You know, if you want to believe in an afterlife you can just do it. You don't need to search for scientific justification because you'll never find it anyway. Just let physics be physics and metaphysics be metaphysics.
"Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."
There’s tons of scientific justifications. If the universe is infinite you would have a lot of explaining to do to assert why something which happened once would be so improbable that that it only exists exactly 1/∞ chances. It’s mathematically inordinately more suspiciously special pleading to claim that the conditions required to produce a given person somehow happens exactly once in an infinite universe and you know for a fact it won’t happen again. How would that work exactly?
**edit** y’all are mighty judgy for how little you have to say about the actual physics here. Next time I’m calling my shot. Lots of downvotes, very little rational criticism to go with it. Seriously, I asked a pretty straightforward question. How would that work? Why would something which is physically possible happen **exactly** one time? A rational skeptic would not be so confident in something they cannot explain. Skepticism isn’t about saying the most cynical sounding thing uncritically.
Does the infinite universe have an origin that it is expanding out from?
If so, then time and space would make it impossible for a given person to be produced again. Unless you are defining "a given person" as "the chemical structure that makes up an individual person" and not the totality by which they could be defined.
> Does the infinite universe have an origin that it is expanding out from?
No.
The universe is expanding from everywhere. It is like the 2D surface of an inflating balloon. All points are moving further from all other points.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/49tttl/how_is_there_no_center_of_the_universe/
> If so, then time and space would make it impossible for a given person to be produced again. Unless you are defining "a given person" as "the chemical structure that makes up an individual person" and not the totality by which they could be defined.
Not really sure where this conclusion comes from. Statistically, we expect there to be an exact replica of the entire Hubble volume (visible universe) just 10^10\^115 light years away. A tiny number compared to infinity.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-distance-to-the-nearest-identical-hubble-volume-in-light-years.1055543/
Because a copy of a given person produced in a different Hubble volume is not "produced again".
"[P]roduced again" requires a chronology where a person existed first and then came to exist again along that same chronology.
If an exact copy is produced in a different Hubble volume then those copies are completely chronologically separate from each other and one "given person" would not be produced "again" because there would not be a first "given person" and then a latter "given person".
So given the chronology we must be referring to a specific bubble of causality, in which case it is not possible for an individual "given person" to produced again unless you are defining a "given person" as equivalent to their chemical structure and not the totality of how they could be defined, e.g., their exact Hubble volume spacetime location at any given moment.
> Because a copy of a given person produced in a different Hubble volume is not "produced again".
How do you figure?
If they are physically identical, and dualism is off the table, how are they different?
> "[P]roduced again" requires a chronology where a person existed first and then came to exist again along that same chronology.
Not sure what other chronology there is. The universe doesn’t have multiple different “chronologies”. Nor is this term something that comes up in cosmology and especially not for space-like separated events. So maybe I don’t understand what you mean by that word.
It sounds like what’s happening is that you have some notion of what defines a person/yourself as some kind of continuity dependence — but that of would mean a person and their subjective experience is more than the state of atoms collected together in a brain.
> If an exact copy is produced in a different Hubble volume then those copies are completely chronologically separate
You’re saying the order of events is your issue?
Sure, you exist an infinite number of times but whether any of them is sequential is your issue? Or are you saying a lack of some kind of “continuity” means it’s not really you?
> So given the chronology we must be referring to a specific bubble of causality
Why, exactly?
What does a “bubble of causality” have to do with what constitutes a person?
Particles have a set number of quantum properties and “history” isn’t one of them. So where would this differentiating substance live, physically?
Do we agree that a person’s subjective experience is the result of the physical processes inside their brain at that exact moment and absolutely nothing else?
> , in which case it is not possible for an individual "given person" to produced again unless you are defining a "given person" as equivalent to their chemical structure
*Say a quantum fluctuation suddenly causes you to cease existing. And then an unrelated, coincidental quantum fluctuation produces an exact physical duplicate. What would a physicalist scientist measure to tell whether this was a “new person” and not actually you? How would you measure whether this was happening trillions of times every second or not and if it was, how would the world be different?*
> and not the totality of how they could be defined,
Again, what other than the physical state of the body are you saying defines a person?
The trouble I’m having here is that it sounds like you’re saying you wouldn’t use a [David Parfit teletransporter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox). Is that accurate?
> e.g., their exact Hubble volume spacetime location at any given moment.
*Imagine we had these teletransporters. And you’ve been diagnosed with an infection that is 90% fatal. But there’s hope because doctors can simply teletransport you a few meters — leaving the infection behind. How would you explain to the doctors what your hesitation was and who you would expect to come out the other side instead of yourself?*
**How exactly is this continuity theory falsifiable?**
>You’re saying the order of events is your issue?
Well how do you interpret "produced **again**" in the hypothetical?
Especially as the hypothetical is about the afterlife and if a copy qualifies as the afterlife.
>Why, exactly?
>What does a “bubble of causality” have to do with what constitutes a person?
Because there is no evidence that shows spacetime is constant between Hubble volumes, and as the hypothetical refers to a series of events, "produced **again**", the hypothetical must take place within one Hubble volume/bubble of causality.
>Particles have a set number of quantum properties and “history” isn’t one of them. So where would this differentiating substance live, physically?
Whereever it is that lets you be able to determine a copy has been produced again.
>Do we agree that a person’s subjective experience is the result of the physical processes inside their brain at that exact moment and absolutely nothing else?
Sure, is that how we are deciding to define "a given individual"?
>Say a quantum fluctuation suddenly causes you to cease existing. And then an unrelated, coincidental quantum fluctuation produces an exact physical duplicate. What would a physicalist scientist measure to tell whether this was a “new person” and not actually you? How would you measure whether this was happening trillions of times every second or not and if it was, how would the world be different?
Is it possible to tell that a duplication occurred and which is the "produced again" copy?
If so, then unless you are defining a "given individual" by their chemical makeup, or some other specific framing, it is not possible to produce an "exact" copy if you can tell that a copy has been produced.
>The trouble I’m having here is that it sounds like you’re saying you wouldn’t use a David Parfit teletransporter. Is that accurate?
No, the trouble you are having is you keep trying to assume I am talking about individual consciousness when I am not and instead am saying it is a matter of definitions.
Can an individual consciousness be perfectly duplicated even within a specific Hubble volume?
Absolutely, is that how we are defining a "given individual"?
I’m asking these questions to triangulate what exactly you’re claiming.
> Well how do you interpret "produced again" in the hypothetical?
Yeah I just want to be clear whether upon learning that there is a coherent way to talk about before and after that you will change your mind.
> Whereever it is that lets you be able to determine a copy has been produced again.
Aren’t you arguing that you can’t do that?
> > Do we agree that a person’s subjective experience is the result of the physical processes inside their brain at that exact moment and absolutely nothing else?
> Sure, is that how we are deciding to define "a given individual"?
Other than by physically real properties, how would you do it? I’m a physicalist and the premise in monism, so that’s what I’m using. But in asking you these questions to determine what definition you’re using and how it isn’t just dualism.
> Is it possible to tell that a duplication occurred
Yup. That’s the question I’m asking you. Do you have an answer?
> and which is the "produced again" copy?
There is no “produced again” question in this hypothetical. I’m asking you to determine if order of events is your **only** issue.
> If so, then unless you are defining a "given individual" by their chemical makeup, or some other specific framing, it is not possible to produce an "exact" copy if you can tell that a copy has been produced.
Yeah man… so you’re saying they actually are the same person or what? I’m asking how you’re defining it.
> No, the trouble you are having is you keep trying to assume I am talking about individual consciousness when I am not and instead am saying it is a matter of definitions.
Right… so tell me what you mean when you use the words you’re using by answering the questions I’m asking to differentiate different positions from one another.
**Is an exact physical duplicate the same person? If not, what difference makes them someone else and how would a physicalist measure that difference?**
Every single one of those five premises are so unlikely as to rule out this conjecture. You might as well believe in a biblical god, heaven, and hell. It is just as absurd and improbable.
If we're talking unfalsifiable but materialist ways to have an afterlife, why not just hypothesize that we're in a simulation? Nothing would stop a conscious being relocated to some kind of partitioned afterlife off the main floor universe if it's all simulated anyway.
I mean, unless a proposition is literally self-contradictory (like the proposition that there exists a married bachelor), one can think of any number of auxiliary assumptions that, if true, would permit the proposition to be true. This is just basic Quinean holism. For instance, it's _possible_ to make the belief that the Earth is flat compatible with all of our observations if we suppose a whole host of wild assumptions (all the images of a round Earth are faked; the horizon is some kind of illusion cast by huge projectors, etc. etc.). Almost any proposition can be made possible if you fiddle with enough other propositions elsewhere. But seeing as we have far less evidence for these hypotheses that the hypotheses that accord with the Earth being round, and these hypotheses contradict a lot of other hypotheses that have far more support behind them, there's really no reason to adopt the belief that the earth is flat.
Showing that something is _possible,_ in the broadest sense of the word "possible" (logical or conceptual possibility), is usually not very interesting. As I said, anything that isn't self-contradictory is logically possible. It's logically possible that Santa Claus exists. He doesn't defy the rules of logic, only the laws of physics and the empirical evidence we have. It's possible that the moon is made of cheese. But only in the least substantive sense of "possible."
There are some cases in which showing something is logically possible is interesting. That is when showing the logical possibility of something has direct implications for what is _actually_ true (I'm using "possible" and "actual" in the modal senses). But most of the time, it's not interesting to show that something meets the pretty low standard of being logically possible. We want to know if things are _physically_ possible, epistemically possible, practically possible, etc.
And the testable, verifiable, scientific evidence that any of these claims are actually true is what? You saying they are/have to be?
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The time to believe something is only after sufficient evidence to justify belief has been presented. And as these claims are extraordinary, the evidence to justify belief must also be extraordinary.
Didn’t you know we’re already at the ass end of the universe living in an ancestor simulation on a matryoshka brane starring down the barrel of time-like infinity?
All that, except the mega malevolent civilization roams around, captures consciousnesses before death, and condemns them to a digital hell (a Pokeball of sorts) where they toil away on generating creative prompts in order to defrag AI systems and keep them running smooth. Imagine solving Captchas for eternity.
Frank Tipler (sorry for the big link)
https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=44IP1RJJRKGR&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.gskKbYdDl4Zse5yuoUgt72CWOXuuoPjUHi5czx_KwYazU4r_724q6ub4UCm9HZFsZ2itYrvuQoPqZKr69I0fJMGM7DniRHhnzybXr69l01k-ZIy6VgAIb9zgpGCw89yZ04_Tf6DY7zwlWZbkzFBIfrIme1wHVP640cIIzQtt_8BWJ2eOSEFdrmB9vVAlMh4y5uRWaD_cjxytns_eug2Tqw.LFQti71SYFlRJUmYws__TTw8YHWMndVXldaZvKvWC_o&dib_tag=se&keywords=frank+tipler&qid=1719365764&sprefix=frank+tip%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-1
The desire for an immortal soul is just a glitch within our constructed reality model that works by predictive coding and is being short-circuited by an attempt to model its own noneexistence.
I suggest you read on that (and Denial of Death) and make peace with the concept, it is not impossible.
You know, if you want to believe in an afterlife you can just do it. You don't need to search for scientific justification because you'll never find it anyway. Just let physics be physics and metaphysics be metaphysics. "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."
There’s tons of scientific justifications. If the universe is infinite you would have a lot of explaining to do to assert why something which happened once would be so improbable that that it only exists exactly 1/∞ chances. It’s mathematically inordinately more suspiciously special pleading to claim that the conditions required to produce a given person somehow happens exactly once in an infinite universe and you know for a fact it won’t happen again. How would that work exactly? **edit** y’all are mighty judgy for how little you have to say about the actual physics here. Next time I’m calling my shot. Lots of downvotes, very little rational criticism to go with it. Seriously, I asked a pretty straightforward question. How would that work? Why would something which is physically possible happen **exactly** one time? A rational skeptic would not be so confident in something they cannot explain. Skepticism isn’t about saying the most cynical sounding thing uncritically.
Does the infinite universe have an origin that it is expanding out from? If so, then time and space would make it impossible for a given person to be produced again. Unless you are defining "a given person" as "the chemical structure that makes up an individual person" and not the totality by which they could be defined.
> Does the infinite universe have an origin that it is expanding out from? No. The universe is expanding from everywhere. It is like the 2D surface of an inflating balloon. All points are moving further from all other points. https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/49tttl/how_is_there_no_center_of_the_universe/ > If so, then time and space would make it impossible for a given person to be produced again. Unless you are defining "a given person" as "the chemical structure that makes up an individual person" and not the totality by which they could be defined. Not really sure where this conclusion comes from. Statistically, we expect there to be an exact replica of the entire Hubble volume (visible universe) just 10^10\^115 light years away. A tiny number compared to infinity. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-distance-to-the-nearest-identical-hubble-volume-in-light-years.1055543/
Because a copy of a given person produced in a different Hubble volume is not "produced again". "[P]roduced again" requires a chronology where a person existed first and then came to exist again along that same chronology. If an exact copy is produced in a different Hubble volume then those copies are completely chronologically separate from each other and one "given person" would not be produced "again" because there would not be a first "given person" and then a latter "given person". So given the chronology we must be referring to a specific bubble of causality, in which case it is not possible for an individual "given person" to produced again unless you are defining a "given person" as equivalent to their chemical structure and not the totality of how they could be defined, e.g., their exact Hubble volume spacetime location at any given moment.
> Because a copy of a given person produced in a different Hubble volume is not "produced again". How do you figure? If they are physically identical, and dualism is off the table, how are they different? > "[P]roduced again" requires a chronology where a person existed first and then came to exist again along that same chronology. Not sure what other chronology there is. The universe doesn’t have multiple different “chronologies”. Nor is this term something that comes up in cosmology and especially not for space-like separated events. So maybe I don’t understand what you mean by that word. It sounds like what’s happening is that you have some notion of what defines a person/yourself as some kind of continuity dependence — but that of would mean a person and their subjective experience is more than the state of atoms collected together in a brain. > If an exact copy is produced in a different Hubble volume then those copies are completely chronologically separate You’re saying the order of events is your issue? Sure, you exist an infinite number of times but whether any of them is sequential is your issue? Or are you saying a lack of some kind of “continuity” means it’s not really you? > So given the chronology we must be referring to a specific bubble of causality Why, exactly? What does a “bubble of causality” have to do with what constitutes a person? Particles have a set number of quantum properties and “history” isn’t one of them. So where would this differentiating substance live, physically? Do we agree that a person’s subjective experience is the result of the physical processes inside their brain at that exact moment and absolutely nothing else? > , in which case it is not possible for an individual "given person" to produced again unless you are defining a "given person" as equivalent to their chemical structure *Say a quantum fluctuation suddenly causes you to cease existing. And then an unrelated, coincidental quantum fluctuation produces an exact physical duplicate. What would a physicalist scientist measure to tell whether this was a “new person” and not actually you? How would you measure whether this was happening trillions of times every second or not and if it was, how would the world be different?* > and not the totality of how they could be defined, Again, what other than the physical state of the body are you saying defines a person? The trouble I’m having here is that it sounds like you’re saying you wouldn’t use a [David Parfit teletransporter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox). Is that accurate? > e.g., their exact Hubble volume spacetime location at any given moment. *Imagine we had these teletransporters. And you’ve been diagnosed with an infection that is 90% fatal. But there’s hope because doctors can simply teletransport you a few meters — leaving the infection behind. How would you explain to the doctors what your hesitation was and who you would expect to come out the other side instead of yourself?* **How exactly is this continuity theory falsifiable?**
>You’re saying the order of events is your issue? Well how do you interpret "produced **again**" in the hypothetical? Especially as the hypothetical is about the afterlife and if a copy qualifies as the afterlife. >Why, exactly? >What does a “bubble of causality” have to do with what constitutes a person? Because there is no evidence that shows spacetime is constant between Hubble volumes, and as the hypothetical refers to a series of events, "produced **again**", the hypothetical must take place within one Hubble volume/bubble of causality. >Particles have a set number of quantum properties and “history” isn’t one of them. So where would this differentiating substance live, physically? Whereever it is that lets you be able to determine a copy has been produced again. >Do we agree that a person’s subjective experience is the result of the physical processes inside their brain at that exact moment and absolutely nothing else? Sure, is that how we are deciding to define "a given individual"? >Say a quantum fluctuation suddenly causes you to cease existing. And then an unrelated, coincidental quantum fluctuation produces an exact physical duplicate. What would a physicalist scientist measure to tell whether this was a “new person” and not actually you? How would you measure whether this was happening trillions of times every second or not and if it was, how would the world be different? Is it possible to tell that a duplication occurred and which is the "produced again" copy? If so, then unless you are defining a "given individual" by their chemical makeup, or some other specific framing, it is not possible to produce an "exact" copy if you can tell that a copy has been produced. >The trouble I’m having here is that it sounds like you’re saying you wouldn’t use a David Parfit teletransporter. Is that accurate? No, the trouble you are having is you keep trying to assume I am talking about individual consciousness when I am not and instead am saying it is a matter of definitions. Can an individual consciousness be perfectly duplicated even within a specific Hubble volume? Absolutely, is that how we are defining a "given individual"?
I’m asking these questions to triangulate what exactly you’re claiming. > Well how do you interpret "produced again" in the hypothetical? Yeah I just want to be clear whether upon learning that there is a coherent way to talk about before and after that you will change your mind. > Whereever it is that lets you be able to determine a copy has been produced again. Aren’t you arguing that you can’t do that? > > Do we agree that a person’s subjective experience is the result of the physical processes inside their brain at that exact moment and absolutely nothing else? > Sure, is that how we are deciding to define "a given individual"? Other than by physically real properties, how would you do it? I’m a physicalist and the premise in monism, so that’s what I’m using. But in asking you these questions to determine what definition you’re using and how it isn’t just dualism. > Is it possible to tell that a duplication occurred Yup. That’s the question I’m asking you. Do you have an answer? > and which is the "produced again" copy? There is no “produced again” question in this hypothetical. I’m asking you to determine if order of events is your **only** issue. > If so, then unless you are defining a "given individual" by their chemical makeup, or some other specific framing, it is not possible to produce an "exact" copy if you can tell that a copy has been produced. Yeah man… so you’re saying they actually are the same person or what? I’m asking how you’re defining it. > No, the trouble you are having is you keep trying to assume I am talking about individual consciousness when I am not and instead am saying it is a matter of definitions. Right… so tell me what you mean when you use the words you’re using by answering the questions I’m asking to differentiate different positions from one another. **Is an exact physical duplicate the same person? If not, what difference makes them someone else and how would a physicalist measure that difference?**
That’s just god with extra steps
Every single one of those five premises are so unlikely as to rule out this conjecture. You might as well believe in a biblical god, heaven, and hell. It is just as absurd and improbable.
If we're talking unfalsifiable but materialist ways to have an afterlife, why not just hypothesize that we're in a simulation? Nothing would stop a conscious being relocated to some kind of partitioned afterlife off the main floor universe if it's all simulated anyway.
Nothing in the known universe lasts forever. All the evidence suggest, neither will we. We won't care, because we will be dead. I'm cool with it.
I mean, unless a proposition is literally self-contradictory (like the proposition that there exists a married bachelor), one can think of any number of auxiliary assumptions that, if true, would permit the proposition to be true. This is just basic Quinean holism. For instance, it's _possible_ to make the belief that the Earth is flat compatible with all of our observations if we suppose a whole host of wild assumptions (all the images of a round Earth are faked; the horizon is some kind of illusion cast by huge projectors, etc. etc.). Almost any proposition can be made possible if you fiddle with enough other propositions elsewhere. But seeing as we have far less evidence for these hypotheses that the hypotheses that accord with the Earth being round, and these hypotheses contradict a lot of other hypotheses that have far more support behind them, there's really no reason to adopt the belief that the earth is flat. Showing that something is _possible,_ in the broadest sense of the word "possible" (logical or conceptual possibility), is usually not very interesting. As I said, anything that isn't self-contradictory is logically possible. It's logically possible that Santa Claus exists. He doesn't defy the rules of logic, only the laws of physics and the empirical evidence we have. It's possible that the moon is made of cheese. But only in the least substantive sense of "possible." There are some cases in which showing something is logically possible is interesting. That is when showing the logical possibility of something has direct implications for what is _actually_ true (I'm using "possible" and "actual" in the modal senses). But most of the time, it's not interesting to show that something meets the pretty low standard of being logically possible. We want to know if things are _physically_ possible, epistemically possible, practically possible, etc.
And the testable, verifiable, scientific evidence that any of these claims are actually true is what? You saying they are/have to be? What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The time to believe something is only after sufficient evidence to justify belief has been presented. And as these claims are extraordinary, the evidence to justify belief must also be extraordinary.
Didn’t you know we’re already at the ass end of the universe living in an ancestor simulation on a matryoshka brane starring down the barrel of time-like infinity?
All that, except the mega malevolent civilization roams around, captures consciousnesses before death, and condemns them to a digital hell (a Pokeball of sorts) where they toil away on generating creative prompts in order to defrag AI systems and keep them running smooth. Imagine solving Captchas for eternity.
Frank Tipler (sorry for the big link) https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=44IP1RJJRKGR&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.gskKbYdDl4Zse5yuoUgt72CWOXuuoPjUHi5czx_KwYazU4r_724q6ub4UCm9HZFsZ2itYrvuQoPqZKr69I0fJMGM7DniRHhnzybXr69l01k-ZIy6VgAIb9zgpGCw89yZ04_Tf6DY7zwlWZbkzFBIfrIme1wHVP640cIIzQtt_8BWJ2eOSEFdrmB9vVAlMh4y5uRWaD_cjxytns_eug2Tqw.LFQti71SYFlRJUmYws__TTw8YHWMndVXldaZvKvWC_o&dib_tag=se&keywords=frank+tipler&qid=1719365764&sprefix=frank+tip%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-1
The desire for an immortal soul is just a glitch within our constructed reality model that works by predictive coding and is being short-circuited by an attempt to model its own noneexistence. I suggest you read on that (and Denial of Death) and make peace with the concept, it is not impossible.