LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Fast Lorentz transforms: was Why is the square of the universal speed limit the amount of energy?
Next: -*MARK*- meet George Re: LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
From: George Hammond on 4 May 2010 00:23 On Mon, 3 May 2010 02:14:03 -0700 (PDT), "bigfletch8(a)gmail.com" <bigfletch8(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > SNIP > > [Hammond] By the way BOfL, turns out you are NOT a physicist... I had you confused with someone else. From your Google posting record you are apparenly a "philawsephy" major and spend most of your time commenting on amateur odd ball subjects on the non-hard-science yak-yak newsgroups. This would explain the utter lack of any hard science or technically compent content in your post. Obviously you have nothing of interest to say to me. Sorry I bothered you.... case of mistaken identity. ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: Immortalist on 4 May 2010 01:22 On May 2, 2:01 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH > > Copyright George Hammond 2010 > > Note: "LAD" = "Life After Death" > > Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies > > It occurs to me that there must be certain structural > rules as to what can or cannot occur in life after death > (LAD). If we assume that LAD is basically a revisitation of > Earthly life, then the first thing we deduce is that it > cannot be possible for you to return to Earth at a date > later your date of death. The reason for this is simple; it > would be possible for you to meet someone who had attended > your funeral or read your obituary and knew that you were > already dead. This would present an illogical paradox which > cannot be allowed in our scientific view of LAD. > What if there were a perfectly good explanation as to why you have reappeared on earth. In the future it may be possible to create "resurrection machines" like the brain works now constantly resurrecting each of us throughout each day. If so then I doubt it would be disturbing that people were walking around after the date of their natural death. (just for the sake of argument I am pointing out that in logic what you describe is contingent and not necessary) Were you possible before you were born? If not how could you have possibly been born? Where does that possibility go when you die? It may be possible for us to exist throughout the time that this universe exists. I am not saying we will but that if biology and evolution have discovered the possibilities of me and you why could we humans learn to emulate these biological and evolutionary events? > So the first structural rule must be that you can never > observe a calendar day which postdates the date of your > death. Likewise, you apparently cannot meet people who are > already dead in Heaven at a date later than the date of > their death either, because other people still alive would > likewise notice them also! > This argument seems to make the possibility of LAD less likely. > This it would appear is not a great problem. In the first > place we expect that LAD will largely be a biographical life > review, in other words most of it will take place in the > past. Visions from your childhood your adolescence, > middle-age etc. etc. etc. All of this occurred long before > your death. > This argument seems to make the possibility of LAD even less likely. > So I assume in the first place that it is not true that > the only people you see in Heaven are people who are already > dead- in fact just the opposite is true... you only see > dead people by returning to an earlier date when both you > and they, were both alive! Most of the people you see in > Heaven will probably still be alive on Earth, however, you > will not see them after the date of your death. > At this point you have almost destroyed the possibility of any LAD according to your logic. > Now arises the question of Beatification. One assumes > that the first principle or essential-reason for life after > death is the Beatification of the body and obtaining the > Beatific Vision. So the question is; will you be walking > around in the world with a Beatified body and looking like > God himself? Obviously this would present a problem, indeed > you would obviously start a riot if you ever appeared in > public in such a form. Okay then, I presume then that the > Beatification must be mental rather than physical at least > during the period of life review. In other words you will > revisit old situations and old scenes but you will see them > with "new eyes" and perhaps with a new body sensorially > speaking but not a new body appearance wise. In other words > you will be transformed or beatified psychologically and > spiritually but your appearance will not change. > > This of course is getting complicated and it appears to > be the beginning of complications for the theory. For > instance if you revisit an old scene and with your newfound > powers act differently, this would alter the entire history > of your life.... so what would become of the rest of the > life review? We simply can't believe that you live life all > over again in a completely altered form and totally new > course of events. That is simply too complicated. No, if > there is LAD, I think you must simply revisit the old scenes > but see them with new eyes... and this ever-increasing > Beatific perception of your past life builds finally to a > level of complete Beatific Vision at the end of your life > history. In other words you revisit your entire past life > with an "invisible" transformed spirit but wearing your old > body appearancewise in the various scenarios. Apparently, > you don't do anything differently that would alter the > recorded biography of your life. > On the other hand there may be additional scenarios that > are not part of a conventional biographical life review in > which you may take different actions and do or accomplish > additional things without logically upsetting your world > history. > Naturally if you have a Beatified body you would > certainly want to run and jump and water-ski and drive a > sports car at 150 miles an hour and experience all the > pleasures of a perfect body. There is certainly no reason > why you couldn't do this without altering the course of > world history or your own recorded biography. Consider for > a moment how complex an ordinary nocturnal dream is, and yet > while you're experiencing the dream nothing seems logically > impossible. We must assume that the same power is at work > in LAD if it exists. > > Meanwhile I am still trying to develop an overall opinion > as to the probability of the existence of LAD. Its as probable as life is now. As long as all the necessary and sufficient conditions are met, like they are now in the activities of your body and specifically the activities of your nervous system, your life happens. I doubt if there evolved another place that is similar to earth and biology on it, that is on its own like it did here on earth, at the same time it did on earth, but who know, it is not determinable either way. Once thing seems evident though, and that is it must be possible for us to exist right now. > In the first > place, I now believe if it exists that it is, or must be, a > revisit with full bodily senses of our everyday worldly > environment.... but of course this environment is actually > what we call a "virtual reality".... even though it looks > exactly like the Earth we just left! If this is true, what > it means is that we must have a DOUBLE BODY! The neuronal > system of the brain is the first body and the microtubule > system of the brain constitutes a SECOND BODY! Hence if we > have two bodies we experience two lives before we finally > expire permanently. In the Microtubule-Body we achieve the > Beatific vision which by definition is a condition of > "eternal life" because it has ZERO TIME DILATION . > > So the previous paragraph brings us around to the > question of the scientific explanation of the SOUL . The > microtubule system in the brain must in fact be the physical > embodiment of the SOUL ! > > So it turns out the Greeks were correct, the Soul is > IMMORTAL, and now we know WHY! > I doubt that there are forms that exist out there like souls of everything that could possibly exist but there are at least "possible patterns" that can take place and I doubt that the self is immortal but is an "immortal possibility" if the right conditions are met. This probably with human technology that imitates nature in the far future. > George Hammond, M.S. Physics > > Reference: The Scientific Proof of God:http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html > ======================================== > GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE > Primary sitehttp://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond > Mirror site > http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com > HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto > http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 > ======================================= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_CqOd1zSxc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuxB3GWwKes
From: George Hammond on 4 May 2010 01:46 On Mon, 3 May 2010 02:56:02 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. HotSalt" <alien8752(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 2, 2:14�pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: >> LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH >> >> Copyright George Hammond 2010 >> >> Note: � �"LAD" = "Life After Death" >> >> Note: � �Please point out any logical inconsistencies >> >> � �It occurs to me that there must be certain structural >> rules as to what can or cannot occur in life after death >> (LAD). �If we assume that LAD is basically a revisitation of >> Earthly life, then the first thing we deduce is that it >> cannot be possible for you to return to Earth at a date >> later your date of death. The reason for this is simple; it >> would be possible for you to meet someone who had attended >> your funeral or read your obituary and knew that you were >> already dead. �This would present an illogical paradox which >> cannot be allowed in our scientific view of LAD. >> >> � � So the first structural rule must be that you can never >> observe a calendar day which postdates the date of your >> death. �Likewise, you apparently cannot meet people who are >> already dead in Heaven at a date later than the date of >> their death either, because other people still alive would >> likewise notice them also! � >> >> � �This it would appear is not a great problem. In the first >> place we expect that LAD will largely be a biographical life >> review, in other words most of it will take place in the >> past. Visions from your childhood your adolescence, >> middle-age etc. etc. etc. All of this occurred long before >> your death. >> >> � �So I assume in the first place that it is not true that >> the only people you see in Heaven are people who are already >> dead- �in fact just the opposite is true... you only see >> dead people by returning to an earlier date when both you >> and they, were both alive! Most of the people you see in >> Heaven will probably still be alive on Earth, however, you >> will not see them after the date of your death. >> >> � �Now arises the question of Beatification. One assumes >> that the first principle or essential-reason for life after >> death is the Beatification of the body and obtaining the >> Beatific Vision. �So the question is; will you be walking >> around in the world with a Beatified body and looking like >> God himself? Obviously this would present a problem, indeed >> you would obviously start a riot if you ever appeared in >> public in such a form. Okay then, I presume then that the >> Beatification must be mental rather than physical at least >> during the period of life review. In other words you will >> revisit old situations and old scenes but you will see them >> with "new eyes" and perhaps with a new body sensorially >> speaking but not a new body appearance wise. In other words >> you will be transformed or beatified psychologically and >> spiritually but your appearance will not change. >> � �This of course is getting complicated and it appears to >> be the beginning of complications for the theory. For >> instance if you revisit an old scene and with your newfound >> powers act differently, this would alter the entire history >> of your life.... so what would become of the rest of the >> life review? We simply can't believe that you live life all >> over again in a completely altered form and totally new >> course of events. �That is simply too complicated. �No, if >> there is LAD, I think you must simply revisit the old scenes >> but see them with new eyes... and this ever-increasing >> Beatific perception of your past life builds finally to a >> level of complete Beatific Vision at the end of your life >> history. In other words you revisit your entire past life >> with an "invisible" transformed spirit but wearing your old >> body appearancewise in the various scenarios. Apparently, >> you don't do anything differently that would alter the >> recorded biography of your life. >> � �On the other hand there may be additional scenarios that >> are not part of a conventional biographical life review in >> which you may take different actions and do or accomplish >> additional things without logically upsetting your world >> history. >> � �Naturally if you have a Beatified body you would >> certainly want to run and jump and water-ski and drive a >> sports car at 150 miles an hour and experience all the >> pleasures of a perfect body. �There is certainly no reason >> why you couldn't do this without altering the course of >> world history or your own recorded biography. �Consider for >> a moment how complex an ordinary nocturnal dream is, and yet >> while you're experiencing the dream nothing seems logically >> impossible. �We must assume that the same power is at work >> in LAD if it exists. >> >> � �Meanwhile I am still trying to develop an overall opinion >> as to the probability of the existence of LAD. In the first >> place, I now believe if it exists that it is, or must be, a >> revisit with full bodily senses of our everyday worldly >> environment.... but of course this environment is actually >> what we call a "virtual reality".... even though it looks >> exactly like the Earth we just left! �If this is true, what >> it means is that we must have a DOUBLE BODY! �The neuronal >> system of the brain is the first body and the microtubule >> system of the brain constitutes a SECOND BODY! �Hence if we >> have two bodies we experience two lives before we finally >> expire permanently. In the Microtubule-Body we achieve the >> Beatific vision which by definition is a condition of >> "eternal life" because it has ZERO TIME DILATION . > > > [Hammond] Hi Mark. Please tell me what newsgroup you are posting from as I don't want to blast this all over the place especially to alt.atheism unless you happen to be posting from thiere. PLEASE TELL ME WHERE YOU'RE POSTING FROM!!!!!! Secondly I do want to tell you how refreshing it is to talk to someone who signs their real name to their posts! this of course gives you instant face validity! I just got through talking to BOfL who I thought was a physicist but it turns out he's not and I'm rather disappointed about that. Do you have any idea who BOfL actually is? he's got his picture posted on Google and he looks like he's at least of average intelligence middle-class white male college graduate middle-aged... apparently a philosophy major and/or gadfly who likes to yak a lot and hear himself talk. While BOfL turns out to be another idiot son of the rich, you of course have a solidly middle-class and respectable name and reputation so at least we know who you are. In fact I think my first Internet contact with you goes back almost 20 years! By the way, I am using Dragon-10 voice-recognition which goes at 140 words a minute which explains the wordiness of my reply. I appreciate the fact that you have to sit there and pound on a stone age keyboard to reply to me. > > > >[Ferguson] > A few things come to mind. > > AIUI you defined BGD as the adult *neuronal brain's* fraction of >developent short of its full genetic potential. > > Does the Microtubule-Body, supported by the incompletely developed >neuronal brain, consequently have its own BGD? Seems to me it must, >hence there's a limit on how "Beatified" one can be. (Do they >correlate directly?) > > > [Hammond] thanks for that statement Ferguson... you have of course hit the nail right on the head as far as a major burr under the saddle in my theory. The microtubule system is inside the cells of the neuronal system, so like you say, if there is in the neuronal shortage, then you would think there is a microtubule shortage!!!! however, as you further go on to say "they don't necessarily correlate"... what this simply means is that there may be enough capacity in the microtubule system to do the job of life after death, even though it isn't big enough to give us full flat space perception ( beatific vision) in the real body during life. As they say you have struck the central nerve of the theory. The question being: ..................................................... If the brain, because it is not fully grown, is unable to give us full (beatific) vision during life-- then how in heck is a possible that it can do so after we are dead? HOW DOES THE MICROTUBULE SYSTEM "UNCURVE" THE DEATH DREAM? .................................................... Okay, there are two possible answers to this question: 1. It is possible that the microtubule system actually receives a flat-space version of our reality, and the problem is simply that the neuronal system doesn't have enough neurons to display it.... therefore we see the flat-version after death in the "microtubule-world". 2. The other possibility is that the microtubule system actually "mathematically-uncurves" these so-called death-dream. This is not as far-fetched as it seems!! it turns out that visual input for instance is stored as a "hologram" in the visual cortex memory. A remarkable series of experiments about 10 years ago proved that the memory is actually a Fourier transform in both space and time of the visual input. this means that the so-called space and time dilation is a relativity are merely "simple frequency shifts" in the holographic memory system. It turns out that the brain could EASILY buy a simple analog method "UNCURVE" our world into flat-space-time ( a.k.a. Heaven). Now of the above two possibilities, the first is simpler than the second, so using Occam's razor I am assuming that the first assumption is true rather than the second. But nature is very amazing, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the second proposition turns out to be true! At any rate, I firmly believe that it is well within credible off-the-shelf science to believe that the microtubule system in the brain is fully capable of producing a flat-spacetime version of our world in the afterlife.... if indeed there is an afterlife! > > > > You said: > >> On the other hand there may be additional scenarios that >> are not part of a conventional biographical life review in >> which you may take different actions and do or accomplish >> additional things without logically upsetting your world >> history. > > I translate that as to make permutations of experienced events or >fragments thereof, but there will be things you *cannot* do *because* >they would "logically upset your world history". They'd be events the >neuronal brain had *not* processed as sensory inputs before its >chemical death, which you said it can't do, and with which I agree. > > [Hammond] Yes we agree on that and as Frank Tipler puts it: "Even God can't do something that is logically impossible", which is a statement that I thoroughly agree with. > > > > That's a huge blind spot, a kind of "event horizon". That means >perception-space curvature, which inevitably means *perceived* time >dilation. > > It isn't necessarily strongly correlated, but it's definitely >nonzero. > > It will indisputably be able to remember/relive/reshuffle everything >the neuronal brain *did* process though, and as perfectly as its BGD >allows. > > But not infinitely fast; yes, we're talking infinitesimal shifts in >the probability waves sloshing this way and that in the network of all >the microtubules in every neuron but by definition, it takes nonzero >time for any nonzero-energy quantum state change. > > > > [Hammond] I've kind of lost your drift here... but on the subject of speed and being "infinitely fast" etc. etc...... let me point out that the microtubule system operates at microwave to infrared frequencies which are nearly a billion times faster than neuronal firing frequency. By comparison then, the microtubule system DOES act almost "instantly" in comparison to the neuronal system! > > >> � �So the previous paragraph brings us around to the >> question of the scientific explanation of the SOUL . �The >> microtubule system in the brain must in fact be the physical >> embodiment of the SOUL ! > > Yup. > > [Hammond] YUP......and I'll be a sonofabitch.... they're right, their apparently actually is a real "soul". > > >> � �So it turns out the Greeks were correct, the Soul is >> IMMORTAL, and now we know WHY! > > Subjectively immortal, possibly, but not objectively. > > [Hammond] Yeah but you say that so lightly... as if the distinction between subjective and objective is merely an academic distinction! ITS NOT ... in fact the distinction is a matter of LIFE VERSUS DEATH !! I think what you fail to realize is that only in academic textbooks is "objective reality"more important than "subjective reality" in real life, "subjective reality" is far more vital and important then "objective reality". And the reason for this, is that no one's actual human sensory system is capable of seeing "objective reality"... all anyone's sensory system is capable of seeing and experiencing is in fact "subjective reality". This is why the theoretical physics is a study of the laws of objective reality, while religion and God is a study of the laws of subjective reality. Turns out the latter is more difficult than the former. Any high school student can learn the laws of physics, but it takes a learned and highly experienced public authority to learn the laws of religion! > > > The >wavefunctions supported by the microtubules must decay as the >cytoskeleta of the brain decay and connectivity erodes. > > [Hammond] whoa professor.... the downloading of the afterlife dream from the cytoskeleton only takes a fraction of a second, I'll repeat that, a FRACTION ON A SECOND. The cytoskeleton of the brain on the other hand is known to remain viable for minutes... as long as 30 minutes in fact. Death and decay is far too slow to have any effect whatsoever on the afterlife. In fact a speeding bullet is too slow to have any effect on the afterlife. In fact, by my calculations, even an atomic bomb blast is too slow to prevent the afterlife! > > > The "Soul" may not notice; it's horizon could just shrink and >eventually collapse with the destruction of the last tubules, but >it'll be able to *perfectly* remember etc. what it can, while it can. > > > [Hammond] you have to realize that the term "eternal life" does not denote an infinite LENGTH of time, it did notes VANISHING DILATION of time. Because of the brain growth deficit we experienced a 10, 20 or 30% time dilation in this life. This causes all the ills and suffering of his life. In the afterlife there is a zero time dilation... which is a de facto "condition" of eternal life. Yes, and it's true that some time after you achieve a state of "eternal life" you will die... a car might hit you, you might fall off a cliff, you could drown, you could die of AIDS.... but the point is, if you are in a "condition" of eternal life when it happens.... it is absolutely IRRELEVANT... it is meaningless... as the Christians put it.... "death is swallowed up in victory".... and believe me as a physicist I happen to know what they're talking about an absolutely true scientific fact! > > > > Unless you have in mind another possible mode of support for what is >basically not a structure, but a pattern? > > > [Hammond] well, as they say, I am not totally sure whether option 1) or option 2) above is correct. But in either case we are talking about physical structure... i.e. the physical structure of the microwave readout of the "death dream" from the microtubule cytoskeleton.> > > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > [Hammond] thanks Mark.......... always a pleasure to talk to you... you're one of the few people I know who actually has his head screwed on straight! by the way, I apologize for the lack of capitalization at the beginning of sentences in this post, I am dictating directly into Forte Agent which is not one of Dragon-10's approved dictation programs... it seems to work okay... the only thing is that it does not capitalize the first word of the sentences....#$%##..... George. ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: George Hammond on 4 May 2010 02:40 On Mon, 3 May 2010 22:22:27 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist <reanimater_2000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On May 2, 2:01 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: >> LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH >> >> Copyright George Hammond 2010 >> >> Note: "LAD" = "Life After Death" >> >> Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies >> >> It occurs to me that there must be certain structural >> rules as to what can or cannot occur in life after death >> (LAD). If we assume that LAD is basically a revisitation of >> Earthly life, then the first thing we deduce is that it >> cannot be possible for you to return to Earth at a date >> later your date of death. The reason for this is simple; it >> would be possible for you to meet someone who had attended >> your funeral or read your obituary and knew that you were >> already dead. This would present an illogical paradox which >> cannot be allowed in our scientific view of LAD. >> > >[Immortalist] >What if there were a perfectly good explanation as to why you have >reappeared on earth. In the future it may be possible to create >"resurrection machines" like the brain works now constantly >resurrecting each of us throughout each day. If so then I doubt it >would be disturbing that people were walking around after the date of >their natural death. (just for the sake of argument I am pointing out >that in logic what you describe is contingent and not necessary) > > > [Hammond] Prof. Frank Tipler has already done what you're talking about in his celebrated 1994 book entitled "The Physics of Immortality". So you're not telling us anything new. What I'm here to tell you is that you don't have to build Tipler's astronomically sized computer to do the job..... a far more probably in my opinion is that the newly discovered microtubule computer already extant in the brain actually does just exactly that.... resurrects us to "Heaven" after we die! So please.... were not interested in talking about science fiction here for Christ sakes! we're here to debate scientific fact! > > > >Were you possible before you were born? > > [Hammond} I didn't exist before I was born... end of argument! No DNA, no microtubules, no brain cells.... no physical structure called Hammond existed! this is NOT the same situation as Hammond 1 second after death! 1 second after death my microtubules system is still functioning and could easily produce a "full virtual reality world and body"for me that would constitute "life after death"so-called. Now that is not a SCIENCE FICTION proposal.... that is a credible and competent SCIENTIFIC THEORY. > > > snip > >> So the first structural rule must be that you can never >> observe a calendar day which postdates the date of your >> death. Likewise, you apparently cannot meet people who are >> already dead in Heaven at a date later than the date of >> their death either, because other people still alive would >> likewise notice them also! >> > >This argument seems to make the possibility of LAD less likely. > > [Hammond] hardly. The devil is in the details... and here we see a situation where the details actually work out and fit the theory. It is a success or failure of this kind of detailed analysis that gives us an intuition as to whether or not the theory is actually true. So far I haven't seen any detail that indicates that the theory is wrong! perhaps you could think of one..... i.e. some reason why my microtubule theory of life after death is impossible. until I hear of such a detail I'm going to continue to believe the theory is quite possibly correct! > > > >> This it would appear is not a great problem. In the first >> place we expect that LAD will largely be a biographical life >> review, in other words most of it will take place in the >> past. Visions from your childhood your adolescence, >> middle-age etc. etc. etc. All of this occurred long before >> your death. >> > >This argument seems to make the possibility of LAD even less likely. > > > {Hammond] Na.... as pointed out above, the microtubule-cytoskeleton life after death the scheme HANDILY beats back all of these objections. In fact there is no credible scientific objection to the theory at this point. even Stuart Hameroff himself, The world's leading authority on microtubules, said that he thinks the theory is "possible"! see letter from Prof. Stuart Hameroff here:: http://independent.academia.edu/GeorgeHammond/Blog/1351/Microtubules-and-Life-After-Death > > > > >> So I assume in the first place that it is not true that >> the only people you see in Heaven are people who are already >> dead- in fact just the opposite is true... you only see >> dead people by returning to an earlier date when both you >> and they, were both alive! Most of the people you see in >> Heaven will probably still be alive on Earth, however, you >> will not see them after the date of your death. >> > >At this point you have almost destroyed the possibility of any LAD >according to your logic. > > > [Hammond] Na... that's an unsupported assertion.... no one is swayed by unsupported assertions.... you have to explain WHY you are making the assertion. Obviously your assertion makes no sense whatsoever. > > >> Now arises the question of Beatification. One assumes >> that the first principle or essential-reason for life after >> death is the Beatification of the body and obtaining the >> Beatific Vision. So the question is; will you be walking >> around in the world with a Beatified body and looking like >> God himself? Obviously this would present a problem, indeed >> you would obviously start a riot if you ever appeared in >> public in such a form. Okay then, I presume then that the >> Beatification must be mental rather than physical at least >> during the period of life review. In other words you will >> revisit old situations and old scenes but you will see them >> with "new eyes" and perhaps with a new body sensorially >> speaking but not a new body appearance wise. In other words >> you will be transformed or beatified psychologically and >> spiritually but your appearance will not change. >> >> This of course is getting complicated and it appears to >> be the beginning of complications for the theory. For >> instance if you revisit an old scene and with your newfound >> powers act differently, this would alter the entire history >> of your life.... so what would become of the rest of the >> life review? We simply can't believe that you live life all >> over again in a completely altered form and totally new >> course of events. That is simply too complicated. No, if >> there is LAD, I think you must simply revisit the old scenes >> but see them with new eyes... and this ever-increasing >> Beatific perception of your past life builds finally to a >> level of complete Beatific Vision at the end of your life >> history. In other words you revisit your entire past life >> with an "invisible" transformed spirit but wearing your old >> body appearancewise in the various scenarios. Apparently, >> you don't do anything differently that would alter the >> recorded biography of your life. >> On the other hand there may be additional scenarios that >> are not part of a conventional biographical life review in >> which you may take different actions and do or accomplish >> additional things without logically upsetting your world >> history. >> Naturally if you have a Beatified body you would >> certainly want to run and jump and water-ski and drive a >> sports car at 150 miles an hour and experience all the >> pleasures of a perfect body. There is certainly no reason >> why you couldn't do this without altering the course of >> world history or your own recorded biography. Consider for >> a moment how complex an ordinary nocturnal dream is, and yet >> while you're experiencing the dream nothing seems logically >> impossible. We must assume that the same power is at work >> in LAD if it exists. >> >> Meanwhile I am still trying to develop an overall opinion >> as to the probability of the existence of LAD. > >Its as probable as life is now. > > [Hammond] that's just another handwaving unsupported assertion drawn from elementary philosophy..... it has no weight in a detailed scientific discussion such as this. > > > As long as all the necessary and >sufficient conditions are met, like they are now in the activities of >your body and specifically the activities of your nervous system, your >life happens. I doubt if there evolved another place that is similar >to earth and biology on it, that is on its own like it did here on >earth, at the same time it did on earth, but who know, it is not >determinable either way. > >Once thing seems evident though, and that is it must be possible for >us to exist right now. > > > [Hammond] well okay now you're saying something.... what you're saying is that you find the idea of a "virtual reality" afterlife to be credible. but that's simply puts you in the camp of hundreds of millions of Christians who believe the same thing for 2000 years.... and yet none of them can PROVE IT or even present a credible scientific proposal for how it would work. I am the first one in history to present a credible scientific proposal for how it could work...and that is what we are here to discuss. HOWEVER.... I do find that your philosophical opinion that the idea of a "virtual" or "spiritual" afterlife is credible to be yet another weighty piece of "intuitive" evidence supporting the theory. > > > >> In the first >> place, I now believe if it exists that it is, or must be, a >> revisit with full bodily senses of our everyday worldly >> environment.... but of course this environment is actually >> what we call a "virtual reality".... even though it looks >> exactly like the Earth we just left! If this is true, what >> it means is that we must have a DOUBLE BODY! The neuronal >> system of the brain is the first body and the microtubule >> system of the brain constitutes a SECOND BODY! Hence if we >> have two bodies we experience two lives before we finally >> expire permanently. In the Microtubule-Body we achieve the >> Beatific vision which by definition is a condition of >> "eternal life" because it has ZERO TIME DILATION . >> >> So the previous paragraph brings us around to the >> question of the scientific explanation of the SOUL . The >> microtubule system in the brain must in fact be the physical >> embodiment of the SOUL ! >> >> So it turns out the Greeks were correct, the Soul is >> IMMORTAL, and now we know WHY! >> > >I doubt that there are forms that exist out there like souls of >everything that could possibly exist but there are at least "possible >patterns" that can take place and I doubt that the self is immortal >but is an "immortal possibility" if the right conditions are met. This >probably with human technology that imitates nature in the far future. > > > [Hammond] Na... you apparently misunderstand what I'm saying... what I'm saying is that IF the cytoskeleton-microtubule system actually does produce an electronic signal which floods the entire cytoskeleton of the body and produces a state of consciousness correctly called a "virtual reality"; then I argue that what else could we properly call this microtubule system other than the name "SOUL" !! > >> George Hammond, M.S. Physics >> >> Reference: The Scientific Proof of God:http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond/Hammond5s1.html ======================================== GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE Primary site http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond Mirror site http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com HAMMOND FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 =======================================
From: Dr. HotSalt on 4 May 2010 09:25
On May 3, 10:46 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > On Mon, 3 May 2010 02:56:02 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. HotSalt" > > <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On May 2, 2:14 pm, George Hammond <Nowhe...(a)notspam.com> wrote: > >> LOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF LIFE AFTER DEATH > > >> Copyright George Hammond 2010 > > >> Note: "LAD" = "Life After Death" > > >> Note: Please point out any logical inconsistencies > > >> It occurs to me that there must be certain structural > >> rules as to what can or cannot occur in life after death > >> (LAD). If we assume that LAD is basically a revisitation of > >> Earthly life, then the first thing we deduce is that it > >> cannot be possible for you to return to Earth at a date > >> later your date of death. The reason for this is simple; it > >> would be possible for you to meet someone who had attended > >> your funeral or read your obituary and knew that you were > >> already dead. This would present an illogical paradox which > >> cannot be allowed in our scientific view of LAD. > > >> So the first structural rule must be that you can never > >> observe a calendar day which postdates the date of your > >> death. Likewise, you apparently cannot meet people who are > >> already dead in Heaven at a date later than the date of > >> their death either, because other people still alive would > >> likewise notice them also! > > >> This it would appear is not a great problem. In the first > >> place we expect that LAD will largely be a biographical life > >> review, in other words most of it will take place in the > >> past. Visions from your childhood your adolescence, > >> middle-age etc. etc. etc. All of this occurred long before > >> your death. > > >> So I assume in the first place that it is not true that > >> the only people you see in Heaven are people who are already > >> dead- in fact just the opposite is true... you only see > >> dead people by returning to an earlier date when both you > >> and they, were both alive! Most of the people you see in > >> Heaven will probably still be alive on Earth, however, you > >> will not see them after the date of your death. > > >> Now arises the question of Beatification. One assumes > >> that the first principle or essential-reason for life after > >> death is the Beatification of the body and obtaining the > >> Beatific Vision. So the question is; will you be walking > >> around in the world with a Beatified body and looking like > >> God himself? Obviously this would present a problem, indeed > >> you would obviously start a riot if you ever appeared in > >> public in such a form. Okay then, I presume then that the > >> Beatification must be mental rather than physical at least > >> during the period of life review. In other words you will > >> revisit old situations and old scenes but you will see them > >> with "new eyes" and perhaps with a new body sensorially > >> speaking but not a new body appearance wise. In other words > >> you will be transformed or beatified psychologically and > >> spiritually but your appearance will not change. > >> This of course is getting complicated and it appears to > >> be the beginning of complications for the theory. For > >> instance if you revisit an old scene and with your newfound > >> powers act differently, this would alter the entire history > >> of your life.... so what would become of the rest of the > >> life review? We simply can't believe that you live life all > >> over again in a completely altered form and totally new > >> course of events. That is simply too complicated. No, if > >> there is LAD, I think you must simply revisit the old scenes > >> but see them with new eyes... and this ever-increasing > >> Beatific perception of your past life builds finally to a > >> level of complete Beatific Vision at the end of your life > >> history. In other words you revisit your entire past life > >> with an "invisible" transformed spirit but wearing your old > >> body appearancewise in the various scenarios. Apparently, > >> you don't do anything differently that would alter the > >> recorded biography of your life. > >> On the other hand there may be additional scenarios that > >> are not part of a conventional biographical life review in > >> which you may take different actions and do or accomplish > >> additional things without logically upsetting your world > >> history. > >> Naturally if you have a Beatified body you would > >> certainly want to run and jump and water-ski and drive a > >> sports car at 150 miles an hour and experience all the > >> pleasures of a perfect body. There is certainly no reason > >> why you couldn't do this without altering the course of > >> world history or your own recorded biography. Consider for > >> a moment how complex an ordinary nocturnal dream is, and yet > >> while you're experiencing the dream nothing seems logically > >> impossible. We must assume that the same power is at work > >> in LAD if it exists. > > >> Meanwhile I am still trying to develop an overall opinion > >> as to the probability of the existence of LAD. In the first > >> place, I now believe if it exists that it is, or must be, a > >> revisit with full bodily senses of our everyday worldly > >> environment.... but of course this environment is actually > >> what we call a "virtual reality".... even though it looks > >> exactly like the Earth we just left! If this is true, what > >> it means is that we must have a DOUBLE BODY! The neuronal > >> system of the brain is the first body and the microtubule > >> system of the brain constitutes a SECOND BODY! Hence if we > >> have two bodies we experience two lives before we finally > >> expire permanently. In the Microtubule-Body we achieve the > >> Beatific vision which by definition is a condition of > >> "eternal life" because it has ZERO TIME DILATION . > > [Hammond] > Hi Mark. Please tell me what newsgroup you are posting > from as I don't want to blast this all over the place > especially to alt.atheism unless you happen to be posting > from thiere. PLEASE TELL ME WHERE YOU'RE POSTING FROM!!!!!! alt.religion.kibology. That's why my screen name comes up as Dr. HotSalt. Long story. Yeah, ARK is largely about mockery, but since I don't mock you (much, and never about the SPOG) I suppose it would be more appropriate to hold the rest of this conversation elsewhere, say in SPR? Meanwhile, since I'm already typing... > Secondly I do want to tell you how refreshing it is to > talk to someone who signs their real name to their posts! > this of course gives you instant face validity! I usually sign ARK posts as the Dr., but in your case I used my real name so you'd know who you were talking to. > I just got through talking to BOfL who I thought was a > physicist but it turns out he's not and I'm rather > disappointed about that. Do you have any idea who BOfL > actually is? he's got his picture posted on Google and he > looks like he's at least of average intelligence > middle-class white male college graduate middle-aged... > apparently a philosophy major and/or gadfly who likes to yak > a lot and hear himself talk. Let's just say his reality hologram has rather poor resolution in the logic sections. See below. > While BOfL turns out to be another idiot son of the rich, > you of course have a solidly middle-class and respectable > name and reputation so at least we know who you are. In > fact I think my first Internet contact with you goes back > almost 20 years! Pert near. > By the way, I am using Dragon-10 voice-recognition which > goes at 140 words a minute which explains the wordiness of > my reply. I appreciate the fact that you have to sit there > and pound on a stone age keyboard to reply to me. Not a problem. I'd give the voice recognition route a try but despite having the kids and grandkids three states away I still have too much background noise. My wordiness is because I don't want to miss any steps. This is complicated. > >[Ferguson] > > A few things come to mind. > > > AIUI you defined BGD as the adult *neuronal brain's* fraction of > >developent short of its full genetic potential. > > > Does the Microtubule-Body, supported by the incompletely developed > >neuronal brain, consequently have its own BGD? Seems to me it must, > >hence there's a limit on how "Beatified" one can be. (Do they > >correlate directly?) > > [Hammond] > thanks for that statement Ferguson... you have of course > hit the nail right on the head as far as a major burr under > the saddle in my theory. > The microtubule system is inside the cells of the > neuronal system, so like you say, if there is in the > neuronal shortage, then you would think there is a > microtubule shortage!!!! > however, as you further go on to say "they don't > necessarily correlate"... what this simply means is that > there may be enough capacity in the microtubule system to do > the job of life after death, even though it isn't big enough > to give us full flat space perception ( beatific vision) in > the real body during life. > > As they say you have struck the central nerve of the > theory. The question being: > > .................................................... > If the brain, because it is not fully grown, is unable to > give us full (beatific) vision during life-- then how in > heck is a possible that it can do so after we are dead? [As an aside here I'd like to mention that I think we can have that vision during life (even though not quite fully), but for very short periods. In other words I think it is possible to think with the microtubule system, at least partly. I think that's what's happening when people successfully meditate, have "religious experiences", experience "altered states" etc.] > HOW DOES THE MICROTUBULE SYSTEM > "UNCURVE" THE DEATH DREAM? > ................................................... > > Okay, there are two possible answers to this question: > > 1. It is possible that the microtubule system actually > receives a flat-space version of our reality, and the > problem is simply that the neuronal system doesn't have > enough neurons to display it.... therefore we see the > flat-version after death in the "microtubule-world". In other words, the total *possible* information content of the microtubule system is equal to what a neuronal brain with a BGD of zero would perceive rather than being dependent on what the neuronal brain perceived while it lived. I am reminded of our conversation regarding the several distinct gods of humans, horses, and octopi. We agreed they must be species- specific. Obviously that means the structure of the neuronal brain has some influence on that of the microtubule "brain". It seems reasonable that each species, with zero BGD, will perceive its own version of flat psychological spacetime (God of the SPOG). Horses for instance probably experience the same emotions as humans (since the neuronal brain structures that mediate emotions are present in both species) but horses don't have the neuronal equipment for among other things calculus, hence their God of the SPOG will be a "lesser god" in those regards. But, its will never ever be able to perceive what the most profoundly limited human can (think what used to be called severe retardation), because its microtubule brain is inherently different. But how? > 2. The other possibility is that the microtubule system > actually "mathematically-uncurves" these so-called > death-dream. This is not as far-fetched as it seems!! it > turns out that visual input for instance is stored as a > "hologram" in the visual cortex memory. A remarkable series > of experiments about 10 years ago proved that the memory is > actually a Fourier transform in both space and time of the > visual input. this means that the so-called space and time > dilation is a relativity are merely "simple frequency > shifts" in the holographic memory system. It turns out that > the brain could EASILY buy a simple analog method "UNCURVE" > our world into flat-space-time ( a.k.a. Heaven). Holography. Of course; how silly of me. That's the key insight. Thank you, George. > Now of the above two possibilities, the first is simpler > than the second, so using Occam's razor I am assuming that > the first assumption is true rather than the second. But > nature is very amazing, and it wouldn't surprise me at all > if the second proposition turns out to be true! It's not one or the other, I now see. You know what you get when you cut a hologram in two? You get two complete holograms, each with half the resolution of the original. The microtubule system's holographic "image" of the God of the SPOG will always be of what you term flat psychological spacetime, but the neuronal system's BGD determines the hologram's resolution. So how is a human's hologram different from a horse's? Simple; the microtubule brain must be a hologram *encoded* by the neuronal brain's DNA! The level of detail is inversely proportional to the BGD. A severely retarded human's God is NOT different from a genius human's God, just of lower resolution! The former will be able to experience everything the latter can in his own LAD, but not as deeply. He has the same DNA-determined holographic image, but a smaller piece. > At any rate, I firmly believe that it is well within > credible off-the-shelf science to believe that the > microtubule system in the brain is fully capable of > producing a flat-spacetime version of our world in the > afterlife.... if indeed there is an afterlife! > > > You said: > > >> On the other hand there may be additional scenarios that > >> are not part of a conventional biographical life review in > >> which you may take different actions and do or accomplish > >> additional things without logically upsetting your world > >> history. > > > I translate that as to make permutations of experienced events or > >fragments thereof, but there will be things you *cannot* do *because* > >they would "logically upset your world history". They'd be events the > >neuronal brain had *not* processed as sensory inputs before its > >chemical death, which you said it can't do, and with which I agree. > > [Hammond] > Yes we agree on that and as Frank Tipler puts it: "Even > God can't do something that is logically impossible", which > is a statement that I thoroughly agree with. > > > That's a huge blind spot, a kind of "event horizon". That means > >perception-space curvature, which inevitably means *perceived* time > >dilation. > > > It isn't necessarily strongly correlated, but it's definitely > >nonzero. > > > It will indisputably be able to remember/relive/reshuffle everything > >the neuronal brain *did* process though, and as perfectly as its BGD > >allows. > > > But not infinitely fast; yes, we're talking infinitesimal shifts in > >the probability waves sloshing this way and that in the network of all > >the microtubules in every neuron but by definition, it takes nonzero > >time for any nonzero-energy quantum state change. > > [Hammond] > I've kind of lost your drift here... but on the subject > of speed and being "infinitely fast" etc. etc...... let me > point out that the microtubule system operates at microwave > to infrared frequencies which are nearly a billion times > faster than neuronal firing frequency. By comparison then, > the microtubule system DOES act almost "instantly" in > comparison to the neuronal system! I was drifting in the wrong direction. It *exists* instantly and always once the neuronal brain reaches its maximum growth. But experience is the result of *ignoring* most of the Universe and focusing on what *changes*; the personality experiencing LAD must perceive the hologram in *parts*, sequentially. From the outside an appropriate technology would display something akin to the waves seen sloshing back and forth over the surface of the neuronal brain as it processes sensory information. Some of the hologram would "light up", then other parts, etc. Or, the bits lit up will stay lit up as other parts are perceived. This would equate to the "process" of beatification; once achieved, "experience" is no longer possible because the Totality is experienced only simultaneously. (That may be the source of "free will", BTW) The processing rate is *not* limited to the group velocity of signals (less than free-space c) in the microtubules; processing is accomplished by quantum interference between the separate waves. How fast does that "spooky action at a distance" work? AFAIK nobody thinks quantum correlations actually happen FTL. Recall that a classical system must be used to compare entangled states, and classical systems are limited to c. However, per the below rough calculation, it should take on the order of nanoseconds to fully download. > >> So the previous paragraph brings us around to the > >> question of the scientific explanation of the SOUL . The > >> microtubule system in the brain must in fact be the physical > >> embodiment of the SOUL ! > > > Yup. > > [Hammond] > YUP......and I'll be a sonofabitch.... they're right, > their apparently actually is a real "soul". > > >> So it turns out the Greeks were correct, the Soul is > >> IMMORTAL, and now we know WHY! > > > Subjectively immortal, possibly, but not objectively. > > [Hammond] > Yeah but you say that so lightly... as if the distinction > between subjective and objective is merely an academic > distinction! ITS NOT ... in fact the distinction is a > matter of LIFE VERSUS DEATH !! > I think what you fail to realize is that only in academic > textbooks is "objective reality"more important than > "subjective reality" I'm not suggesting one is more "important" than the other in any sense, just that they are different. We're also talking about two different levels of subjectivity here; what the neuronal brain experiences and what the microtubule brain experiences. > in real life, "subjective reality" is far more vital and > important then "objective reality". And the reason for > this, is that no one's actual human sensory system is > capable of seeing "objective reality"... all anyone's > sensory system is capable of seeing and experiencing is in > fact "subjective reality". Yes. > This is why the theoretical physics is a study of the > laws of objective reality, while religion and God is a study > of the laws of subjective reality. > Turns out the latter is more difficult than the former. I would have said that the latter is a subset of the former, but that doesn't mean I think it's necessarily *simpler*. > Any high school student can learn the laws of physics, but > it takes a learned and highly experienced public authority > to learn the laws of religion! Worse, religious figures believe we are not capable of learning them. ;>) > > The > >wavefunctions supported by the microtubules must decay as the > >cytoskeleta of the brain decay and connectivity erodes. > > [Hammond] > whoa professor.... the downloading of the afterlife dream > from the cytoskeleton only takes a fraction of a second, > I'll repeat that, a FRACTION ON A SECOND. The cytoskeleton > of the brain on the other hand is known to remain viable for > minutes... as long as 30 minutes in fact. Death and decay > is far too slow to have any effect whatsoever on the > afterlife. In fact a speeding bullet is too slow to have > any effect on the afterlife. In fact, by my calculations, > even an atomic bomb blast is too slow to prevent the > afterlife! Naively, processing speed in the microtubule "brain" is limited to the group velocity of the propagated microwave/IR signals. This means that for the whole "dream" to download the system must survive for at least as long as it takes light to cross the neuronal brain; t=l/c where l is the longest dimension of the brain and c is the speed of light. The human brain averages 140 mm long: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html and taking c as 300,000 km/sec I get .14/300,000,000= 4.6 x 10^-11 seconds. The cytoskeletal network not being a straight line between optical and prefrontal cortexes, I'd guess the minimum time required is more likely a couple orders of magnitude larger, but as you say not long. > > The "Soul" may not notice; it's horizon could just shrink and > >eventually collapse with the destruction of the last tubules, but > >it'll be able to *perfectly* remember etc. what it can, while it can. > > [Hammond] > you have to realize that the term "eternal life" does not > denote an infinite LENGTH of time, it did notes VANISHING > DILATION of time. Because of the brain growth deficit we > experienced a 10, 20 or 30% time dilation in this life. This > causes all the ills and suffering of his life. > In the afterlife there is a zero time dilation... which is > a de facto "condition" of eternal life. Yes, and it's true > that some time after you achieve a state of "eternal life" > you will die... a car might hit you, you might fall off a > cliff, you could drown, you could die of AIDS.... but the > point is, if you are in a "condition" of eternal life when > it happens.... it is absolutely IRRELEVANT... it is > meaningless... as the Christians put it.... "death is > swallowed up in victory".... and believe me as a physicist I > happen to know what they're talking about an absolutely true > scientific fact! I now think that as the cytoskeletal structure decays, the "dream" will only lose resolution, not scope. > > Unless you have in mind another possible mode of support for what is > >basically not a structure, but a pattern? > > [Hammond] > well, as they say, I am not totally sure whether option > 1) or option 2) above is correct. But in either case we are > talking about physical structure... i.e. the physical > structure of the microwave readout of the "death dream" from > the microtubule cytoskeleton.> Right. > [Hammond] > thanks Mark.......... always a pleasure to talk to you... > you're one of the few people I know who actually has his > head screwed on straight! I wouldn't go *that* far, but the fact that I don't have a religious position to defend helps. > by the way, I apologize for the lack of capitalization at > the beginning of sentences in this post, I am dictating > directly into Forte Agent which is not one of Dragon-10's > approved dictation programs... it seems to work okay... the > only thing is that it does not capitalize the first word of > the sentences....#$%##..... George. No plan is perfekt. I'd have gotten back to you sooner but I do have to work for a living, and it takes a while for some of these concepts to fit themselves together in my mind. Also, I'm doing other things that take up neuronal brain processing time. If only I could think with the microtubule brain at will... Mark L. Fergerson PS the "Dr." is a Doctorate in Kibology, awarded more or less by Kibo himself. |