It was just that I was glad you're pragmatic. no, there is not green on your post. the smilie (as it is called) just comes that way, in that color.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, there are 8 extra dimensions predicted by M-theory which are higher demensions.

I thought it was 7. What theory predicts 8? And they are lower dimensions. Space can move through time, time can't move through space, making time a higher dimension. These 7 (or 8, if that is indeed the case) are all spatial dimensions, so they can't be higher than time. They are lower dimensions.

 

[Phi For All]

Space can move through time, time can't move through space, making time a higher dimension. These 7 (or 8, if that is indeed the case) are all spatial dimensions, so they can't be higher than time. They are lower dimensions.

I think I see what you're getting at, it's the numerical sequence. If M-theory states that Time is the 11th dimension, all the spatial ones are lower than 11. Is that right? Also, loseyourname, if space can move through time, are dimensions 4-10 moving through time as well or could they be outside of it? I have lots of sheer, unscientific speculation on this but I'll wait to post it till I hear back from someone.

 

[loseyourname]

Yeah, that is pretty much what I'm thinking. I suppose no dimension is higher or lower than any other in any non-arbitrary way. None is above the others.

To answer your question, all of the spatial dimensions would travel through time. That is why I wanted to clear up the confusion, though. Referring to them as "higher" dimensions makes it sound as if they exist outside of time, when they do not.

 

[Imparcticle]

I thought it was 7. What theory predicts 8? And they are lower dimensions. Space can move through time, time can't move through space, making time a higher dimension. These 7 (or 8, if that is indeed the case) are all spatial dimensions, so they can't be higher than time. They are lower dimensions.

Yes, it is 7 dimensions; I get it confused.
Anyway, what law says time has to be the highest demension possible? Time is an intrinsic property of all spatial demensions. Therefore, time passes for spatial demension 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity is based on the idea that time and space are intrinsically linked. This includes all other dimensions, whether they be higher or lower relative to the temporal demension (4D).

 

[Phi For All]

To answer your question, all of the spatial dimensions would travel through time. That is why I wanted to clear up the confusion, though. Referring to them as "higher" dimensions makes it sound as if they exist outside of time, when they do not.

I JUST posted this in the Michio Kaku forum two minutes ago under a thread about the god-like powers of a pan-dimensional creature & I thought you might get a kick out of it. I recently read an account by cartoonist Grant Morrison. While in the Far East, he had apparently been abducted, not by aliens, but by higher dimensional creatures. His initial "ride" was much as previosly described in this thread, being lifted from the familiar, moving through blob-like regions and seeing space, time and the universe all at once in its infinity. The beings caused him to know that we (humans) are all basically larvae being bred in the lower three dimensions, planted in time, so we can eventually become higher dimensional beings like them, outside of time.

Grant claimed he wasn't "on" anything...

 

[Imparcticle]

I think I see what you're getting at, it's the numerical sequence. If M-theory states that Time is the 11th dimension, all the spatial ones are lower than 11. Is that right?

M-theory does not state time is the 11th demension. The 11th dimension, as far as I know has not been determined yet. Time is known as the 4th dimension.

Also, loseyourname, if space can move through time, are dimensions 4-10 moving through time as well or could they be outside of it?

You mean 1-11 dimensions? 1-3 are also linked to time. Einstein proved that time and space are inexorably linked. It is not possible for a demension to move outside of time. Phi for All, think about it. Motion is displacement through time. Therefore, motion without time is no motion at all; it is impossible.

I have lots of sheer, unscientific speculation on this but I'll wait to post it till I hear back from someone.

post away.

 

[Imparcticle]

I JUST posted this in the Michio Kaku forum two minutes ago under a thread about the god-like powers of a pan-dimensional creature & I thought you might get a kick out of it. I recently read an account by cartoonist Grant Morrison. While in the Far East, he had apparently been abducted, not by aliens, but by higher dimensional creatures. His initial "ride" was much as previosly described in this thread, being lifted from the familiar, moving through blob-like regions and seeing space, time and the universe all at once in its infinity. The beings caused him to know that we (humans) are all basically larvae being bred in the lower three dimensions, planted in time, so we can eventually become higher dimensional beings like them, outside of time.

Kidnapped by higher dimensional beings??! LOL! That's interesting, 'cause according to M-theory, the higher dimensions are all at Planck's length in a calibi-yau orbifolds. these higher demensional creatures must be smaller than Planck's length. Planck's length, by the way is the smallest size anything can theoretically assume. When I say theoretically, I mean it has been proven mathematically at least.

 

[Phi For All]

these higher demensional creatures must be smaller than Planck's length.

Actually, the way I thought about it was more like these creatures, rather than "existing" in the higher dimensions (at Planck length), simply had access to them. They existed in more than 3D but were visible to us in only 3D unless they chose to take us into the higher dimensions the way Grant says they did with him.

My problem with this was the whole "outside of time" thing. Doesn't time exist in all spatial dimensions because time and space are interdependent, that time=space? The idea of time and entropy being manipulated does pose some intriguing possibilities...

 

[Iacchus32]

I JUST posted this in the Michio Kaku forum two minutes ago under a thread about the god-like powers of a pan-dimensional creature & I thought you might get a kick out of it. I recently read an account by cartoonist Grant Morrison. While in the Far East, he had apparently been abducted, not by aliens, but by higher dimensional creatures. His initial "ride" was much as previosly described in this thread, being lifted from the familiar, moving through blob-like regions and seeing space, time and the universe all at once in its infinity. The beings caused him to know that we (humans) are all basically larvae being bred in the lower three dimensions, planted in time, so we can eventually become higher dimensional beings like them, outside of time.

Grant claimed he wasn't "on" anything...

I think what you're referring to here are spirits, and yes, I think this is what accounts for most instances of "alien abduction."

 

[Kerrie]

If someone is dead, do they still exist?

"they" exist in memory :shy: physically, the body will not remain existing due to the process of decay...which begs the question: does our "soul" keeps our physical body alive along with our personality?

 

[honestrosewater]

Shakespeare's 74th Sonnet

But be contented: when that fell arrest
Without all bail shall carry me away,
My life hath in this line some interest,
Which for memorial still with thee shall stay.
When thou reviewest this, thou dost review
The very part was consecrate to thee:
The Earth can have but earth, which is his due;
My spirit is thine, the better part of me:
So then thou hast but lost the dregs of life,
The prey of worms, my body being dead,
The coward conquest of a wretch's knife,
Too base of thee to be remembered.
The worth of that is that which it contains,
And that is this, and this with thee remains.