A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE
ESSAY: NIHILISM, LIFE AFTER DEATH, AND MODERN PHILOSOPHY
What Nihilism and
Nihilist philosophies – including Rationalism, Humanism, Agnosticism,
Existentialism, etc., Really Say About Your Future
Do you believe that life does end, or may end, at death? Everyone
who believes that death may be the end should read the following summary. It
represents a serious attempt to identify what may be a critical flaw in the
foundation of many modern philosophies. It will help those who study Nihilism,
Rationalism, Humanism, Agnosticism, and Existentialism, recognize questions
that are probably already on their minds. It will address essential questions
that you need to seek answers for. We will suggest that, whether they realize
and admit it or not, anyone who does not believe in an "afterlife",
be they Rationalists, Humanists, Agnostics, or otherwise, is necessarily a
Nihilist.
What is nihilism? The Webster's Dictionary definitions of nihilism
that we will be using are that nihilism is a doctrine that - "beliefs are
unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless”, and a doctrine “that
denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths” ((c) 1997
by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated). We will be discussing the idea that true
nihilists "believe in nothing". In doing so we will be questioning
the very foundation of the works of modern philosophers who argue that one may
find or create "value" in a world without a life after death, a
nihilistic world.
First, let me state emphatically that I believe life has positive
meaning. I am not a nihilist, and I do not believe that the conclusions of
nihilism are correct. I am a theist who believes in a non-physical soul, and
who does not in fact believe that the logical consequences of the death of a
purely physical being are the actual consequences we face on our death. This
essay is primarily philosophic and scientific in nature, and does not address
the possibility of life after death. However, near the end of the text you will
be invited to read other essays that explore my theist beliefs and my belief in
a life after death. We will also mention some alternative physical theories
that I do not accept, yet that I have not been able to completely rule out as
possibilities.
So why would I want to discuss something that I do not believe in?
There are several critical reasons. Nihilism is far from the isolated, oddball,
radical philosophy many consider it to be. I would suggest that nihilism is the
logical "conclusion" of most modern humanistic philosophies. More
importantly, I believe that nihilistic death is accepted, though not
recognized, as the universal destination of humankind by all who do not believe
in a life after death. I would suggest that if we embrace a modern secular philosophy, or no philosophy/religion at all, we must
embrace nihilism. We will assert that if you believe that your existence may
end at physical death, you are accepting the idea that "nothing" may
follow death, and you are by definition accepting the possibility that
"nihilism" is correct. Once we realize that the acceptance of
nihilism is a necessary consequence of our humanistic beliefs, or non-beliefs,
we will be able to decide for ourselves if what we currently believe to be
true, is what we really want to believe is true. Until we understand the nature
of "nothing", we may well have difficulty appreciating
"anything".
Warning! There is a risk that when
someone who is "depressed" considers the consequences of their own
death, he or she may misunderstand the possibilities, and may become
dangerously depressed. In fact the opposite should be true! Those who
understand death should conclude both that there is nothing at all to fear from
a death in which they would cease to exist, and that there is abundant hope in
the alternatives which may exist. We are not suggesting in this essay that
there is no "reason to live", in fact we are
saying the opposite. If you are distressed by what you read, you should
carefully reconsider what is being said, and understand that there is no reason
whatsoever to be disturbed by the conclusions about nihilism. Toward the end of
the essay we will suggest other readings that discuss reasons for living. We have
abundant hope that if you search for meaning and value in your life you will
find it. If you are still "depressed" by the possibility of a
nihilistic death, you are misunderstanding what is being said. Anyone who is,
or becomes, seriously depressed, should seek professional help immediately! [If
you find yourself distressed or depressed by our conclusions please read the
note at the end of this essay.]
If in fact you do
exercise meaningful freedom of choice, what good is it to be a unique human
being if at your death you cease to exist? If you do not continue to exist in
some form after death, what good are all the experiences, decisions, triumphs,
defeats, all the moments of your life? If you do not survive the grave, if you
return to the state of being that preceded your birth, then I suggest to you
that nothing in fact does matter. While over the ages men and women have sought
to perpetuate themselves through their children, their place in history, their
role in society, and through intricate philosophical webs of existentialism and
other essays on physical man's importance, the fact of physical death remains.
If each generation's death means the end of those individuals, then we are all
faced with an endless cycle of creation and destruction, the meaning of which,
if any, is beyond comprehension.
If there is
anything in life we can count on occurring without fail, it is physical death.
The successful bank president, the champion athlete, the housewife, the famous,
the unknown, every human being, you, I, die. While all acknowledge the
certainty of their eventual demise, few think about death until they are faced
with it. The simple fact of death is not news to anyone, yet the reality of its
impending occurrence is ignored by virtually every living person. The very
nature of human life denies death and shrouds it in the cloak of future events,
events that are not yet real and need not be dealt with in the present. Living
is too important and time consuming to be concerned with mortality. The fact
that you are moving steadily toward your death is most likely, and literally,
to be the last thing on your mind.
Observing the
inevitable death of every creature that inhabits the earth, we may have a
recurrent feeling that death is the end. On the other hand, it is virtually
inconceivable to us that all we are, all we have been, all we will be, will be
rendered void in that moment of death. It goes against human nature to
visualize the effective destruction of our past, present, and future, which
accompanies death without existence beyond death. Yet if each human being does
cease to exist, then all human beings are, or in the case of generations yet
unborn will be, waiting their turn to cease existing. If each and every human
being ceases to be, then the feeling of continuity that pervades the human race
is false (please note, we will explain later why we do not believe that life is
in fact destroyed by physical death).
In their
arguments for humanism, existentialism, etc., philosophers have spent lifetimes
trying to construct a difference between the apparent continuity of humankind,
and the periodic death of individual humans. Most of us think of our ancestors
as a link to the past, and our children as a link to the future, yet if we do
not survive the grave each generation dies an isolated death that mocks any
assertion that humankind has a continuing existence apart from its individual
members. If each person's death results in their no longer existing, then no
manner of historical recording, social progression, or other remembrance in the
minds of those whose time to die is yet to come, can in any way affect,
preserve, or make any difference whatsoever to those who no longer are. No one
will survive to remember. If each of us ceases to be, then your life has no
meaning and your choices make no difference.
We admit that
this logic seems counter intuitive, and even wrong, but if we are willing to
dissociate ourselves from the incredible biologic urge for self-preservation,
both of the individual and the species, and are willing to apply purely
objective reasoning, the logical conclusion, while discomforting, is perhaps
inevitable (there is at least one possible logical loophole we will discuss
below that might give permanent meaning and value to a finite physical life).
This is a very difficult conclusion to accept, it goes against our intuitive
feelings about the continuity of human life, and against our assumptions that
individual physical lives have some kind of meaning and value. Yet if we are
little more than doomed animals, our intuitive feeling of meaning and value
would not be surprising. From the very beginning, to assure survival of any
species, evolution would certainly have instilled in living creatures the
feeling that there is a reason for them to exist, a reason for them to crawl
out of the ocean and build cities. If there is no life after death, and our
lives are in fact consumed by "nothing", it is no wonder that our
genetic heritage argues so strongly against that possibility.
Because it is so
difficult to accept, we will consider our conclusion in more detail. It is
logical to assume that if each person's consciousness is the product of their
physical bodies, then individual physical consciousness exists only during that
person’s physical life on earth. If each of our physical lives proceeds from
birth to death, then the consequence of each person's death necessarily follows
their death. Who can be affected by that death? Certainly those who survive may
be affected, but here is the "problem", the death cannot be of any
consequence to the purely physical human being who no longer exists! The moment
before the death of a human being perhaps it can be said that their impending
death affects that being, but the very moment after the person dies, he or she
is no longer around to be affected!
Let us assume,
for example, that a comet collides with the Earth at some time in the future
before humans have colonized space. Assume further that all life on Earth is
annihilated by the collision. It is very hard to accept, but if consciousness
is nothing more than a physical phenomena, if there is
no non-physical continuation of life after death, the most logical, I believe
the only logical, conclusion is that the complete annihilation of humankind is
of absolutely no consequence to humankind! While the words may sound bizarre
and counter intuitive, in fact they are not. The moment after the total
destruction of humankind it can be said with some certainty that the
destruction of humankind had no affect whatsoever on humankind, simply because
humankind no longer exists to be affected.
If you accept
that time has direction (we believe that even absent a “fundamental time”, all
events follow a causal, sequential, chain), then cause and effect, action and
consequence, occur in a fixed order, the former always "preceding"
the latter. Keeping that in mind, the idea that after the total destruction of
humankind there would be no one left to be affected should not seem as bizarre.
Assuming that one event will always precede another event in order of
occurrence, if the event that is called the death of a human being is
equivalent to the physical annihilation of that human being, the consequence of
that event necessarily follows the event. If there is a causal sequence to
events, then the annihilation cannot be of any consequence to a human being who
no longer exists. Again, the moment before the destruction of humankind perhaps
it could be said that the impending destruction affects humankind, but the very
moment after humankind is destroyed there is absolutely no humankind left to be
affected. Assume that the comet annihilates humankind at 12:00 noon, the
consequence of that destruction occurs at 12:00 noon PLUS a moment in time, and
at 12:00 noon plus the moment in time there is no humankind left to be
affected. Indeed, there is no humankind around that is conscious of the fact
that the comet struck the earth!
The same logic
applies to the history of individuals not visited by a catastrophic event. If
you believe that each human being is nothing more than an individual physical
entity, and therefore that there is no life after death, then at the time of
their death each human being experiences the identical individual annihilation
that all humankind would experience together if the earth and its inhabitants
were simultaneously "destroyed". If a human being dies at
The logic goes
even further. If you do not believe that human consciousness continues to exist
after physical death, then death not only annihilates each individual's present
and future, but also annihilates their past. Most people would agree that for
an object to have a present and a future the object must exist. Yet many would
make the distinction that while an object cannot have a present and a future if
it does not exist, it somehow can have a past. It is clear that the present and
future of an object are bound to the existence of the object, but so to is the object's past. Much of the problem lies in the
popular usage of the words past, present, and future both to describe that
which is part of an object (a "past" that belongs to the object, like
a person’s memories that “belong” to the living individual from birth to
death), and to describe the existence of the object from a third party's view
(a “past” which is a chronological description of the object, like a photo
album containing pictures of an individual who has died).
It is a
misconception to equate the fact that there is a "history" of all
beings or objects that is set in the "past", with the statement that
a being or object that no longer exists has a "past". The first idea
simply states that the being or object existed over a finite period that is
apparent to those who currently exist. The extension of the concept of such a
history to the idea that somehow the object or being that no longer exists
still possesses a "past" confuses the distinction these two words can
convey. Once an object or being no longer exists it obviously has no present or
future, similarly the object has no past. While it may be difficult to accept,
a mountain that no longer exists has no past, present, or future for the simple
reason that there is no such mountain. There is a current history of a mountain
that once existed, but there is no mountain we can point to and describe the
"past" of. This is far more than semantics. A person who lived a
thousand years ago had a historic life that those who are alive can be conscious
of, but the person no longer has a past that is their past, which they can be
conscious of.
The English
language lacks the words that would make it easy to convey the difference
between a “history” set in the past that is the sum of all lifetimes, and a
“past” that is unique to and dependent on the existence of an individual life.
Perhaps humankind has avoided the initially discomforting possibility of
"finite pasts" by not distinguishing them from the infinite. Perhaps
the majority simply do not accept the possibility of the perpetual annihilation
of human beings.
There are many
arguments that purport to counter this logic, including assertions that a
person's life before physical death has “existential” meaning in and of itself,
yet all the alternative arguments are set in the time before death, within the
causal sequence of events that precede death. Every humanistic theory is based
on the biophysics of existence before physical death. We believe that none of
the arguments adequately address the period after death (perhaps with the
possible exception suggested by modern physics that is discussed below), and
therefore none answer the question of how a person who no longer exists can
have a past, present, or future?
If death is the
end of your existence, should you be frightened by the certainty of your
destruction? If indeed you cease to exist, you need not fear death, for after
your death you will feel neither pain, nor pleasure, nor peace, nor torment.
"You" will no longer exist, therefore "you" will feel
nothing. The resulting void is just that, a complete and total void. There is
nothing to fear, for there will be no one to experience anything negative.
There is nothing to look forward to, for there will be no one to experience
anything positive. The only way you can visualize what is usually called a
"nihilistic" death is to picture yourself after death as being in the
same state you were in before birth (of course you were not really in any state
at all). Trying to project yourself into the void that precedes life helps you
understand the void that may follow death. This ultimate void would in a single
moment consume your past, present, and future. No matter what philosophers may
tell us, such a fate, while it would offer no hope, would leave nothing to be
feared.
Admittedly, our conclusions about physical
death are totally opposite to our "common sense" understanding of
life. Virtually everyone is certain, for example, that if they are eleven years
old now, they have already experienced their tenth year of life, and nothing
can take from them the past experience of being ten years old. It is this
assumption, that our past somehow exists forever, that is at the heart of all
humanistic belief systems. Indeed, belief in some kind of physical persistence
of a human being's past is the only rational argument for the universal
humanistic conclusion that even if physical death is the end, living a
"good life" gives meaning and value to human existence. However there
is a deep, deep, problem with the humanist's view.
"Humanistic"
philosophers seem to accept that human consciousness is purely physical in
nature, and acknowledge the end of consciousness at physical death. Yet almost
all modern humanist philosophers tell us that a finite life can have meaning
and value. The problem lies in failure to accept the rational and logical
consequences for each human being if individual consciousness ceases to exist
on the physical death of the mind and body. All of the humanist philosophers
either ignore or misunderstand what the future holds for us after physical
death if we are nothing more than physical beings.
Philosophers often
speak of the void that would follow such a death as the abyss, the unknown, the
approaching void, etc. All of these suggest that we are on a journey to a
"place" which lies at the end of our physical lifetimes. If on our
death we cease to exist, this idea that we are traveling to our ultimate
destiny is false. What the philosophers are doing is giving substance to nothing.
We are not traveling to an abyss, the void, or the unknown, for these words
suggest that we are moving toward something. I recognize the seeming absurdity
of the language, yet if on our death we cease to exist, then
"nothing" totally consumes us.
This is the heart of
the problem, we cannot in any way whatsoever understand or visualize
"nothing". The moment we attempt to comprehend or visualize
"nothing", the comprehension or visualization interjects something
into "nothing", preventing us from reaching our goal. When we define "nothing" we give it the quality of being
definable, a quality that can only be given to that which is more than
"nothing". Nothing might be thought of as the total absence of
physical reality, yet even this assigns a definition to the indefinable. The
moment we think about "nothing" we make it an object that can be
thought about, we make it an object that can only be more than
"nothing". The only way we can answer the question "what is
nothing?" is to answer it by not asking it, for if we ask the question we
destroy the answer. Most people fail to recognize the fact that
"something" simply cannot comprehend "nothing". If we are
no more than physical beings, and if “nothing” follows our physical death, then
at the moment of our physical death, "nothing" totally consumes us.
What does science have to say about all this? We need to recognize
that the very difficult conclusions we reach in this section are not
necessarily supported by conventional interpretations of general relativity and
quantum mechanics. The current understanding that human being’s have of the
physical universe is fundamentally incomplete. Early concepts of space and time
as absolute metaphysical entities would seem to be fully consistent with our
analysis. However, modern physics tells us that the universe is much more
complex than it was once thought to be. At the start of the third millennium, it is generally accepted that we exist in some
kind of four dimensional “space-time”. The mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who helped formalize the math of space-time,
said "…henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, have vanished into
the merest shadows and only a kind of blend of the two exists in its own
right."
Space-time is essentially the
history of the entire universe, containing every "event" that ever
happens. A "world-line" is the history of an object / observer in
"space-time". Each point on the world-line of a human being is
generally thought to be a real physical event that represents a unique
sequential moment in the life of that individual, from birth to death.
Conventional wisdom is that the world-line of a human being is the "human
being", so that human life is in some sense a permanent part of
space-time. If this is so, perhaps we have a permanent physical past that is
etched in the fabric of space-time.
To see why we do not believe that science provides us with a physical
past, we need to look at three interpretations of cosmologic theories. The
first possible interpretation, the one that we strongly favor, brings into
question the very nature of space-time. At first glance, the concept of a
permanent physical space-time seems to imply that human beings have a physical
past, present, and future. Most people assume that the math of space-time
describes a permanent physical reality that surrounds us, a very real, very
physical, space-time in which we exist. This may not be the case.
The limited number
of physicists who understand the incredibly difficult math, realize that the
theory of general relativity tells us that the universe may be completely
described without using a
"fundamental temporal variable", without even defining what we call "time".
The time we measure on a stopwatch that we use to clock a foot race is derived
from comparing the motion of the runner from the starting line to the finish
line with the motion of the hand rotating around the face of the watch. The
time on the stopwatch is not, as Newton thought, a fundamental quantity in
nature, rather it is a comparison of the motion of the person running down the
track relative to the motion of the hands of the stopwatch. Therefore, we may
be justified in concluding that "time" is derived from relative
motion, but that relative motion does not necessarily require the passage of
time. It may be true that “fundamental time” simply does not exist.
This is a shocking
idea for human beings who are confronted with the ticking away of years, days,
hours, and seconds. Even so, if you think about it, a year is nothing more than
the relative motion of the earth going around the sun, a day is the relative
motion of the earth rotating around its axis, an hour is a fraction of the
motion we call a day measured by a quartz "moving" in a watch, a
second is very close to the relative motion of a beating heart, etc. We don't
expect to convince you in a few paragraphs that time is
an illusion, it took years of reading and thought for us to reach that
conclusion, but we do want you to recognize that there is a strong possibility
that fundamental time does not exist. If this is a correct interpretation of general relativity, it can lead
to the conclusion that there is no temporality of any kind associated with our
universe.
There are extremely serious objections to
this line of thought. In its most popular forms, the other 20th
century revolution in physics, quantum mechanics, incorporates a fundamental
temporal variable. Some scientists believe that general relativity will be
found to be incomplete, and that quantum mechanics tells us that time does in
fact exist. Other physicists agree that the universe lacks a fundamental
temporal variable by which the universe evolves, yet they also believe that in
some very real sense the universe exhibits fundamental "temporality".
None-the-less, there are a few respected physicists who believe that we should
accept what general relativity is telling us, that there is no fundamental
temporal variable in the universe, and find a way to modify quantum mechanics
to eliminate both "time" and "temporality" from quantum theory.
Given the success of general relativity in predicting experimental results, we
strongly believe that this is the correct approach. We are convinced that if
and when physicists discover a broad model that incorporates both relativity
and quantum theories, what is usually called a theory of quantum gravity, it
will not have any kind of fundamental temporal variable associated with it, and
we will find that the universe is fundamentally "atemporal"
in nature.
If the theory of
general relativity is in fact part of the illusive theory of quantum gravity,
and if we do in fact live in an "atemporal"
universe, one extremely speculative result might be that physical events in our
lives either exist, or do not exist. The statement that a point on a world-line
exists in the universe may be false, true, false, with
no sense that “false” is “before” or “after” true! If so, then it may be quite
literally true that your tenth birthday does not exist, does exist, does not exist in the universe. Perhaps you believe that
your tenth birthday is a permanent part of your past only because it is part of
your current memories, not because it exists in some kind of permanent physical
space-time. We need to emphasize that this is a very speculative idea, that at the beginning of the third millennium is
considered nothing more than science fiction by most, perhaps all,
cosmologists.
If we live in an
essentially "atemporal" universe, and there
is no non-physical existence after death, we are convinced that physical death
consumes each human being's physical past, present, and future. This is very
difficult to understand and accept, yet the idea that there is no fundamental
temporality, and that this fact leads to the annihilation of our physical past,
intuitively appears to us to be the correct interpretation of our physical
universe. When you
finish reading this summary you may have questions about some of our
conclusions, especially about the very complex relativistic and quantum science
behind this part of our essay. You may want to read the full version of our
essay, and/or obtain a copy of our book, read what we call our LifeNotes, and consider the other notes and comments
that we release from time to time (internet, postal, and email addresses are
provided at the end of this summary), where we try to present a broader picture
of the foundation and logic that supports the conclusions.
The reason that we end up relying on intuition, and cannot be more
certain that our conclusions are correct, is simply because no one knows what
physics will look like if and when relativity and quantum theories are united.
Furthermore, there is no way to tell how long it will take to find answers to
the basic questions raised by modern physics. Indeed, it is quite possible that
we will never know the answers to many of our most
fundamental questions. We believe that the universe is essentially atemporal, and that physical death annihilates our physical
(but not any non-physical) past, present, and future, but we may be wrong!
OK, let's say
that you are unwilling to even think about "time" not existing, would
the existence of "time" restore a meaningful physical past to your
life? The second possibility we will look at is based on the fact that most
popular interpretations of modern physics suggest that the physical existence
of each human being somehow persists in space-time in the form of the
individual's "world-line”. Classical interpretations often say that an
object is the entire world-line of that object, or that a human being is his or
her entire world-line, but they do not really explain what is meant by this.
They do, however, almost universally conclude that each event in a human
being's life exists as an event in space-time, so that if we could observe the
point on a world-line that is the tenth birthday of someone who is now eleven
years old, we would see that person experiencing their tenth birthday. We would
not see a "copy", or a "repeat", of the particular day, we would see the person's tenth birthday as it is
occurring, period!
It would seem
that this characteristic of all popular space-time theories leaves us without
tools for building a rational model of a universe that contains a
"conscious" world-line that is the "me" reading this book.
Rather it tells us that there is, and always will be, a set of unique "me's" that somehow exist in space-time at every single
event on my world-line. We might want to say that I am the "sum" of
all the points, yet the assertion that a human being is his or her entire
world-line, from birth to death, does not appear to be consistent with the
general consensus that every event along a world-line has a singular existence
that cannot be preferred over any other event on that world-line.
The theory of relativity tells us
that all of the laws of physics are the same for every inertial observer. If we live in a fully relational, relativistic universe, we
simply cannot prefer observations made in the inertial frame of reference of
one observer over observations made in the inertial frame of reference of any
other observer, no matter where they may be “located” in space-time. An
apparent consequence of this fact is that for one observer your tenth birthday
occurs before your eleventh birthday, while for another (spatially separated)
observer your eleventh birthday occurs before your tenth! Relativity tells us
that both observers are 100% correct in their observations. The cosmos appears
to be a very strange place!
Classic
interpretations imply that each individual exists as discrete human
consciousness in the billions of discrete events located at every point along
that individual's world-line. Some physicists describe this by saying that
there are many "now's"; others say there are
billions of approximate "isomorphs" of "me"; many claim
there are billions of other worlds in which various versions of "me"
co-exist; etc. It seems reasonable to conclude that modern physics tells us
that if time exists, literally billions of discrete, very real, versions of
each of us occupy space-time! This may seem like science fiction, yet surveys of theoretical
physicists and cosmologists confirm that most believe we must adopt some form
of many-worlds, multiple existence, theory. Remember,
this is currently accepted as the most promising approach to the problems of
space-time, and not merely a speculative idea.
If there is a "me" that
exists on my world-line for every event in my physical life, or if there really
are an infinite number of parallel universes in which I exist, then there is no
singular "me". Rather there are billions of isolated "me's" either lying along my world-line, or stuck
somewhere in totally isolated universes. If the scientists are correct, it
would seem to be impossible to find meaning and value for a singular
"me" in the collective existence of each of the billions of instances
of individual consciousness, no single one of which is the real true
"me" who can live a meaningful life. All of the popular
interpretations of relativistic and quantum theories seem to lead us to the
same conclusion, if you do not have a single permanent existence, your life has
no meaning and your choices make no difference to “you”, simply because there
is no single physical "you" that exists before or after physical
death (please remember, we believe that life has meaning and value).
There is a third
possibility, that the intuitive feeling human beings have that their physical
past exists as a singular entity is based on some real, yet unknown, physical
model of our universe. The intuitive feeling
is very strong that our physical life makes a positive or negative contribution
to human existence, and that our physical life is a permanent part of the
physical universe. Perhaps
there is some single physical consciousness that incorporates all of the events
along our world-line, and that preserves our physical past, present, and
future. We cannot rule out this possibility, if for no other reason than the
fact that it is theoretically impossible to prove a negative. In other words,
we might be able to prove that physical consciousness after death exists in the
universe by observing it, but we can never prove that physical consciousness
after death does not exist because we have not observed it (we discuss this
limitation in some detail in our book).
The
third possibility seems to require the existence of a physical consciousness
that is not bound to events on a world-line. Some physicists suggest that
consciousness has unique physical properties so that human beings become
sequentially “aware” of events on world-lines that are essentially frozen in a
“block universe”. Yet, as we have already said, in every currently popular
physical theory the universe “evolves” as a sequential progression of
space-time “events”. It seems intuitively true that if human consciousness is a
physical phenomena, that can be explained either by
current theory or by physical laws that are not yet known to science, it is in
some real sense inextricably bound to each of these space-time events. It seems
intuitively difficult, or impossible, to accept that such a dynamic physical
consciousness could incorporate individual predetermined “block” events into a
singular human being without violating the basic tenets of relativity. While it
is true that a physical consciousness that is not bound to physical events might
represent a unique singular existence, it is also fair to say that there is no
known reason to believe that physical consciousness is not
inexorably linked to individual physical events, making the third possibility
seem to be almost an impossibility.
There may be many “me’s” that are experiencing past events in the “past”, and
I may have a memory of past events in the present, yet the intuitive conclusion
is that my physical consciousness does not experience past physical events
“now”. It seems intuitively true that if consciousness of past events can be
lost when memories fade or are damaged, then physical
consciousness has not incorporated those past events into a permanent singular
“me”. Einstein only briefly addressed this matter when he said “An individual
who should survive his physical death is also beyond
my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise…. Enough for me the mystery of the
eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality,
together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in
nature.”
It seems that if we are to believe that there may be some kind of
singular physical (rather than non-physical) consciousness that survives
physical death, then we must accept that there is some unique physical
consciousness that is "me", that somehow incorporates all of the
conscious events of my life, and that is not dependent on the continuing
physical existence of my biologic body. While current interpretations of
popular theories do not totally rule out the possibility of a perpetual
individual physical consciousness, there is no known method that is both
rational and realistic (i.e.- a theory that appears
capable of modeling physical reality), to construct a physical (as opposed to a
non-physical) model that preserves the singular human physical consciousness of
an individual after the physical death of that person. Modern theories suggest
the possibility that multiple instances of a physical “me” exist in space-time,
but they do not offer even a clue as to how to unite all of those instances
into a single physical “me” whose consciousness spans space-time. Indeed,
current interpretations of quantum superposition seem to deny the possibility
of a “single” physical reality in which a unique “me” might exist.
I can visualize
and accept a “non-physical consciousness” that survives physical death, yet I
am unable to have any confidence at all in the existence of a singular
“physical consciousness” that survives the physical death of a human being. To
do so, it would seem that I would have to discover a new physical process that
incorporates all the “events” in a human life, and that creates a unique,
singular physical consciousness that continues to exist in space-time as that
human being, or at least as something that we can call a singular past that
belongs to the human being. This seems to me to be an impossible task. I may be
wrong, yet I simply cannot find an accepted physical theory that supports a
unified "physical" consciousness that survives physical death.
Furthermore, I do not know of any credible objective physical evidence that
such a “physical” consciousness might exist. I can say that after many years of
thought I am thoroughly convinced that any attempt to construct a model of
permanent physical consciousness does far more damage to the centuries of
accumulated scientific knowledge, than does the
acceptance of the possibility that a permanent non-physical consciousness may
exist.
We have concluded
that no current, or reasonably foreseeable, rational theory provides us with a
singular physical consciousness that continues to exist after physical death,
so that a single physical "me" continues to exist after my death in
my physical “past”. We have said that if we do not have a singular physical or
non-physical consciousness that continues to exist after physical death, then
those who believe in nihilism are probably correct, and some type of
"nihilistic" void awaits all of us. It may be a true void, like the
void that preceded our birth, or it may be a very strange void where billions
of "me" merely co-exist. Whatever physical form it might take, it
would seem to satisfy the definition of a "meaningless" void.
A moment's
comment on those who believe they may be able to physically perpetuate
themselves through cryogenics, cloning, etc. If, we live in a constantly
expanding universe, our universe will eventually return to a state of uniformly
high entropy, so that the cosmos will become a hostile environment in which
physical life cannot be sustained. If, on the other hand, theories that predict
endless cycles of expansion and contraction of our universe are correct,
nothing physical can survive beyond the next collapse of the universe a few
billion years from today. While a physical end to all biologic creatures may
seem absurdly far away, your great, great, great (to the 100th. power),
grand-clone would find it frightfully real when the time came for their
physical demise, a distant time from now which like all imaginable time is but
a second in eternity. There is simply no cosmologic model that we know of that
offers any hope for a perpetual, physical, human existence.
Even if in some
unknown manner multiple clones could survive in an ever-expanding universe, the
idea that they are perpetual extensions of their donor seems less than
credible, perhaps so, perhaps not. Such a perpetual presence seems to be more
like an endless path of meaningless individual moments than a continuous
meaningful existence. Furthermore, if there is no life after death, it would
make no difference if an individual (cloned or otherwise) continued to exist,
or "died" in one hundred years or in one billion years, because
"death" would annihilate the individual's past, present, and future.
If physical death
annihilates all individual consciousness then there is no reason whatsoever to
embrace cryogenics, cloning, strong artificial intelligence, or any other means
of extending physical life. Since an individual's death would carry with it no
possible consequence to that individual, there is no logical reason whatsoever
for the living individual to avoid the "consequences" of death. If an individual no longer exists after death, that
individual has no reason at all to feel anything positive, negative, or
otherwise about death (or for that matter anything at all about life). Again
please note, we do not believe that physical death
annihilates individual consciousness, and we strongly believe that life does
have meaning and value.
What should our
response be to all of this? We strongly believe that there is absolutely no
reason not to live for the possibility that life has meaning and value. We
think we are right about the transitory nature of physical consciousness, but
we may be wrong. If our conclusions are wrong, perhaps we do in fact have a
physical consciousness that survives physical death. If we are wrong, we may
have a perpetual physical existence that gives meaning and value to our
physical lives, even if there is no non-physical life after death. We will not
pursue this possibility, yet you should recognize that it exists.
If we are right,
if our physical consciousness does not survive physical death, our death may
mark the end of our existence. Yet if our physical consciousness dies, it is
still quite possible that we will not face a "nihilistic" death.
Perhaps we have a non-physical consciousness that survives physical death, and
that gives meaning and value to our lives. We consider this possibility in more
detail in our book and in our LifeNotes as we search
for a reason for living.
Beyond the human
desire for meaning in life, we would suggest that the logical consequence of what philosophers call a nihilistic death,
"requires" the search for alternatives to nihilism. Those who believe
that the nihilistic void is approaching are, by the very nature of their
humanity, required to search for something to believe in other than the void.
While it appears to be impossible to scientifically prove that life has meaning
and value, it is equally impossible to prove that life has no meaning and
value. No matter what the person who believes that life is meaningless may
believe to be true at any particular time in their life, the possibility always
exists that he or she may eventually find true meaning and value in their life.
There is no
reason to be a "nihilist", no reason to believe that life ends at
death. If nihilism is correct, if life does end at death, it makes no
difference whatsoever if we believe it is correct, or not. If we believe
nihilism is correct, and it is correct, that does not alter the void that would
follow death. If we believe nihilism is not correct, and it is correct, that
does not alter the void that would follow death. If we do not believe anything
at all about nihilism, and it is correct, that does not alter the void that
would follow death. Yet if nihilism is not correct, belief and/or faith in that
which offers a reason for living may well be essential to our existence. If
because we believe nihilism is correct we accept the void, and we are wrong,
then we have doomed ourselves. If we recognize that the humanistic belief that
there is no life after death leads to the nihilistic conclusion that the
"void" will consume past, present, and future, then to escape the
quicksand of nihilistic time we must search for alternatives that provide a
reason for living.
It is very
important to recognize that nihilism can never lead to suicide, for nihilism
tells us that if we do in fact live in a nihilistic world, nothing that happens
in our lives, no matter how "badly" we may feel about it at the time,
has any "real" consequence at all. It tells us that what we perceive
to be the very worst events in our lives are no better, or worse, than any
other events. I am absolutely convinced that the philosophical neutrality that
nihilism demands, means that nihilism never suggests
or supports suicide as an option for any human being.
Furthermore, since it is absolutely
clear that we may not live in a nihilistic world, and that nihilism may be
wrong, there can never be any reason to terminate our life, risk the negative
consequences, and abandon the possible positive consequences of living a
meaningful life. We are a small part of the whole. Unless the answer is
revealed to us by the whole, we can never know during our physical lives what
really happens when our physical life ends. Life may have physical or
non-physical meaning and value that we do not, and perhaps cannot until our
physical death, recognize and understand. [If you find yourself distressed or
depressed by our conclusions please read the note at the end of this essay.]
There is no
reason at all to reject the possibility that each of us has some kind of
permanent physical or non-physical consciousness. There is absolutely no
logical reason whatsoever to reject the possibility that nihilism may be false!
There is no reason whatsoever not to search for an alternative to nihilism, to
explore the possibility of a permanent physical or non-physical consciousness,
to search for a reason for living. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever not
to live for the possibility, however remote you may believe it to be, that life
has meaning and value.
We have written a book we call
“LOVE - In Search of a Reason for Living”. As we say in the preface, it is “a
book about life, and a book about you. Its purpose is to send you on a journey
through your heart, mind, and soul. If you take the journey you will find in
yourself the reason for living. If you care at all about life and people and yourself,
you will take the journey.” We invite you to download a copy.
On our website http://www.lifenotes.org we
have published LifeNotes, selected in large part from
our book, that are directed toward the vast majority of people who we
believe are unwilling to live the fanatic life that we conclude in our
book all people can and should live. We
suggest that you read LifeNotes first by clicking on
the link below, and then read our book if you decide that you want too.
DISTRESS & DEPRESSION
We have received
comments from readers who tell us that our ideas caused them to be distressed
and deeply depressed. If you are one of those readers you need to consider the
following. As human beings become anxious they often lose their focus and
misinterpret what they are reading. If you understand what we are saying, there
is absolutely no reason to be depressed by our ideas.
Why not?
First, we may be wrong. What we conclude to be true and correct may not be. Yet
beyond the fact that we cannot be sure we are right, the fact is that if we are
right, for the vast majority there is nothing to fear or dread. This fact is
extremely difficult to accept if you are searching for meaning in your life,
you do not believe that there is a life after death, and you are discouraged or
depressed before you start reading. When you read our ideas they may touch raw
nerves, and you may stop understanding what we are saying.
Either there
is a life after death or there is no life after death. If there is no life
after death and we are correct when we conclude that physical death annihilates
our past, present, and future, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to
be even the slightest bit distressed or depressed. If physical death
annihilates your past, present, and future, then after your physical death you
are consumed by a totally peaceful void, with absolutely no pain or sorrow or
other negative result. There is no logical or rational way whatsoever to
conclude that there is any negative consequence if your ultimate end is a
nihilistic death.
If your mind
is not receptive and clear, then you may have a violent reaction to our
conclusions about death if there is no life after death, a reaction that
ignores the fact that there cannot be anything to fear about such a death. It is
human nature to attack anything that suggests that our life today may be
destroyed by death, yet that reaction can have no rational basis in logic. If
your past, present, and future is annihilated by your physical death, after
your death you will know no pain or sorrow or regrets or anything negative at
all, period.
Furthermore,
if your past, present, and future is annihilated by your physical death, that
fact can have no effect whatsoever on today, on now. If a nihilistic death lies
in your future, it cannot effect your present at all. You can live every day,
from now to the moment of your death, to the fullest. It is very important to
understand that every person who is unwilling to believe that there is a life
after physical death can live a positive life for the rest of their life,
loving their neighbor, doing that which is good, with the hope that physical
life does have meaning and purpose. There is no reason whatsoever for those who
are unwilling to believe that there is a life after physical death to be
depressed, there is every reason for them to do that which is good and live the
most positive life they are willing to live. If you are unwilling to believe
that there is life after physical death, there is every reason for you to do
that which is good and live a positive life, with the hope, no matter how tiny
you may believe it is, that your life has meaning and
purpose.
Many who are
deeply depressed believe that their lives are meaningless, and to escape the
pain of living they seek the peace of suicide. It you are suicidal it may be
very difficult for you to accept the fact that if there is no life after death
and we are correct when we conclude that physical death annihilates our past,
present, and future, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to commit
suicide. If your physical death is a nihilistic death, there is no reason to
end your life now because you will experience the same “peaceful” end if you
die next year, or twenty years from now. Your mind may be too clouded to
understand what we are saying, yet if you are suicidal you must take whatever
time it takes to fully understand.
If on your
physical death your past, present, and future are annihilated, there is
absolutely no reason whatsoever to commit suicide, because all the physical and
emotional pain you suffer in your life, now or next week or next year, will be
annihilated whenever you die, even if your death does not occur for many, many,
years. It is simple logic that if no matter how far in the future a nihilistic
death occurs, it causes all pain that you ever suffered to be as if it never
happened, then there can be no logical reason whatsoever to commit suicide now
to avoid future pain, period. Committing suicide necessarily eliminates all
possibility of finding meaning and purpose in your life. You cannot know if a
nihilistic death awaits you or not. Even if there is a nihilistic death in your
future you cannot know that there is, so there is no reason whatsoever not to
live for the possibility, no matter how remote you may believe it to be, that
in the future you will find meaning and purpose in your life.
No matter
what we may think or you may think, there is always a
possibility that your life has meaning and purpose, whether there is a life
after death or there is no life after death. If there is a life after death, or
if there is no life after death, there is always a possibility that sometime in
the future you will find meaning and purpose in your life. If in fact there is
a life after death then there is every reason to live for the hope that you
will enjoy a peaceful existence after death. If in fact there is no life after
death then there is every reason to live for the hope that your physical
existence right now has meaning and purpose. Even if there is no life after death
and physical death annihilates our past, there is no reason whatsoever not to
live for the possibility your physical existence has meaning and purpose right
now, simply because during your physical life on earth you can never, never,
know with any degree of certainty whether your life has, or does not have,
meaning.
If you are
depressed and suicidal it is extremely difficult for you to see the absolute
fact that there is absolutely no reason not to live every moment of your
natural life for the possibility that you may find meaning and purpose and
happiness in your life. There can be no reason whatsoever to commit suicide and
eliminate the possibility that your life has meaning and purpose. There can be
no reason whatsoever to eliminate the possibility that you will eventually
find, if not joy and happiness, at the very least peace and contentment in your
life.
If you do
not yet understand the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to be disturbed
or depressed by our conclusions, especially our conclusion that if there is no
life after death, then your past, present, and future are most probably
annihilated on your physical death, then you still do not understand what we
are saying. Please take as much time as you need to reread and carefully think
about what we are saying, until you satisfy yourself that there is in fact
absolutely no reason to be depressed by our conclusions, and absolutely no
reason whatsoever for any human being to commit suicide.
Depression
is a medical condition, if you are depressed, for any reason, you must seek
professional help:
Life is full
of good times and bad, of happiness and sorrow. But when you are feeling
"down" for more than a few weeks or you have difficulty functioning
in daily life, you may be suffering from a common, yet serious medical illness
- called clinical depression.
You are not
alone
Every year
more than 19 million American Adults suffer from clinical depression. Young or
old, man or woman, regardless of race or income - anyone can experience
clinical depression. Depression can cause people to lose the pleasure from
daily life. It can complicate other medical conditions - it can be serious
enough to lead to suicide. Yet this suffering is unnecessary. Clinical
depression is a very treatable medical illness. So why don't many people seek
the help they need? Clinical depression often goes untreated because people
don't recognize the many symptoms. They may know some symptoms, such as sadness
and withdrawal, but they are unaware of others, including anxiety, irritability,
and sleeplessness. Some incorrectly believe that only people whose depression
lasts for months, or who have completely lost their ability to function, have
"real" - or "clinical" - depression. Many people even
wrongly think that depression is "normal" for older people, young
adults, new mothers, menopausal women, or those with a chronic illness. The
truth is, clinical depression is never
"normal," no matter what your age or life situation. Also, people
need to know that treatment for clinical depression really works - and to learn
how to go about finding the treatment they need.
Clinical
Depression can be Successfully Treated
Clinical
depression is one of the most treatable of all medical illnesses. In fact, more
than 80 percent of people with depression can be treated successfully with
medication, psychotherapy or a combination of both. Only a qualified health
professional can determine if someone has clinical depression. But knowing the
symptoms of clinical depression can help you as you talk with your health
professional.
As with many
illnesses, if treatment if needed, the earlier it begins, the more effective it
can be. And, early treatment increases the likelihood of preventing serious
recurrences.
You Do Not
Have to Cope with Clinical Depression on Your Own
Some people
are embarrassed to get help for depression, or they are reluctant to talk about
how they are feeling. Others believe that depression will go away on its own.
You can't just "Tough it out!" Help is available.
Talking to
friends, family members and clergy can often give people the support needed
when going through life's difficult times. For those with clinical depression
such support is important, but it is not a substitute for the care of a health
professional. Remember, clinical depression is a serious illness that you do
not have to treat on your own. http://www.nmha.org/ccd/
Depression
A depressive
disorder is an illness that involves the body, mood, and thoughts. It affects
the way a person eats and sleeps, the way one feels about oneself, and the way
one thinks about things. A depressive disorder is not the same as a passing
blue mood. It is not a sign of personal weakness or a condition that can be
willed or wished away. People with a depressive illness cannot merely
"pull themselves together" and get better. Without treatment,
symptoms can last for weeks, months, or years. Appropriate treatment, however,
can help most people who suffer from depression. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/depression.cfm
Also see: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/depression.html
(Copyright (c) 1995-2008 Compact Library
Publishers Inc., all rights reserved. You may make and distribute copies of
this essay, or selections from it. You must include all copyright notices and
include this paragraph with every copy. You may not make any additions or
deletions to the text. Any alterations to the text would be a violation of our
copyright. Any comments that you attach to the text must clearly state that
they are not part of the essay, and that they are the opinion of the
commentator and not necessarily the opinion of the author. Significant portions
of this essay were taken from "LOVE - In Search of a Reason for
Living", Copyright (c) 1990-2008 Compact Library Publishers Inc.)
(Third Millennium
Final Edition - corrections and revisions are continuing)
Last major revision: December, 2002