Many of us seek to know what we have waiting for us upon death. But do any of us consider, logically or scientifically, how we might define life and death? (Each time we explore, we do it from a different POV. So, for example, there is no conflict between Evolution and Creationism, even though it seems that way. Each are different viewpoints. Just like looking at a house from above and in front, return different views to the observer. Each way of looking brings its own partial truth. The more POVs, or perspectives, the observer allows, the more information and the closer to a workable/working truth).
Physicists and other scientists know something about ENTROPY–how eventually the energy in the universe runs down, explaining why objects, once robust and full of life, slow down and cease relating to each other and their environment.
Another recent understanding of entropy involves how events are sequenced. In many contemporary works about time and what it is, scientific authors have pointed out how the chance of one event leading into another is linked to statistical probability. We cannot see time, but it seems to be constructed before our very eyes, almost in the same way as consciousness is. (This intimate connection between time and consciousness can be seen in the progress of dementia in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients, a topic we will cover elsewhere).
So the conscious recognition of the flow of time and events is somehow connected to the probability that one event can link up to another, but the fact of entropy and its influence on the construction of time and consciousness is even more subtle.
On our next post we will begin talking about snippets and other improbable events/relationships that find their way to a 100% probable reality or, perhaps, virtuality.