Crazy theory on life, death and consciousness.

[Baydwin]

This came to me upon waking the other day. It concerns the multiverse theory, or parallel universe theory, which states that at each point where an event can proceed along a number of different lines a universe branches off, one for each possibility.

Accepting this theory for the moment, then we must conclude that there is at least one universe/timeline in existence where we, as individuals, will live to the maximum possible time and die only when the timeline has no alternative branches to take.

Thinking on this, which universe I am in? The one where I live for as long as possible or one of countless where I meet an earlier end. But how about this. Perhaps we can only exist in the universe where we live to the max?
Each time the stream of possibility encounters a rock and must split, one will lead to an earlier death whilst the other carries on as normal. There will be an "I" in each universe, but one will meet it's end and the other will continue to exist.

Using a variation on the anthropic principle, we all know that the timeline we are on has, so far, run in parallel to the maximum life line, if it weren't we'd be dead and not here to write/read this post.

It may be that the real "I" can only ever exist on the timeline that leads to the maximum life, as it is the only one to survive whilst it's twins meet their doom. That at each split we, as a collective group of all possible "I"s, both live and die, yet it is clear that only the one that lives continues to have awareness.

 

[Baydwin]

Too crazy for comment I guess...

 

[YmirGF]

Given that I subscribe to a multidimensional view of reality, let me chew on this a bit and I'll comment later.

 

[zenzero]

Friend badywin,

Try this; there are 6.8 billion humans on earth and would you not agree that there are those many world created by each individual though all of these 6.8 billion live on earth?
If the world was one for everyone then we will all agree with everyone on every point.
That is exactly what the each branch out.

Love & rgds

 

[YmirGF]

This came to me upon waking the other day. It concerns the multiverse theory, or parallel universe theory, which states that at each point where an event can proceed along a number of different lines a universe branches off, one for each possibility.

Accepting this theory for the moment, then we must conclude that there is at least one universe/timeline in existence where we, as individuals, will live to the maximum possible time and die only when the timeline has no alternative branches to take.

Thinking on this, which universe I am in? The one where I live for as long as possible or one of countless where I meet an earlier end. But how about this. Perhaps we can only exist in the universe where we live to the max?
Each time the stream of possibility encounters a rock and must split, one will lead to an earlier death whilst the other carries on as normal. There will be an "I" in each universe, but one will meet it's end and the other will continue to exist.

Using a variation on the anthropic principle, we all know that the timeline we are on has, so far, run in parallel to the maximum life line, if it weren't we'd be dead and not here to write/read this post.

It may be that the real "I" can only ever exist on the timeline that leads to the maximum life, as it is the only one to survive whilst it's twins meet their doom. That at each split we, as a collective group of all possible "I"s, both live and die, yet it is clear that only the one that lives continues to have awareness.

Interesting descriptions, Baydwin. My own concept of multidimensional existence is not quite the same, though there are similarities. In some ways, the actualized identity and the road that it travels is more of a mosaic of all other probable paths. I see a huge give and take between the different aspect selves that is a bit hard to describe.

I like how you are seeing the other probable aspects, but am more inclined to see their probable paths as being paths that were not chosen for actualization by the individual - for whatever reason. In some terms, it is possible that our alternate selves choose between things from each other, as we do from them, defining their own separate paths.

In my view of this, each nanosecond is one in which we choose from a myriad of choices, all valid at that juncture. The choice we make is then actualized in our experience. I wonder if it is possible that when we imagine how a given event may have turned out that we are perceiving the experience of one of these aspect selves. In this respect, all avenues of expression could be explored, from the standpoint of the psyche, of which, we are also aspects.

I wish you would write a bit more about the timelines that you perceive. I don't see a "maximum life" timeline, per se, but I do perceive our actualized "timeline" as perhaps reflective of our potential and not necessarily governed by a max time perception as necessarily being the sole criteria to measure by. For example, if one is around the very old, you will often find that they are not quite at their "best" as it were and like my grandmother, as she neared 105 felt that she had stretched her "expiry date". Like my father, at 74, simply felt it was time to go.

Oh well, it's all a bit hard to prove, but it is interesting to think about.
Is this sort of what you were thinking or no?

 

[kartinkent]

Many reports of near-death experiences sound the same: a welcoming white light and a replay of memories. But now scientists aim to study what really happens to the brain and consciousness when someone is on the verge of dying.
In a new study called AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation), doctors will examine patients in hospitals in Europe and North America who reach a state called cardiac arrest.

Surely death is a matter that concerns us all. Since the dawn of time man has created any kind of crazy theory about what goes on after death. Is there an after-life? Is there heaven and hell? Is there a purgatory? Reincarnation maybe? Mediums and parapsychological experiments, while very popular in the 19th century, didn’t manage to prove anything. Most self-claimed psychics just proved to be charlatans and parapsychology hasn’t come to any conclusive study about any death-related phenomenon.
It’s good to see that death starts once again to be a matter of hard science. Of course, talking to the dead isn’t science. However, observing procedures and collecting data is. Maybe death is an illusive subject that the human mind is not meant to comprehend it. However, there is a slight hole through which we can take a glimpse at what happens at that critical moment when life seems to cease.
Science has long struggled to define death, and to determine when the precise moment of death occurs. Now though, most doctors consider death more of a process than an event. A person is thought to have died when he stops breathing, his heart stops beating and his brain activity ceases.
"During a cardiac arrest, all three criteria of death are present," Parnia said. "There then follows a period of time, which may last from a few seconds to an hour or more, in which emergency medical efforts may succeed in restarting the heart and reversing the dying process. What people experience during this period of cardiac arrest provides a unique window of understanding into what we are all likely to experience during the dying process"

 

[no-body]

Sounds kind of like a theory I've read that states when a person dies they don't see themselves as dying, they continue living in a sort of pocket universe where they live forever. Most descriptions I've read have the person aging as normal and living a horrible "please kill me" existence. Seems like philosophical bull but I've always found it interesting.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Something else to think about - each time there is a decision split which results in one of you dying, and one of you surviving, somebody has to die. Considering the countless ways in which you could meet your end, and the staggering number of other selves that must have perished at some point - the only reason you're alive is because of countless others dying. Essentially, your continued existence is only possible because of a multitude of others dying, so that you could live.

 

[Baydwin]

Something else to think about - each time there is a decision split which results in one of you dying, and one of you surviving, somebody has to die. Considering the countless ways in which you could meet your end, and the staggering number of other selves that must have perished at some point - the only reason you're alive is because of countless others dying. Essentially, your continued existence is only possible because of a multitude of others dying, so that you could live.

Yep. But then that's true of any creature than eats others in order to survive, or that fights off pathogens to prevent death isn't it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Yep. But then that's true of any creature than eats others in order to survive, or that fights off pathogens to prevent death isn't it.

I guess I assumed most people would have more attachment to themselves than to the cheeseburger they're eating, or the cold virus they had last winter.

 

[Beyondo]

Did you know that the doctorate thesis for the parallel universe was only ten pages long! I believe it is the shortest thesis on record....

I however, do not subscribe to parallel universes, I prefer fairies, Tinker Bell actually, she is hot! Nice ***, good enough rack and plenty of fairy dust, if you know what I mean....