When starting from the human side, the spiritual side, the side of the mind in working our logic—when we talk about life, death, and what may, or may have existed before life and after death—we must consider the three words that are title to this piece.
From the scientific language, the philosophy growing from our fluid experiment, we are brought to the realization that Krishnamurti’s “What Is,” the virtual reality of our minds, is where we exist and that we become aware of reality from birth by representing our boundary, our difference, our change, our sampling of “What Is Behind What Is” and then generalize that information into the fleshed-in, virtual world of our minds, the multifaceted world we call “What Is.”
We say that the boundary we represent seems to condense or collapse out of “What Is Behind What Is,” each time we reach out to sample it.
The question important to me is not “Do we exist after death?” nor is it “Are we aware of our existence?” but “What happens to the configuration, the boundary, that was uniquely us, after we die?”
The conclusions we hope to come to will be that no matter how improbable, all perspectives exist, just not always here and just not always now. They live on, perhaps until the time two or more such perspectives can collapse across a boundary to create the essence of an existence, an existence in the here and now. The awareness of awareness (How we become watchers instead of simply responders).
But what is the nature of perspectives as they statistically and momentarily bump into and separate from one another? What causes them to hook up in the first place? (For those possible answers, see menu items “Sampling and Statistics” and “Space and Time.”)
So, our main question might be “If we cannot know the nature of What Is Behind What Is—how it operates in the arenas of the before and after lives—how can we possibly predict the chances of a before life or after life based on this life? (the one we’re in the process of constantly sampling in the here and now)
As an analog our expanding-droplet experiment can tell us what is possible to describe using our mathematical language (solutions to the general energy equation) that illuminates both the change in energy across a boundary and the experience of that change, The Flow.
It’s not so important why we are here, how we got here, or where we are going. We are here, the future is pure speculation, it has yet to exist. What counts the most is what we do while we are here, and how it might impact the future should it come into existence.
Thanks for contributing.
You said “. . . the future is pure speculation, it has yet to exist.” This is what most of us believe. But just because most of us believe it, is it true? And how is it true? One might say that the philosophy or cosmology or deep thought about a topic is not practical, because we’re here and we need to make the best of our lives whatever their meaning. I agree with that from a pragmatic viewpoint. My emphasis here is that we break ourselves out of a single viewpoint and entertain as many POVs, what ifs, as possible. Besides, what ifs are great for world-building as part of our storytelling, whether it be to an audience or to ourselves.
Thanks again for sharing.