>the end of this particular atom combination is a catastrophy

>>16384373
Our lives are infinitely meaningful or infinitely meaningless at the same time.

I always struggled with the concept that in an infinity of our finite existence, eventually all things play out

That’s really scary to me.

>>16384435
Pros: Every paradise scenario will play out

Cons: Every near-eternal torture scenario will also play out

File: cheese.gif (2.65 MB, 640x640)

2.65 MB GIF

>>16384464
Fuck

>>16384435
>eventually all things play out
Have you ever examined closely this conclusion?

Its a strange piece of folk infinitarian thinking with seemingly no basis in reality. The fact is, all things are not required by any natural law to "play out" You may live for an infinite amount of time running from three feet out into a brick wall, and that's all that ever happens, ever, over and over again, forever. There exists no "force of probability" to guarantee that all things will happen, but you hear it repeated so often that you rarely mount a challenge.

>>16384541
Eternal inflation theory predicts it. And eternal inflation is the current best theory.

>>16384541
Also quantum fluctuations would be this ”force of probability” that causes variance.

>>16384545
>And eternal inflation is the current best theory.
Its not, but lets say it were; Even if you have pockets of bulk constantly undergoing big bang type events, and any permutation is achievable, there is nothing by natural law stating that each permutation must be achieved. This in an artifact of statistical thinking. The way the universe actually works, there are some arrangements of the deck that will never be realized, not in forever.

I blame Tegmark, but I still see a lot of people making this mistake.

>>16384373
yeah

>>16384549
Careful with the Q word.

>>16384555
Then those permutations are just not physically possible. Quantum fluctuations when the local big bang / universe is small get ballooned to macroscopic proportions and essentially set a unique seed for every big bang event. At the end of the day, pretty much everything we can concieve will happen in great abundance.

>>16384563
>pretty much everything we can concieve will happen in great abundance
Really wash that around in your mouth for a second, as yourself "why?"

I don't want to get too far into the woods here, but technically, nothing will happen "again." This is another issue almost entirely, but lets assume we live in a universe where repeatability and two are viable concepts, even in that framework, you are not guaranteed each possible arrangement to be cemented out of the probable.

Conservation of energy dictates the existence of the soul and an afterlife. Many laws and theories of physics support God and religion. It's hilarious to watch you shaved apes try to ignore whats spitting in your faces.

>>16384565
I don’t get it, multiple big bangs with different seed states that occur an unlimited number of times won’t produce pretty much everything possible? Why?

>>16384570
>multiple big bangs with different seed states that occur an unlimited number of times won’t produce pretty much everything possible?
Again, we'll have to pretend this is even likely.

So in this framework, multiple big bangs will produce a cup of coffee falling onto the floor at Mel's diner at 5:46PM, April 27th, 1978 in iteration 45903b.

See the problem?

>>16384578
Well, some given big bang will eventually contain a civ with a megacomputer simulation that simulates just what you described. Or it might occur naturally just like how it can in our universe.

Infinite monkeys on typewriters will produce every single possible work multiple times. I don’t get your argument or what the problem is.

>>16384560
It will happen when the Universe cools
Sorry hehe

File: Fortunate Son of the Mask.png (2.22 MB, 2226x1046)

2.22 MB PNG

>>16384568
Agreed. Christ is king.

File: sad_kot.jpg (4 KB, 220x220)

4 KB JPG

>>16384578
>>16384585
So you tellin me there is a chance there might be the universe after big bang with seed 4887dax8 that renders every human being immortal, stucked in indestructable coffins where proton degradation never happens?

File: steamudmaihd.jpg (24 KB, 600x341)

24 KB JPG

>>16385000

>>16384464
>there's a reality where everyone choked to death on feces
the actual state of science

File: 951367c657bb3bbdd66f5c5b9(...).jpg (59 KB, 1280x720)

59 KB JPG

>>16385023

>>16385016
>>16385000

Why is it so hard to think that something did create itself and is outside of this box? I’m certain there’s some creature that lives forever here on earth I think it’s some jellyfish that reverts back to its infant stage or something. But to say all this “everything has and will happen a couple times” means that if I can perceive it as real, there’s a universe out there that will create it? I disagree. I would like to think that in a time before written history something created itself on accident that hasn’t died and will never die.

>>16384585
this it totally flawed and baseless (marvel) logic.

Assume there is an infinite amount of space, and time, particles etc.

For every minute detail that changes, creating a new permutation, there is now an infinite amount of new offspring as potential next permutation. Each of which gives birth to a new infinity each, goes on and on.

By this logic there is no way that the universe(s?) can ever fulfill every single possible outcome. as every moment of outcome creates a new infinite possibility of next outcomes

To simplify,
one infinity < infinity infinities

>>16384541
>There exists no "force of probability" to guarantee that all things will happen
over a sufficiently long time, random fluctuations could cause particles to spontaneously form any structure
if there is infinite time and space then all things happen, or maybe already have happened

>>16384568
Post one piece of empirical evidence that suggests an afterlife is possible.

>>16385088
None, unless we're going to combine it with the simulation hypothesis to at least have the ground to talk.

>>16385088
Post one piece of empirical evidence that you aren't a brain in a vat.

Isnt reincarnation essentially the only real possibility worth entertaining? Even if its not death and rebirth the shit that makes up our bodies is recycled into the ground and sucked of by plants and shit

>>16385189
He can't prove a negative. You can attempt to prove a positive. But you can't, can you.

>>16385254
>can't prove a negative

allow me to rephrase your question

Post one piece of empirical evidence that suggests an afterlife isn't not possible

so you are not only asking him to prove a negative, but a DOUBLE NEGATIVE??
(that's doubly unprovable)


But in all seriousness, what you are asking is retarded. There is not sufficient knowledge on the question of afterlife to begin to question whether it is or is not true.

I will give you a strong case for why believing in afterlife/deity is not dumb.

All science is based on relative observation.
In order to validate any science, or other observation (i.e. the existence of the physical universe) one must consider sentience to be at least as real, if not more real than the physical universe.
(if sentience is not real, neither is anything observed, i.e. physical universe)
(if sentience is real, physical universe still may not necessarily be real, but it could be.)

So when the primary axiom for all reality being real is based on experience/conscience being necessarily real, it is not unreasonable to believe that experience/conscience could exist beyond the coincidental physical world we currently find ourselves in.

It is of course not proof of an afterlife, but it certainly makes a point that the afterlife shouldn't be put in doubt so much more so than the existence of the physical universe (which i'm sure you, as most of us, believe in.)

No reasonable truth seeking scientist could ever be atheist, only agnostic.

>>16384373
When was the last time you experienced not existing? There's no reason to believe an infinity of nothingness or even a beginning or an end.

>>16385023
All that multiverse gobbledygook sounds like religious fanaticism to me.

The atheist have ironically created their own spiritual lore.

>>16385088
This exists, why can’t something else?

>>16385455
it makes sense
it's just unlikely that it's a bunch of fucking bubbles

File: 1680375125305771.png (3.04 MB, 2288x1700)

3.04 MB PNG

>>16384373
Not really according to NDErs. They say that we have always existed already and go to heaven unconditionally when we die. So we exist in heaven forever before an incarnation, as well as after it. And NDEs are seriously irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they ought not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

So every atheist or materialist or agnostic would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:

>"The minute that I kind of woke up on that hillside in heaven I knew that that was more real than any time I've ever spent here on Earth. And I knew instantly that my time here was really but a dream. It's real to us when we're in it, but once I was there in heaven I realized that's more real, that felt more real, and it made much more sense to me than anything here. This is kind of nonsensical at times. In heaven, it's so clear, so real, so rational, so logical, but yet emotional and loving at the same time. Immediately I knew that was real and this was not. Immediately."

If NDEs were hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.

So NDEs convince people who have them, and so does the extensive scholarly literature on NDEs for the people who actually reads it. The problem, however, is that so many pseudoskeptics never actually read the scholarly literature on NDEs and instead just assume, based on their materialist dogma, that since there can not be any evidence for the reality of NDEs, there is no point actually learning more about NDEs.

>>16384563
>Then those permutations are just not physically possible
Exactly, >>16384435 was wrong, there probably isn't a reality where the marvel multiverse actually happened, all things don't necessarily happen just because of inflation.

>>16384568
No, conservation of energy dictates that living beings are all temporary arrangements of matter that get converted back into energy which just gets absorbed into other things which means energy itself is the closest thing you have to a soul and having your body consumed and metabolized by some other beings is what you can expect to happen to your body after your life.

>>16384585
Then how many monkeys over how much time would it take to randomly produce just 1 page of a any arbitrary dr seuss book?

>>16385060
>durr there is no way to create a nested number system as 1.0...1 would never be able to reach 2.

>>16385088
Are you just trying to summon NDEanon?

>>16385254
>can't prove a negative.
Then how can you possibly prove that statement is true?

>>16385426
>When was the last time you experienced not existing?
My dreamless sleep last night where many hours just passed while I just experience nothing and didn't experience any particular feeling of existence just unconsciousness.

>>16385726
>every night we experience the state that is the closest thing to the both death and pre-Big Bang
Isn't it terrifying and astounding?

I hope you are all Anons doing well.

>>16384435
The set of even integers in infinite, but it does not include every possible integer, e.g. it does not contain the number seven. The notion of infinity or an infinite number of instances is not logically equivalent to every possible instance.

>>16384570
This is really a mathematical question about set theory, not a question about physical theory.

>>16384585
>>16384570
>>16384545
>>16384563
This discussion is kinda pop soi desu. I don't even know the mathematical details of eternal inflation theory, but from the level of discussion in this thread, I doubt anyone else here does either. My suspicion, however, is that what eternal inflation theory say is something more akin to the Poincare recurrence theorem, so something like: as time t approaches infinity, the probability of coming arbitrarily close to some point in phase space approaches one. The possible states that can be achieved are only those that are compatible with the physical laws/equations of motion governing the system, it's initial configuration. Similar claims can be made in connection with the many world interpretation of QM. If you have some speculative scenario or sci-fi prediction, their is no reason to think that will come true at some distant point in the future. E.g. there is no reason to think this entails that an almost identical copy of yourself will be anally probed by space aliens trillions of years in the future or that swampmen type scenarios are possible, for instance (see the swampman thought experiment for more details).

File: 7a6.png (1.09 MB, 1200x675)

1.09 MB PNG

YOU NEED TO VIBRATE HIGHER SO YOU CAN CAPTURE THE OPENING OF THE PORTAL THAT CONNECTS THIS EARTH OF 3D TO ONE EARTH OF 4D OR 5D

https://youtu.be/gnuOM1Jy6qQ
https://youtu.be/WnsI67bHpmk

File: gettyimages-112178837_cus(...).jpg (1.93 MB, 4256x2832)

1.93 MB JPG

If you were as smart as me you’d realise that this Earth is a prison and that you wouldn’t want to come back to prison once you die. The people running this world have turned it into a prison, it doesn’t necessarily need to be one.
This is why I have no intention of having kids and replacing myself here on this Earth. You are more than welcome to come back and suffer some more. I’m out!

>>16384568
>>16385088
>dude there's so much evidence
>"post some"
>*crickets*
every time

>>16384373
WRONG
Infinitude of cycles.
Life > Death (transitory period) > Life (your carbon gets recycled and turns into a different form of life)

>>16386534
>The set of even integers in infinite, but it does not include every possible integer, e.g. it does not contain the number seven.
70 (or 7*10) is the first instance of an even integer that contains the number 7 directly, but even 14 (7*2) technically does too.

>>16386768
>The people running this world have turned it into a prison, it doesn’t necessarily need to be one.
Except it does, any body, celestial, biological or otherwise, necessarily imprisons all the material that composes the body because if it freed everything that made it what it was, it would cease to be.

>>16387166
Nature takes care of that, natural instinct and desires, the desire to be cared and loved, to feel like you matter will repeat the cycle of life and death.

>>16387433
Yes that is what I said nature is necessarily a prison, your instincts and desires are derived from your form and limitations, imprisonment is not just something people invented, it is an inherent property of nature. In the end of each cycle you will realize you didn't matter and your body will decompose to be eaten by something that is starting its cycle.

>>16384373
yeah

All will have eternal life in Christ regardless of what you think the specifics are.

>>16387460
Thermodynamics necessitates this universe as a prison. It isn't just "nature" imprisonment is fundamental to the structure of reality.

>>16384373
consciousness is a bitch
curse of the big brain
but i'm over 50yo now, so death sounds like a wonderful escape plan

>>16387166
I was actually talking about society itself. Hyperconsumerism, stupid life goals, and many other things are being set by the rich and powerful people of this world. They are literally telling you how to live and how to spend your money. Can you really not imagine another way of living?

File: 1702035849018365.jpg (1.04 MB, 1800x1570)

1.04 MB JPG

>>16385088
>Post one piece
Strange request but I will indulge you.

>>16387164
Ok. Then the set of positive even integers never contains -5, or i, or sqrt(3), or 1/12, etc. Or another example, eulers number is infinite but it does not contain every arbitrary sequence of numbers.

File: quote-god-is-either-cruel(...).jpg (49 KB, 850x400)

49 KB JPG

>>16384373

>>16393434
Which God?

>>16394568
Whichever one thought to himself "teehee im gonna make an infinite expanse and place some hapless lower lifeforms in it with absolutely no guidance or reason behind it"

>>16393434
How could you say this about me?

You stupid cattle will all burn. Pills in the attic

>>16384373
How the FUCK is this science

>>16394961
>you can’t criticise God.
You’re clearly a self-centred privileged human being. Maybe only the hungry humans in Africa are allowed to complain or something. Think about the whole picture and then you can criticise God, because He/She definitely deserves to be criticised, not criticising Him/Her is being fake and a liar.

>>16385088
You're living it. Its mathematically almost impossible that you are at alive at this moment in time, especially as a person. Because probability should overwhelmingly favor you as a barnacle organism that lived and died in a day in 1.2 billion year BC.

>>16385726
>>16385971
That doesnt mean anything though. This organism that is you had existed at some point in the flat block universe. The feelings of cutting through the time of the present is the organism's build up of information to that point so it gives the illusion that time is washing over the universe like Newton was wrong about.

Live>Time begins>Move through space>Die

Is fundamentally wrong

Its Live-Move through SPACE-TIME>Live>-Move through SPACE-TIME>-Move through SPACE-TIME>-Move through SPACE-TIME>-Move through SPACE-TIME

For infinity because all the block universe does is continue entropy in its infinity.flat curvature.

>>16395113
>Its mathematically almost impossible that you are at alive at this moment in time,
No, anon and all the normies are living proof that it was a mathematically certain that DNA of a specific complexity would arise at a particular time in the evolutionary cycle.

>>16391481
1 alone contains all those things
-5/-5=1
i*i*i*i=1
sqrt(3)^2/3 = 1
1/12 +11/12 = 1

>eulers number is infinite
No, euler's number is between 2 and 3, hardly infinite.

>>16384435
what the hell are you talking about? finite means it can’t be infinite. It’s in the fucking name.

>>16385088
If there is no after-life then necessarily either you're not alive because there is no life or you cannot die because there is only life; though neither says much for you corporeally.

>>16397143
The is stuff after your life, you just won't be part of it because you cease to exist after-death.

Lets assume that in one case the Universe began with the big bang and will continue existing for an infinite time.
Then lets assume another case where the Universe had always existed and will continue existing for an infinite time
Now, I ask you, is there any difference between the two cases?

>>16397235
Yes, one case had a beginning and the other one didn't.

>>16397235
>is there any difference between the two cases?
Stars and galaxies would be much further spread apart, There'd be much more open spaces of little to no stars. Am I missing anything?

>>16384373
someone post The Graph

>>16397221
>The is stuff after your life, you just won't be part of it because you cease to exist after-death.
>[you just won't be part of it]
Why not? In my opinion death is more of a change of speed than it is the lack of it. I mean if your brain is complex in such a way that it produces the capacity for memory and thought then wouldn't it follow that by entering the lower material complexity of death you would alter the scale of those aspects rather than threshold them in some discrete way?
I mean, most of the universe is only discrete within the consideration of an observer so it would make sense that an observer would see death as finality rather than the distinction between one velocity and another, whether as the latter makes a lot more sense in a non-discrete consideration of life.

>>16398375
Reading this back it's a bit of a word salad of a reply, but hopefully the underlying point transfers.

>>16384373
Don't go into the light, it's a reincarnation trap

>>16385244
Reincarnation was already confirmed by many people who had NDEs.
Astral Projectors, Quantum Travelers, Remote Viewers etc. researched about it and found that reincarnation is a trap. The light gate you see when you die is a trap, once you cross it the archons have you by the balls and you have no choice but to reincarnate.

Archons are evil entities who trapped our souls here to harvest loosh from us. They have all sorts of abilities including posing as our loved ones/family to fool us into following them into the light gate, they can also do memory erasure apparently and all sorts of hacks.

From what I read you should be able to fight back if you meditate and if you immediately teleport outside of the matrix but it's still not certain yet.

Read Robert Monroe's books and CIA classified documents on it.
Don't take them as gospels though since CIA probably had Robert by the balls and probably made him lie about some stuff.

Remote Viewers, Astral Travelers etc. also report that looking into Area 51 or the Moon is basically impossible and they get forcefully exited out of there. So they are hiding some shit in those places.

>>16385630
NDEs are a trap
There is no heaven or hell
Our souls are getting recycled by Archons for loosh

>>16398376
It doesn't, nobody has any idea what you are saying, death is not just a matter of living life a bit slower, it is the complete cessation of living functions.

>>16398511
Biological definition rather than nonsensical one that you specifically need to warn everyone is just a bunch of word salad.

>>16398525
>complete cessation of biological activity
>I decide when its complete
>ignore the biological activity happening around my corpse

>>16398584
No, your organs decide by completely ceasing to function as organs (rather than just pumping the blood a bit slower) despite being consumed by the decomposers and other life forms surrounding them which keep to get keep eating and living because you died and your biological function completely ceased.

>>16384373
Wow, fucking science!