Beyond the possibility that we live in a simulation. which I do not believe, the reason that it is very highly unlikely that I am a hippo is because I am an observable in the scientific sense. A scientist can posit that I exist as a biologic entity and can test their theory by experimentation - do I statistically meet all the criteria of classification as a homo-sapien? That which is not observable because it is outside the range of human ability to perceive, with even the best instruments used to enhance the senses, objectively may or may not exist. I cannot say it is likely that anything exists beyond the observable nor can I say it is likely that nothing exists beyond the observable, I cannot say anything at all about the reality of that which is not observable. Is there anything beyond the physical, I have no way of concluding that there is or there is not, therefore I may simply decide to reject the non-physical (what you call supernatural) but I cannot offer proof I am right.If reader entertains "may or may not be" arguments as establishment clauses, then I invite him to consider that he, himself, may, or may not be, a hippopotamus, more likely a jack-ass, or for that matter anything else whatsoever, including nothing whatsoever.
Indeed every event has a effect on the next sequential event, weaving a causal tapestry. However, in a purely physical world after his physical death Bill does not continue exist as a being who is conscious of the tapestry. The block universe interpretation of GR does not give us an individual who exists after physical death, rather it provides a worldline with an infinite number of "me's" no single one of which is a unique Bill who can be said to be the Bill who existed before physical death and contributed to the tapestry. There is no mechanism to explain being and becoming, you simply have an infinite number of approximate isomorphs of Bill strung out along his worldline.In the tapestry of time and space, Bill lives forever.
From a purely objective standpoint that is a conclusion that may or may not be true. It is irrational to accept as factually true that there is no meaning to life as long as there is a possibility, no matter how small, that there is a non-physical existence. The idea that one creates meaning by declaring that human beings can assign meaning is the fallacy of Ubermensch.There is no meaning to life. Live with it.
True - however every time something actualizes it creates a new universe so that there are an exponentially number of "me's" approaching infinite, no one of which is a singular me For which it can be said he or she had a meaningful life..MWI, there is no spooky action at a distance. It is a completely local and deterministic interpretation of QM.
That is exactly right. The issue is what does "existed" and "will exist" mean - are they historical facts available to those who are conscious or are they facts that instantiate a past belonging to the person who does not exist - a past that is their past. The question about the metaphysical implications of tensed language is tied to the answer to our scientific question of whether the universe exhibits fundamental or emergent temporality - are past and future part of physical reality or not. For the spooky action at a distance of Quantum entanglement to work it appears that something like causal set theory, where there are sequential events but no fundental temporality, absolutely must be added to or discovered to be the correct interpretation of GR / QM. This has profound implications for the ontology of human physical existence.you still exist/existed/will exist on the points of that worldline
You are right that Smolin in particular championed an interpretation that includes temporality in his book Time Reborn. It is not as clear if he still supports that position six years later, his contemporary Carlo Rovelli does notYes it does. Or at least it does as interpreted by physicists who specialize in GR. E.g. Hawking and Smolin.
.a local notion of a sequence of events, which is a minimal notion of time, and that’s the only thing that remains
The problem with most words is that they are consciously or unconsciously "tensed". If you look at the mereological existence of someone who is conscious the word exists is used by me as equivalent to not conscious - conscious - not conscious. Someone who does not exist, is not conscious, does not have a past that is their past, a past they are aware of.That's not the best argument I've seen; sliding the word exists from one sense to another.
It does not make it true, if it is true it is true, if it is not true then it is not true. My point is that it is more rational to accept the possibility that there is a non-physical life after physical death than it is to try to make something out of the nothing that may follow physical death if there is no non-physical afterlife.I'm guessing you just consider transcendent existence preferable. Sure, it would be. But that doesn't make it true.
There are dozens of deep mysteries that GR and QM don't solve. Many Worlds does not help with quantum entanglement, dark matter, etc. Quantum entanglement alone has philosophical significance that may never be unraveled.Okay, well there's also the mystery of how to unify GR with QM, but I consider that a completely scientific problem that likely doesn't really have any deep philosophical consequences. Except perhaps if we accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM, which I do.
That is true, but a human being has an individual sentient consciousness, where a society does not have a single physical consciousness. A group of individuals is a family that is part of a society, but the group / society does not have a sentient existence apart from its members. If all sentient life on the earth was destroyed by a comet there would be no society that was aware of the destruction of humankind.A human being is something more than a mere collection of particles; it is an organism, which functionally interacts with the world - despite the fact that the actual particles of which it is composed are not fixed.
Sorry for my unorganized replies - just getting used to the markups. As I replied to 180_proof quoting you - One misconception from relativity is that a block universe implies a permanent me that spans my worldline from head to toe, in a sense I am my worldline as you suggest. However the requirement that no event be given precedence over any other event, means that each point on the worldline is unique.When someone named Bill is born he exists. If there is no non-physical life after physical death, after the physical death of Bill he does not exist.
This assertion is false in General Relativity. In GR, all of space-time exists forever. The past still exists and the future already exists. In GR time is kind of like space. My father died when I was young, but in GR, he's still there, just at a different location in time than I am...
You are looking at this from a third party viewpoint. Every living being can look at the history of Bill and discuss his life using tensed language. The past I am talking about is something that belongs to Bill, something that he is aware of. After Bill's physical death he has no past, present, or future simply because he does not exist.I still don't understand what you are trying to get at here. Granted, one can only predicate things about something or someone that exists. But what does this have to do with the search for meaning? Bill may or may not find his life meaningful while he is alive. After Bill dies, or before Bill is born, there is no sense in talking about the meaning of his life, except in the past or future tense. So what? (By the way, do you also require that Bill must have an eternal pre-life, as well as an eternal after-life in order for his life to have a meaning?)
No[By the way, do you also require that Bill must have an eternal pre-life, as well as an eternal after-life in order for his life to have a meaning?)