Posted by Tyler on December 31, 1996 at 02:40:47:
In Reply to: Re: The Finality of Death posted by Carlos Javier on December 31, 1996 at 00:15:53:
: The need to believe in an afterlife is a normal human reaction to the realization of the finity of life. Religions pander to this insecurity, just as their gods pander to the insecure need that we each have for a cosmic mommy or daddy to watch out for us just as our natural parents once did (deities as pacifiers).
Oh yes!! I agree completely.
=========================
: I don't know about you, but I don't remember too much about things that happened before I was born. It seems to me that, just as birth is a clear dividing line between our existence and non-existence, death will be another such dividing line. It's not a cheering thought, so most folks would rather hide their heads in the philosophical sand that religion provides them. I guess I can offer a tiny consolation about birth and death as dividing lines:
Well put. I am reminded of a wonderous tale about life & afterlife from a Hindu sect (not sure which one). It goes something like: Our life is like the flight of a bird who passes into a lighted room through an open window from the darkness outside, flies briefly in the light, then back into the darkness of night through an open window on the other side of the room. A very thoughtful allegory, eh?
=========================
who's to say in which "direction" time actually flows, anyway?
Actually, the philosophy of time is becoming more understandable through thermodynamics. It is thought now that the direction of time is tied up with the 2nd Law which states that it is not possible to change heat completely inro work, with no other change taking place. This is a statement about increasing entropy, or unusable heat/energy. The more colloquial way of stating it is that it is not possible for heat to be transferred from one body to another body at higher temperature with no other change taking place. Things just do not look "right" when you view motion pictures in reverse.... it's all part of the same deal. So there is a definite "direction" of time, but the asymmetry of past and present is a problem for understanding. FYI, physicists (that's me) have found "smoothness" in the structure of time down to the 10(-25) [read: 10 to the -25th power] second, which means that time is essentially a continuum. This comes from observations in high-energy physics. But there is expected to be a profound disruption in the "smoothness" in time spans shorter than 10(-43) second due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle from quantum mechanics.
Descartes and Newton had exchanges regarding whether or not time was an entity, or was rather our organizational brain trying to make sense out of strings of events. I read it from "The Philosophy of Physics" by Lawrence Sklar, if you're interested.
=========================
: Keep the "faith", you skeptic you.
I'll "try" if you do too!!
CHEERS!!