Nothing times infinity

[Lark]

In the latest episode of House that I've seen, I think the penultimate, House gives his friend a sedative to give him a taste of "temporary death" and his friend tells him that he has not proven that death is nothingness but that the sedative is nothingness, House says he expected that nothingness is better than something terrible would be the response but not that there would be hopes of a hereafter.

He says in response to his friend telling him that he was unconscious that he had no thoughts, no dreams etc. and now think of that times infinity without the waking up on the couch.

The "experiment" is meant to compell or motivate a further course of chemotherapy to try and seize some more longevity, later when a patient makes a similar life threatening choice House tries to strangle them and says "you are fighting back because of the human responsibility to live".

Now there's a lot to discuss there, for instance the responsibility to live thing and impulsive responses to life threatening stimulus, although what I would like to ask is does anyone else think that the "nothing times infinity" would be a terrible fate? I dont believe so, given that any time I have slept that "deep sleep of the dead" its never been a bad experience, sometimes I dont like waking from it, especially if its waking to stress, strain and demands on me.

Of course I'm a theist and do not believe that this would be perpetual, there is an eventual awakening to new life but that's a different question and I dont think relates directly to this one, it would perhaps be more important if you dreaded that kind of state.

 

[Munchies]

the human responsibility to live is the divine force in all of us struggling to live no matter what, self preservation.

Nothing times infinity is everything. i don't believe in death

 

[Totenkindly]

If you're in a permanent state of nothingness without consciousness, why does it matter anymore? Consciousness is necessary to experience pain/discomfort. You also might as well label it non-existence, "you" are not in a permanent state because "you" no longer exists.

There's not much to say about it, as there are human hopes for reality and then there is reality itself, and we have not been given insight into what actually does happen after the death barrier is crossed. it is all conjecture, and whether it is bliss, non-existence, or pure hell, we don't really get a choice in the matter as every human being dies. The wondering is all purely speculative; all we know is that the body ceases to function and eventually turns to dust.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Nothing times infinity = everything.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Nothing times infinity is everything. i don't believe in death

In what way would you say 'Nothing times infinity is everything.'?

If you're in a permanent state of nothingness without consciousness, why does it matter anymore?

If one is in a state of nothingness, wouldn't it stand to reason that there must also exist something for nothing to exist in relation to it? Or asked another way, what is nothing without something?

Consciousness is necessary to experience pain/discomfort. You also might as well label it non-existence, "you" are not in a permanent state because "you" no longer exists.

Yes, but consciousness is also necessary to experience pleasure/comfort, and an idea of pain/discomfort must be known in some form to then know pleasure/comfort.

One could also argue that there is an unconscious nature of reality that our consciousness is built on and that that part of ourselves does not have to exist in any permanent state (and some would argue the unconscious is symbolic to a perpetual state of change of reality that draws our consciousness of it), nor does it necessarily obey any sense of time without consciousness, and then nor would it have to be nothing either without consciousness because there can still be an aspect of it that is something unknown or undefined until there is an awareness of it.

But more importantly, this unconscious aspect of ourselves can manifest consciousness just as easily as it takes it away. I see plenty of reason to doubt that I would cease to exist as you suggest.

There's not much to say about it, as there are human hopes for reality and then there is reality itself, and we have not been given insight into what actually does happen after the death barrier is crossed. it is all conjecture, and whether it is bliss, non-existence, or pure hell, we don't really get a choice in the matter as every human being dies. The wondering is all purely speculative; all we know is that the body ceases to function and eventually turns to dust.

And what is reality itself exactly?
How do you know it is all conjecture?
How do you know we do not get a choice or any choice in the matter?

Not meaning to be rude, but you are making the claim that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding is inevitably conjecture, but we don't even know what standards you would require for it not to be conjecture, nor do you provide any reason for your claim(s) not to be considered conjecture in itself, making your claims strictly paradoxical from my end of the boat.

 

[Totenkindly]

If one is in a state of nothingness, wouldn't it stand to reason that there must also exist something for nothing to exist in relation to it? Or asked another way, what is nothing without something?

That hurt my head to just read.

["She hurt my head. My mommy hurt my head!"]

Sorry. Random movie quotes flashing before my eyes. rubber cookie if you can tell me what movie that line is from.

Again, none of that matters as far as I can see. Just because "something" exists doesn't mean that "YOU" any longer exist.

Yes, but consciousness is also necessary to experience pleasure/comfort, and an idea of pain/discomfort must be known in some form to then know pleasure/comfort.

Not meaning to be rude, but I don't understand what that has to do with anything. Obviously if you no longer exist, you won't be feeling pain or comfort. You won't even be aware you don't feel anything, good or bad. You don't exist.

One could also argue that there is an unconscious nature of reality that our consciousness is built on and that that part of ourselves does not have to exist in any permanent state (and some would argue the unconscious is symbolic to a perpetual state of change of reality that draws our consciousness of it), nor does it necessarily obey any sense of time without consciousness, and then nor would it have to be nothing either without consciousness because there can still be an aspect of it that is something unknown or undefined until there is an awareness of it.

Not meaning to be rude, but what exactly are you building any of that on?

You could argue it, certainly. But I don't think you can show it... no more than you can show that the universe is crawling around on the back of a giant turtle.

But more importantly, this unconscious aspect of ourselves can manifest consciousness just as easily as it takes it away. I see plenty of reason to doubt that I would cease to exist as you suggest.

Not meaning to be rude, but .... what are your "plenty of reasons to doubt"? You have shown nothing substantial whatsoever to support any of your assertions. In fact, the only tangible appearance of anything we have is that ... everything dies, and nothing comes back. Death is the great "event horizon" of the black hole that is our demise.

And what is reality itself exactly?
How do you know it is all conjecture?
How do you know we do not get a choice or any choice in the matter?

Not meaning to be rude, but since none of us know ANYTHING about what "reality is exactly" and have nothing to go on except what we see happen around us, and that is the only evidence we have, then.... what makes the most likely story here? Basing your ideas on evidence you can actually witness, or placing more stock in wild speculation? At least I'm trying to root my speculation in some form of observable phenomena, whereas you're just ... well, I have no idea where you are drawing these ideas from.

Not meaning to be rude, but you are making the claim that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding is inevitably conjecture, but we don't even know what standards you would require for it not to be conjecture, nor do you provide any reason for your claim(s) not to be considered conjecture in itself, making your claims strictly paradoxical from my end of the boat.

Not meaning to be rude, but I wasn't talking to you (so why the hostility?), and your post seems to be even flimsier from a rational standpoint that what you criticized me for. By all means, shoot it down, but put some ammo in the gun first.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh, and input from my roommate: "Peanut butter."

That is all.

 

[gmanyo]

nothing times infinity is i think five hundred milien or maybe even a little bit more becos thats half of a bilien and a bilien is about the highest number becos i dont know any of the higher ones so i think its probably almos tinfinity or else id know some higher numberns

 

[Munchies]

In what way would you say 'Nothing times infinity is everything.'?.

Nothing in itself is a negative form of infinity, for it to be multiplied would mean for it to exist, making it a postive form nothing, hense everything

nothing times infinity is i think five hundred milien or maybe even a little bit more becos thats half of a bilien and a bilien is about the highest number becos i dont know any of the higher ones so i think its probably almos tinfinity or else id know some higher numberns

loolololol

 

[Red Herring]

I don't see anything scary about eternal nothingness.

What scares/worries me about death (aside from possible physical and /or emotional pain I might experience while dying) is the impact on those left behind.
I will no longer exist to notice the impact, but there is a world beyond me that still exists. I'm important in my life and to those close to me, but in the grand scheme of things I'm a little spack of dirt and perfectly fine with that because so is just about anybody else and I don't feel like I am missing out on something because of that.
But since I consider right and wrong (or rather pleasure and pain) to exist beyond my personal experience and usually try to detach from my own perspective and be as objective as possible when judging a situation, it is the living I would not want to leave behind in pain. So even if I don't believe in there being any negative consequences to dying for myself, I would not want to say leave behind a child still in need of me, or even a lover or friends and family members that would be terribly shook up by my disappearance from their world.

Speaking of missing out on things. Yes, all the joys still ahead of you are a good motive to keep going, but then again when you're gone you're gone and you're not there to regret anything either. But while you are still here you might as well enjoy yourself and collect as many positive memories and have as positive an impact on the world around you as possible. Carpe diem!

 

[Aquarelle]

Nothing times infinity sounds pretty damn nice at times!

But in all seriousness, the concept of nothingness after death doesn't scare me.

 

[Munchies]

the concept of complete nothingness is incomprehensible. It implies absence of consciousness. Guess what baybay the entire universe is comprised of consciousness... NOT POSSIBLE

 

[Qlip]

Yeah, the total loss of consciousness and self doesn't bother me. I remember when I was a teen and we learned how to make ourselves faint. That is the darkest form of nonexistance that I've notexperienced (about the same as anesthesia). When you're out, you're not bothered by anything.

 

[xisnotx]

the deep sleep thing is only enjoyable after you wake up. while sleeping, you don't enjoy it (or not enjoy it)...it just is.
at least for me.

 

[UniqueMixture]

If you're in a permanent state of nothingness without consciousness, why does it matter anymore? Consciousness is necessary to experience pain/discomfort. You also might as well label it non-existence, "you" are not in a permanent state because "you" no longer exists.

There's not much to say about it, as there are human hopes for reality and then there is reality itself, and we have not been given insight into what actually does happen after the death barrier is crossed. it is all conjecture, and whether it is bliss, non-existence, or pure hell, we don't really get a choice in the matter as every human being dies. The wondering is all purely speculative; all we know is that the body ceases to function and eventually turns to dust.

You're wrong, because if the universe collapses back onto itself we'll be forced to do it all over again albeit with billions of years in between cycles. Perhaps there is something just in the act of near exact replication of physical processes that imbues "soulfulness."

 

[MacGuffin]

If one is in a state of nothingness, wouldn't it stand to reason that there must also exist something for nothing to exist in relation to it? Or asked another way, what is nothing without something?

Yes! Nothingness does not actually exist, it is a mental exercise.

In short, the universe must exist because there is no alternative.

 

[Totenkindly]

You're wrong, because if the universe collapses back onto itself we'll be forced to do it all over again albeit with billions of years in between cycles. Perhaps there is something just in the act of near exact replication of physical processes that imbues "soulfulness."

Hmmm... well, we're assuming it would be cyclical, first of all, but at least what you say suggests (marginally) a potential pattern. I mean, consider for an instant quantum physics: As far as we can tell, it only operates on a very very very very tiny scale on microparticles, we don't see it have impact (or have any meaningful impact) on macro-beings.

So I'm not sure the recycling of the universe matters to the individual person and whether they continue to exist after physical death, especially on a scale of billions and billions of years. Our bodies exist in this macrosystem, under the current rules of time, and the pattern within that size and framework and whatever else only shows us that things die.

The seasons continue to recycle, but people and specific organisms are not reborn. If someone wants to believe in an afterlife or something similar, then it is a matter of faith, not observable evidence.

 

[RDF]

... although what I would like to ask is does anyone else think that the "nothing times infinity" would be a terrible fate? I dont believe so, given that any time I have slept that "deep sleep of the dead" its never been a bad experience, sometimes I dont like waking from it, especially if its waking to stress, strain and demands on me.

We have all experienced an eternity of nothingness already: That is, the billion years of nothingness before we were born. And we will return to that state again after we die.

The anomaly is the period in between, when our molecules have come together briefly in a form that allows us consciousness. But it's an inherently unstable and short-lived phenomenon, and soon we will all return to our natural state, the same state we were in for billions of years before our birth.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Hmmm... well, we're assuming it would be cyclical, first of all, but at least what you say suggests (marginally) a potential pattern. I mean, consider for an instant quantum physics: As far as we can tell, it only operates on a very very very very tiny scale on microparticles, we don't see it have impact (or have any meaningful impact) on macro-beings.

So I'm not sure the recycling of the universe matters to the individual person and whether they continue to exist after physical death, especially on a scale of billions and billions of years. Our bodies exist in this macrosystem, under the current rules of time, and the pattern within that size and framework and whatever else only shows us that things die.

The seasons continue to recycle, but people and specific organisms are not reborn. If someone wants to believe in an afterlife or something similar, then it is a matter of faith, not observable evidence.

I think you are prone to not assuming the positive because it is risky to always do so, however I don't think you take into consideration the full emotional impact of NOT doing so. I think having an existential viewpoint that is tragic impairs function and doesn't allow for the potential to create a reality without our current limitations.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think you are prone to not assuming the positive because it is risky to always do so, however I don't think you take into consideration the full emotional impact of NOT doing so. I think having an existential viewpoint that is tragic impairs function and doesn't allow for the potential to create a reality without our current limitations.

Oh, so that's your bias.
I appreciate you being honest about it, at least.

However, when you say "I don't think you take into consideration the full emotional impact of NOT doing so," I would simply say that you're not correct. My entire 40+ years of existence have been an unfolding spiritual journey, and I moved from a monotheistic spiritual understanding of the world into this agnostic one, after wrestling for many many years about what the emotional impact would be... and somehow I passed through the eye of paradox and actually came out much happier on the other side, with more passion about life and more investment in my life than I was ever able to have before. It really liberated me to live and engage, whereas before I felt trapped and deadened.

So either you don't really "get it," or you're just a different type of person and need something else to function positively compared to me.