I have seen several little signals across many different media which together imply the following ideas.
1.Humankind, if avoiding extinction, can theoretically build a means of traveling between universes.
2.Humankind, if avoiding extinction, can theoretically build a means of saving all the signals of a brain and preserve the consciousness inside said brain in another medium.
3.Time as we know it is a product of this universes laws. Though it may be preserved in another universe, time can loop back. ex. A universe which creates itself
These ideas if combined indicate the following group of beliefs.
1.An afterlife can be created by man.
2.This afterlife though created in the future can be sent to another universe and therefore be outside the bounds of our time.
1.Hence everything that ever existed in this universe would be privy to this created afterlife, not just those in the future.
3.This cannot happen unless we, or another species of sympathetic highly intelligent beings (Do we really want to count on this?), survive long enough to create a technological mastery of the universe.
This leads to the following beliefs.
1.Technological progression should be the greatest priority of human effort unless: a it puts the survival of humanity at risk, b: it involuntarily effects lives negatively (preserving life at the cost of making life worse seems really stupid to me) While this is the top priority, it is the top priority for society as a whole. ie. We still need people who want to be artists, chefs, business execs., toy makers etc. Those who belief would be more inclined to give to scientific charities.
2.Survival is key. Societies for the preservation of homo sapiens should be formed and funded.
3.Life is beautiful and worthwhile. It is worth preserving and worth saving.
This in turn leads to the following major questions, my own personal answers follow but feel free to debate.
1.Is this survival just to survive devoid of purpose or meaning?
a. In some ways yes. But life is wonderful and everyone deserves to live it to the fullest extent possible.
2.The afterlife is usually seen as a system of justice. Should this be prevailed upon an afterlife we ourselves create?
a. This is a tricky question. The methods proposed by the prominent religion in my country are abominable. Eternal torture as a method of justice is right out especially doling this out merely for believing something different. If I had to devise a system, I would suggest that wrongs create a bond between perpetrator and victim wherein the perpetrator would feel the affects of the wrong committed. This bond could be broken through forgiveness on the part of the victim or through mediation. This is only a suggestion and any system proposed would need to go through heavy debate.
3.How can we be sure this will work?
a. We can't be sure. This is all speculative. There is no insurance. If we dedicate lives to improving human life and technology and extending the species life, I see no downside. We may not produce an afterlife; we will produce a better one for our descendants.
Here are some pros and cons of this belief system
Pros:
Does not rely on a mythology which is unadaptive and ultimately a lie.
Suggests donations to scientific and life preserving charities.
Suggests preservation of human life.
Gives drive to life.
May or may not have a system of justice for wrong doers depending on a human morality not a terrible god.
Provides possible afterlife.
Cons.
Afterlife is speculative instead of sure.
If in the hands of the wrong people, this could go horribly wrong. Examples exist in popular science fiction. Clearly efforts must be maintained to keep this process open.
Things made by committee and debate are not necessarily the best options.
What do you think?
-N
1.Humankind, if avoiding extinction, can theoretically build a means of traveling between universes.
2.Humankind, if avoiding extinction, can theoretically build a means of saving all the signals of a brain and preserve the consciousness inside said brain in another medium.
3.Time as we know it is a product of this universes laws. Though it may be preserved in another universe, time can loop back. ex. A universe which creates itself
These ideas if combined indicate the following group of beliefs.
1.An afterlife can be created by man.
2.This afterlife though created in the future can be sent to another universe and therefore be outside the bounds of our time.
1.Hence everything that ever existed in this universe would be privy to this created afterlife, not just those in the future.
3.This cannot happen unless we, or another species of sympathetic highly intelligent beings (Do we really want to count on this?), survive long enough to create a technological mastery of the universe.
This leads to the following beliefs.
1.Technological progression should be the greatest priority of human effort unless: a it puts the survival of humanity at risk, b: it involuntarily effects lives negatively (preserving life at the cost of making life worse seems really stupid to me) While this is the top priority, it is the top priority for society as a whole. ie. We still need people who want to be artists, chefs, business execs., toy makers etc. Those who belief would be more inclined to give to scientific charities.
2.Survival is key. Societies for the preservation of homo sapiens should be formed and funded.
3.Life is beautiful and worthwhile. It is worth preserving and worth saving.
This in turn leads to the following major questions, my own personal answers follow but feel free to debate.
1.Is this survival just to survive devoid of purpose or meaning?
a. In some ways yes. But life is wonderful and everyone deserves to live it to the fullest extent possible.
2.The afterlife is usually seen as a system of justice. Should this be prevailed upon an afterlife we ourselves create?
a. This is a tricky question. The methods proposed by the prominent religion in my country are abominable. Eternal torture as a method of justice is right out especially doling this out merely for believing something different. If I had to devise a system, I would suggest that wrongs create a bond between perpetrator and victim wherein the perpetrator would feel the affects of the wrong committed. This bond could be broken through forgiveness on the part of the victim or through mediation. This is only a suggestion and any system proposed would need to go through heavy debate.
3.How can we be sure this will work?
a. We can't be sure. This is all speculative. There is no insurance. If we dedicate lives to improving human life and technology and extending the species life, I see no downside. We may not produce an afterlife; we will produce a better one for our descendants.
Here are some pros and cons of this belief system
Pros:
Does not rely on a mythology which is unadaptive and ultimately a lie.
Suggests donations to scientific and life preserving charities.
Suggests preservation of human life.
Gives drive to life.
May or may not have a system of justice for wrong doers depending on a human morality not a terrible god.
Provides possible afterlife.
Cons.
Afterlife is speculative instead of sure.
If in the hands of the wrong people, this could go horribly wrong. Examples exist in popular science fiction. Clearly efforts must be maintained to keep this process open.
Things made by committee and debate are not necessarily the best options.
What do you think?
-N
