If Nothing Survives Death, Can Conscious Life Still Be Circular?

[PatternChaser]

@MoK

The main difference is that humans are very sophisticated linguistic animals, and they are rational thinkers.

We are? Yes, we can be rational, sometimes. But we are as often (or maybe much more often) non-rational in every way that counts…

[Jkem33]

First off, fascinating post.

I find it to be a logically coherent model. Of course, we lack the tools to test it, though perhaps it is inherently untestable. Regardless, I do share that idea, so I may not have much criticism to posit from an external viewpoint, but I still have some comments:

@Jean-Marc

Non-existence is not an experience.

This caught my attention. It seems trivially true, yet bares lots of unique / undervalued implications regarding consciousness and the very nature of reality.

@Jean-Marc

That sequence immediately leads to the question of whether there was a first occurrence.

I wonder whether the circle offers a better model.

A circle has no naturally privileged first or last point. We can choose a place from which to begin describing it, but the circle itself does not begin there.

The circle model is one way to see it, but there is another approach. An infinite flat line. You may enjoy reading my post: “Infinity May Hold The Key To Everything,” where I talk about this idea. There is a portion detailing how each instance of an infinitely recurring event is indistinguishable from another, making time (or when each instance happens) irrelevant at the scale of the model (whether a circle or an infinite line) - Let’s refer to that as the timeless claim.

Note: The same reasoning I laid out in that post also works for space, yielding what we can refer to as the spaceless claim.

An infinite flat line also does not posit a start and one could think it is functionally identical to how a circular model would function in this scenario, but I believe it to be more inclusive than the circle approach. Here is why:

Modeling this concept using a circle implies that the number of possible events is finite, while an infinite line does not make that assumption. With an infinite line model, one can have an infinity of possibilities (1), as well as a finite gigantic number of possibilities looping forever without a start (2).

It could be that there are an infinite number of possible configurations of things in reality (1), implying that the fabric of the universe, the thing from which all these combinations ultimately arise, is limitlessly malleable (like perfect playdoh in a way). But it could also be that, despite the number of possibilities being disgustingly big (so big that it would be virtually infinite), there is still a limit to that number. I don’t know which it is, so I adopt the infinite line model, which is open to either possibility.

Side note: Of course, none of this would imply that “nothing is impossible.” There would also likely be an infinite (or at least virtually infinite) number of impossible events alongside.

@Jean-Marc

If two conscious histories are physically, psychologically and phenomenally identical in every respect, what makes them two numerically distinct experiences rather than one conscious structure described as occurring twice?

To me, there is no right answer. It all depends on the perspective we adopt:

1. If we zoom out as much as we can, and look at it from the most objective basis we can find, that of reality itself, then by the timeless & spaceless claims, there is no objective marker of distinction in that setup. So they are one and the same.
2. If we look at it from any given “chunk of reality (space-time)” that is finite (thus having a start and an end both spatially and timely), then we can number the occurrences of these identical events as follows:

• A. This numbering can be done on the basis of time, so the occurrence of the event that happened first has “1” and so on. The number is the distinction. In the case of two identical computers, which one was built first.
• B. This numbering can be done on the basis of space. So the occurrence of the event that is closest to our starting spatial point, whether centered or at one end of the spatial chunk, would have “1” and so on. The number is the distinction. In the case of two identical computers, where was each one built.

They cannot both be built at the same place and the same time, or they would be the same. What the critic might argue for a computer only works because it presupposed limited time and space where both computers can stand next to each other and be differentiated in one way or another. At a timeless & spaceless scale, two identical occurrences cannot be differentiated. So it follows that they are one and the same

I believe this response addresses question 2 and 3 of yours.

Lastly, let me briefly touch on question 5:

The highlighted segment above suggests that infinite space-time, or spacelessness & timelessness, is virtually the same as a unique point in space and time in its implications. But a unique point in space and time is akin to a photo. A single image. Not an animation. What is an animation? Change, or motion.

If time is motion in the “when”, a still image is the antithesis of time (no time), and if space is is motion in the “where,” a still image is the antithesis of space as well (no space). So in its properties, infinite space-time effectively breaks time and space. Just as there is no space or time in a still image.

To me, the 4D block universe is an attempt at visualizing that. All points in time are converted to a spatial location, leaving no time in the universe (still image), thus no real ability of motion in the resulting space, as motion requires time.

Maybe I am wrong about what it is, but that’s how I understand the block universe. I think the missing link is applying the work you did for time of occurrence to space of occurrence as well.

Edit: I am hopping off the forum for a while, but if you reply, then I will reply again someday. Just not so soon.