Natural
Afterlife proponent Bryon Ehlmann insists I have no clue about how the NA works,
and that “there is no violation of the 2nd
law of thermodynamics”. He writes:
“Because the natural afterlife involves absolutely nothing that is
physically any different from what science assumes occurs at or after death, it
cannot possibly violate any physical laws, including the 2nd law of
thermodynamics. If it does violate these laws, then such laws are being
violated every time someone dies.”
Let’s
drop the semantics and just cut to the chase: whether we are talking about the
dead person locked into an “ideation” or a “perception” it still requires ENERGY
to sustain it. This is irrespective of whether the
person is actually DEAD and in a natural AFTER-life, or is "near" - dead, in which case remaining living processes ensure further energy inputs!
Meanwhile, you
cannot have a perception for an already dead man, unless you are arguing for a
non-physical existent, in which case your afterlife is little different from
supernaturalism.
Now,
since energy at death has reached the ultimate disordered state, as I showed in
my blog post of Feb. 10, it means there is no further capability to
support any kind of an ordered state, i.e. bearing content or information. This
includes a “perception” which, irrespective of being for dead man or living,
must embody an energy content per bit. This informational energy per bit has
been quantified as 0.693 kT where k is Boltzmann’s constant and T is the
ambient temperature.
As
for “laws being violated every time someone dies” – yes – they seemingly are,
by the natural afterlife brigade! Specifically the 2nd law of
thermodynamics is being violated. We are expected to believe that an entity in
a state of maximal entropy, including its brain, can be expected to give rise to
any kind of “perception”.
But
wait! Hold strain! Evidently I got it all wrong and my presumption that the
natural afterlife is really an AFTERLIFE, is totally mistaken! Evidently, according
to a further comment from Mr. Ehlmann, I have conflated a pre-death perception with
a post –death “never ending dream” or dream state (never mind proponents refer to it as an NED, or “never ending dream”). It’s time to really clean up the language
here, especially the murky semantics.
Fortunately,
Mr. Ehlmann’s next comments help immensely:
“My bottom line: the natural afterlife DOES NOT “persist indefinitely”
in any physical way following death and thus needs no energy to support it!”
But
again, the problem is in the semantics! If it “does not persist indefinitely in any physical way following death”, then what NON-physical way is
left? It is clear that we are being led into
metaphysical territory here. The only alternative is the supernatural.
Let’s
lay this out in clear terms: There are only two defined possibilities for
bracketing conditions of life and afterlife: the physical and non-physical. If then the conditions don’t meet
the first, then the second are all that’s left, and the only non-physical realm
which has been adequately elaborated (by theologians) is the supernatural.
Bryon
could help us out here by providing the
necessary and sufficient conditions for the natural “afterlife” to occur,
but he has not yet done so. This shows me the NA concept isn’t clear in his own
mind. It’s more a matter of words or rhetoric, with overtones of philosophy.
Fortunately,
an additional, clarifying comment by Mr. Ehlmann seems to clear the way for final resolution,
making it feasible for us to not even have to ‘agree to disagree’:
Your
blog posts of Feb. 9-10 clearly indicate that you mistakenly think that the
natural afterlife requires a dream state that survives death. IT DOES
NOT! A timeless, everlasting natural afterlife exists only as a perception
in the mind of the dying person BEFORE death. The combination of matter and
energy required to produce this perception does not survive death.
Okay,
I guess I can be forgiven for taking too literally the natural afterlifers’ NED – or “Never ending dream”….or AFTER-life
concept. So, okay it’s not a
never-ending dream after all, it exists only as a “perception” in the
mind of the dying person before death.
So, in other words, the natural after
life doesn’t exist at all! There is NO
“after” in any real,
objective sense.
What
we have here then is a phenomenon of subjective
time – experienced by the dying
person before he shuffles his mortal coil.
If
this is so, then Ehlman is correct that the 2nd law doesn’t apply. (However, if he objects to the subjective time format, he essentially contradicts himself).
The
downside is that then there is no
genuine afterlife, only a semantics ploy based on a perception that erupted
in the dying person’s mind before death. Nothing is carried on.
Let’s
now examine subjective time as represented in the graphic shown at top. Here I
plot the subjective time t on the abscissa vs. the proper time (actual clock
time) T, in the objective physical world.
We assume an inertial reference frame to measure T, and no relativistic
motion. In addition, we adopt the (Henry
Stapp) version of the Copenhagen Interpretation and assume that the angle f is linked to the presence of an evolving wave
function y so long as there is an
objective passage of time. (In which
case the time -dependent Schrodinger equation applies).
As
shown, the peculiar nature of subjective time is that a psychological, internal
state is able to “stretch” the experience of objective or proper time. In the
case shown, 1 minute is stretched to roughly 4 mins. of subjective time,
though it could also be 1 hour vs.4 hours, or 1 yr. vs, 4 years. The point
is that given an appropriate psychological state to induce it, yes, the
personal experience of time can be subjectively extended at the level of t, but despite that the
actual clock time hasn’t changed. (I.e. minutes are still minutes, hours are still hours, etc. Perception doesn't change the units of proper time, only internal or subjective time!)
Now, what if the extreme case occurs such that f = 0? This
logically means there is no further evolution of y in time. (Hence, by the CI model, consciousness is no longer applicable since it requires y, according to Stapp's CI variant). If we are reluctant to identify
definite states, i.e. death – then we might use an analog of the limit concept
such that:
lim
t ® ¥ (T /t)
= tan f = 0
In
other words, as the subjective time t tends
toward infinity, the tangent of f tends to 0, and of course so does the proper
(clock) time T. (When T = 0 entropy ceases to enter into further considerations. Bear in mind in our context here, T is paired to the person's biological processes. Thus, at T= 0 there is full biological death)
Bear in mind given the use of a limit here, we
aren’t technically talking of a post
death state, we are only approaching
death as the time T ® 0 (i.e. t ® ¥). But for all intents, to the person, it is a "timeless" state. In effect, we have finally come to agreement
in what Ehlmann refers to as:
“A
timeless, everlasting natural afterlife exists only as a perception in the
mind of the dying person BEFORE death”
Indeed,
in the subjective temporal context the
person would be in a timeless state, since for him the clock time T = 0 (i.e.
“timeless”) but in his experience his perception is “ever lasting” given the
subjective time t ® ¥. (Again, bear in mind the limit
concept!)
My
problem again, is the use of the term “after life” for this pre-death subjective, temporal anomaly – experienced by the dying person. Indeed,
given Ehlmann admits the NED isn’t a true post-death
state then it bears some analogy to the NDE, which also isn’t a genuine
post death state - only “near” death. (I
won’t get into all the technicalities of how NDEs differ from NEDs).
I am not sure what term (or acronym) is better suited, but perhaps we might finally be able to
agree on:
Ersatz afterlife, or
NEAR Afterlife, e.g. NAL
Of
course, this means that the de Broglie
wave option is the only true natural afterlife left – justified by the name! That is, it is applicable to the post-death
state, unlike the NED, which Ehlmann admits is only applicable to the pre-death
state (irrespective of whatever “perceptions” the person has)
One
more caveat. The Heisenberg energy- time uncertainty principle, e.g.
D
E D
t ³ ħ
Can certainly be applied to the case of a dying person’s
synapses up to the point the proper clock time T = 0 (i.e. all biological 'clocks' cease). Hence, Ehlmann’s
complaints that it’s “not applicable” are irrelevant. So long as any (biological) clock time
is recorded, one can estimate energy in the dying person’s synapses using it.
In conclusion, it occurs to me – after seeing all these semantic contortions (in order to proffer an “afterlife” that’s
not really an
afterlife) -
that the NAL proponents are more lost in their own rhetoric than they realize. It also brings to mind the old adage of Lord Kelvin: "
Unless a man can quantify what he's talking about, he isn't saying anything."
But at least it appears we can finally end this debate if
the NALs will at last acknowledge that what they have is no real afterlife but
a facsimile of one- based on their insistence of a perception in the mind of the dying person BEFORE death.
