[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I’m not really religious or particularly spiritual but I like some Buddhist principles such as applying logic to the afterlife.
I’m curious about fellow T-Nationers thoughts on the following statement:
“The physical laws of this life cannot possibly exist in any afterlife. Because the physical laws of this reality disable all your senses and perception after death.”
Deep,obvious or nonsense…
I think the logic is irrefutable but what conclusions could you draw from that?[/quote]
It’s neither, it’s flat wrong. I have little use for eastern philosophy mainly because it makes proclamations that may be right or wrong, but it never backs them up.
Here’s why that statement is wrong and the guy who wrote it an idiot.
The physical laws which are applicable to this life exist eternally. Laws are metaphysical entities. Since metaphysical entities do not take any time and require no space, they are eternal. So they still do exist and always will. Technically speaking laws only exist in the ‘after-lie’, because they are metaphysical and not physical. NOW, the physical objects to which these laws apply or control will also likely still exist, unless we are killed in a cataclysmic event that does away with all physical matter. So, when we die, physical laws still exist, and the physical objects that they apply to will probably still be around save for a minute chance.
Now it’s true that if when you die your existence is all metaphysical (spirit or something like that) and not physical, then the laws will not apply to ‘you’. You will not be restricted to a mere 5 senses of perception. But truth permeates the physical and non physical what we know to be true absolutely will still be true post-humerus, but presumably true will be more perceptible with out the impedance with out the limitations of physical existence, but we don’t know. The author cannot know that the physical reality in which we live ‘disable all your senses and perception’. I’ll admit it’s a limiting factor but despite that we can know that some things are absolutely true. For instance, with out the benefit of death we can know that 2+2=4. No matter what, no matter your state in the universe, no matter physical or not physical, we know that equation to be absolutely true. It will still be true when we are dead, we just may or may not know it.
That statement was neither irrefutable or all that deep, because it was incorrect.
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha claimed (and I believe most schools of Buddhism go by this) that there is no soul and there is reincarnation. A river in the morning is not the same river at night, and yet it is. The “soul” of that river no longer exists, but the river continues. It is a continuum. Life is a continuum. This is the afterlife.
[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I’m not really religious or particularly spiritual but I like some Buddhist principles such as applying logic to the afterlife.
I’m curious about fellow T-Nationers thoughts on the following statement:
“The physical laws of this life cannot possibly exist in any afterlife. Because the physical laws of this reality disable all your senses and perception after death.”
Deep,obvious or nonsense…
[/quote]
Nonsense. Because whoever made that statement hasn’t defined what they mean by the ‘physical laws of this life’ or explained what they mean by those laws ‘disabl(ing) all your senses and perceptions after death’ nor provided a cogent argument to back up whatever they’re trying to say. Yes, utter nonsense. Here’s some more:
‘The sensory perceptions of this reality cannot possibly be transmigrated with the soul whilst fasting due to the total and utter disproportionate distribution of non-integrationalists in comparison to organic vestibules of the interior.’
[/quote]
I was trying to keep the statement succinct.
But essentially all physical laws that our senses depend on. Eg. Sound waves vibrating your ear drum
As someone else said our consciousness isnt dependent on our senses. If I was floating in a vacuum with no stimulus to my senses my mind would still function…until I suffocated.
However once the body dies the brain no longer has any electrical activity to drive that consciousness.
[/quote]
Oh, right. So what you’re saying is that when you die your brain activity ceases and you can’t see, hear, smell, taste etc anymore? You learn something new every day.
Seriously though, that other guy seems like an SP to me. And SPs often die from trying to solve the ‘R6 implant’ from ‘Incident II’ because only ‘operating Thetan level III’s’ can solve that without dying from pneumonia.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The question about an afterlife is in essence a question about the nature of mind.
“Do i exist [as a separate entity]?”
Greater insights into the nature of mind can be gained from the use of psychedelics. Altough these experiences may lead to even greater delusions about the nature of mind, experiencing DMT, mushrooms, LSD and other psychedelics can be life changing.
I don’t want to derail the thread, so let’s not argue about legality, but knowing to what extent our brains shape our reality and ourselves gives you a different perspective on what mind is.[/quote]
I would put Marijuana in that catagory ,also[/quote]
Cannabis certainly has psychoactive properties, that is true.
[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I’m not really religious or particularly spiritual but I like some Buddhist principles such as applying logic to the afterlife.
I’m curious about fellow T-Nationers thoughts on the following statement:
“The physical laws of this life cannot possibly exist in any afterlife. Because the physical laws of this reality disable all your senses and perception after death.”
Deep,obvious or nonsense…
I think the logic is irrefutable but what conclusions could you draw from that?[/quote]
It’s neither, it’s flat wrong. I have little use for eastern philosophy mainly because it makes proclamations that may be right or wrong, but it never backs them up.
Here’s why that statement is wrong and the guy who wrote it an idiot.
The physical laws which are applicable to this life exist eternally. Laws are metaphysical entities. Since metaphysical entities do not take any time and require no space, they are eternal. So they still do exist and always will. Technically speaking laws only exist in the ‘after-lie’, because they are metaphysical and not physical. NOW, the physical objects to which these laws apply or control will also likely still exist, unless we are killed in a cataclysmic event that does away with all physical matter. So, when we die, physical laws still exist, and the physical objects that they apply to will probably still be around save for a minute chance.
Now it’s true that if when you die your existence is all metaphysical (spirit or something like that) and not physical, then the laws will not apply to ‘you’. You will not be restricted to a mere 5 senses of perception. But truth permeates the physical and non physical what we know to be true absolutely will still be true post-humerus, but presumably true will be more perceptible with out the impedance with out the limitations of physical existence, but we don’t know. The author cannot know that the physical reality in which we live ‘disable all your senses and perception’. I’ll admit it’s a limiting factor but despite that we can know that some things are absolutely true. For instance, with out the benefit of death we can know that 2+2=4. No matter what, no matter your state in the universe, no matter physical or not physical, we know that equation to be absolutely true. It will still be true when we are dead, we just may or may not know it.
That statement was neither irrefutable or all that deep, because it was incorrect.
[/quote]
How can you KNOW that physical laws permeate into the afterlife? No one knows anything about the afterlife. All this statement is about is based on what we know to be true of this reality.
We rely on physical entities to percieve the world.
So to percieve anything after death it must eiher be through physical means that are not yet known and understood by us or by a completely different set of physical laws entirely.
2 plus 2 equals 4 in this reality! But numbers and mathematics are entirely a human construct based on the physics of this reality.
Its impossible to KNOW anything when every assumption you can make is based on this reality. Thats the point of the statement.
I find it very interesting to apply logic and thought to the afterlife. Lets examine some common afterlife “experiences” that some people go through.
The typical situation is that the persons heart will stop and they will be “dead”, They will then see a tunnel with light at the end of it, followed by seeing all their dead relatives (who eternally stay the same age they died at strangely. That would suck)and then intense feelings of euphoria and joy. However just because the heart stops it does not mean that all brain activity has ceased. The tunnel that the person typically sees has now been shown to be due to a lack of blood flow to the eye. The periphery of the retina is more susceptible to drops in blood pressure than its center, so that the visual field appears compressed, making scenes appear as if viewed through a tunnel. In fact experiments with pilots spun around in giant centrifuges have reproduced the tunnel vision phenomena by increasing G-forces and decreasing blood flow to their retinas.
That is just the tunnel vision explained. I could go on but I have no time. I will leave by saying that every component of an afterlife experience has been recreated in experiements on human subjects. There is no afterlife, so as one poster has stated, you must enjoy every last second of your time on earth.
[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I’m not really religious or particularly spiritual but I like some Buddhist principles such as applying logic to the afterlife.
I’m curious about fellow T-Nationers thoughts on the following statement:
“The physical laws of this life cannot possibly exist in any afterlife. Because the physical laws of this reality disable all your senses and perception after death.”
Deep,obvious or nonsense…
I think the logic is irrefutable but what conclusions could you draw from that?[/quote]
It’s neither, it’s flat wrong. I have little use for eastern philosophy mainly because it makes proclamations that may be right or wrong, but it never backs them up.
Here’s why that statement is wrong and the guy who wrote it an idiot.
The physical laws which are applicable to this life exist eternally. Laws are metaphysical entities. Since metaphysical entities do not take any time and require no space, they are eternal. So they still do exist and always will. Technically speaking laws only exist in the ‘after-lie’, because they are metaphysical and not physical. NOW, the physical objects to which these laws apply or control will also likely still exist, unless we are killed in a cataclysmic event that does away with all physical matter. So, when we die, physical laws still exist, and the physical objects that they apply to will probably still be around save for a minute chance.
Now it’s true that if when you die your existence is all metaphysical (spirit or something like that) and not physical, then the laws will not apply to ‘you’. You will not be restricted to a mere 5 senses of perception. But truth permeates the physical and non physical what we know to be true absolutely will still be true post-humerus, but presumably true will be more perceptible with out the impedance with out the limitations of physical existence, but we don’t know. The author cannot know that the physical reality in which we live ‘disable all your senses and perception’. I’ll admit it’s a limiting factor but despite that we can know that some things are absolutely true. For instance, with out the benefit of death we can know that 2+2=4. No matter what, no matter your state in the universe, no matter physical or not physical, we know that equation to be absolutely true. It will still be true when we are dead, we just may or may not know it.
That statement was neither irrefutable or all that deep, because it was incorrect.
[/quote]
How can you KNOW that physical laws permeate into the afterlife? No one knows anything about the afterlife. All this statement is about is based on what we know to be true of this reality.
We rely on physical entities to percieve the world.
[/quote]
Simple, ‘Laws’ are metaphysical constructs as is an after life. A pysical object and the ‘laws’ by which they behave are two things not one. Further, it’s a one way trust. ‘laws’ can exist with out a physical counter part, but some thing physical requires a metaphysical ‘law’ for it’s existence. Think about it.
Math is a component of physics, not the other way around. Second, numbers and equations are metaphysical constructs. We use Arabic symbols to represent them, but what they represent doesn’t exist in the physical word. Numbers and equations are used to represent and make sense of physical things but are not in themselves, physical. Therefore, 2+2=4 will always be true no matter what. If the entire physical world disappeared, it would still be true. If we lived in an alternate universe the equation will still be true. Truth transcends all things.
Try to think of any instance or any mitigating factors that would cause 2+2 to equal something other than 4. It simply doesn’t exist.
[quote]
Its impossible to KNOW anything when every assumption you can make is based on this reality. Thats the point of the statement.[/quote]
But that’s not true, as proven by math. Proven a priori statements are transcendentally true, they are true no matter what. So somethings can be known even if limited by our physical nature. I agree our sensory abilities are limiting, but some things can be known.
The statement is wrong.
Learn metaphysics and you’ll see why that statement is wrong and misleading.
[quote]supa power wrote:
I find it very interesting to apply logic and thought to the afterlife. Lets examine some common afterlife “experiences” that some people go through.
The typical situation is that the persons heart will stop and they will be “dead”, They will then see a tunnel with light at the end of it, followed by seeing all their dead relatives (who eternally stay the same age they died at strangely. That would suck)and then intense feelings of euphoria and joy. However just because the heart stops it does not mean that all brain activity has ceased. The tunnel that the person typically sees has now been shown to be due to a lack of blood flow to the eye. The periphery of the retina is more susceptible to drops in blood pressure than its center, so that the visual field appears compressed, making scenes appear as if viewed through a tunnel. In fact experiments with pilots spun around in giant centrifuges have reproduced the tunnel vision phenomena by increasing G-forces and decreasing blood flow to their retinas.
That is just the tunnel vision explained. I could go on but I have no time. I will leave by saying that every component of an afterlife experience has been recreated in experiements on human subjects. There is no afterlife, so as one poster has stated, you must enjoy every last second of your time on earth. [/quote]
What cannot be explained about NDE’s is when people see and hear things or events they are not present for because of being clinically dead and yet have accurate knowledge of those events they could not have possibly been privy to.
Things people were doing or saying many miles away from the person, etc…
Aquiring knowledge you cannot possibly have gotten through personable means, throws a monkey wrench into explaining away NDE’s with simple biology.
[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I’m not really religious or particularly spiritual but I like some Buddhist principles such as applying logic to the afterlife.
I’m curious about fellow T-Nationers thoughts on the following statement:
“The physical laws of this life cannot possibly exist in any afterlife. Because the physical laws of this reality disable all your senses and perception after death.”
Deep,obvious or nonsense…
I think the logic is irrefutable but what conclusions could you draw from that?[/quote]
It’s neither, it’s flat wrong. I have little use for eastern philosophy mainly because it makes proclamations that may be right or wrong, but it never backs them up.
Here’s why that statement is wrong and the guy who wrote it an idiot.
The physical laws which are applicable to this life exist eternally. Laws are metaphysical entities. Since metaphysical entities do not take any time and require no space, they are eternal. So they still do exist and always will. Technically speaking laws only exist in the ‘after-lie’, because they are metaphysical and not physical. NOW, the physical objects to which these laws apply or control will also likely still exist, unless we are killed in a cataclysmic event that does away with all physical matter. So, when we die, physical laws still exist, and the physical objects that they apply to will probably still be around save for a minute chance.
Now it’s true that if when you die your existence is all metaphysical (spirit or something like that) and not physical, then the laws will not apply to ‘you’. You will not be restricted to a mere 5 senses of perception. But truth permeates the physical and non physical what we know to be true absolutely will still be true post-humerus, but presumably true will be more perceptible with out the impedance with out the limitations of physical existence, but we don’t know. The author cannot know that the physical reality in which we live ‘disable all your senses and perception’. I’ll admit it’s a limiting factor but despite that we can know that some things are absolutely true. For instance, with out the benefit of death we can know that 2+2=4. No matter what, no matter your state in the universe, no matter physical or not physical, we know that equation to be absolutely true. It will still be true when we are dead, we just may or may not know it.
That statement was neither irrefutable or all that deep, because it was incorrect.
[/quote]
How can you KNOW that physical laws permeate into the afterlife? No one knows anything about the afterlife. All this statement is about is based on what we know to be true of this reality.
We rely on physical entities to percieve the world.
[/quote]
Simple, ‘Laws’ are metaphysical constructs as is an after life. A pysical object and the ‘laws’ by which they behave are two things not one. Further, it’s a one way trust. ‘laws’ can exist with out a physical counter part, but some thing physical requires a metaphysical ‘law’ for it’s existence. Think about it.
Math is a component of physics, not the other way around. Second, numbers and equations are metaphysical constructs. We use Arabic symbols to represent them, but what they represent doesn’t exist in the physical word. Numbers and equations are used to represent and make sense of physical things but are not in themselves, physical. Therefore, 2+2=4 will always be true no matter what. If the entire physical world disappeared, it would still be true. If we lived in an alternate universe the equation will still be true. Truth transcends all things.
Try to think of any instance or any mitigating factors that would cause 2+2 to equal something other than 4. It simply doesn’t exist.
[quote]
Its impossible to KNOW anything when every assumption you can make is based on this reality. Thats the point of the statement.[/quote]
But that’s not true, as proven by math. Proven a priori statements are transcendentally true, they are true no matter what. So somethings can be known even if limited by our physical nature. I agree our sensory abilities are limiting, but some things can be known.
The statement is wrong.
Learn metaphysics and you’ll see why that statement is wrong and misleading.[/quote]
I will look into metaphysics. Sounds interesting. Although I’m pretty sure it’ll still be a construct based on this reality.
You seem to have a good understanding of science. Surely you must accept that all scientific theories are based on the observable universe.
Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL
Okay.
Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]
So you agree with the statement in my original post?
[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I’m not really religious or particularly spiritual but I like some Buddhist principles such as applying logic to the afterlife.
I’m curious about fellow T-Nationers thoughts on the following statement:
“The physical laws of this life cannot possibly exist in any afterlife. Because the physical laws of this reality disable all your senses and perception after death.”
Deep,obvious or nonsense…
I think the logic is irrefutable but what conclusions could you draw from that?[/quote]
It’s neither, it’s flat wrong. I have little use for eastern philosophy mainly because it makes proclamations that may be right or wrong, but it never backs them up.
Here’s why that statement is wrong and the guy who wrote it an idiot.
The physical laws which are applicable to this life exist eternally. Laws are metaphysical entities. Since metaphysical entities do not take any time and require no space, they are eternal. So they still do exist and always will. Technically speaking laws only exist in the ‘after-lie’, because they are metaphysical and not physical. NOW, the physical objects to which these laws apply or control will also likely still exist, unless we are killed in a cataclysmic event that does away with all physical matter. So, when we die, physical laws still exist, and the physical objects that they apply to will probably still be around save for a minute chance.
Now it’s true that if when you die your existence is all metaphysical (spirit or something like that) and not physical, then the laws will not apply to ‘you’. You will not be restricted to a mere 5 senses of perception. But truth permeates the physical and non physical what we know to be true absolutely will still be true post-humerus, but presumably true will be more perceptible with out the impedance with out the limitations of physical existence, but we don’t know. The author cannot know that the physical reality in which we live ‘disable all your senses and perception’. I’ll admit it’s a limiting factor but despite that we can know that some things are absolutely true. For instance, with out the benefit of death we can know that 2+2=4. No matter what, no matter your state in the universe, no matter physical or not physical, we know that equation to be absolutely true. It will still be true when we are dead, we just may or may not know it.
That statement was neither irrefutable or all that deep, because it was incorrect.
[/quote]
How can you KNOW that physical laws permeate into the afterlife? No one knows anything about the afterlife. All this statement is about is based on what we know to be true of this reality.
We rely on physical entities to percieve the world.
[/quote]
Simple, ‘Laws’ are metaphysical constructs as is an after life. A pysical object and the ‘laws’ by which they behave are two things not one. Further, it’s a one way trust. ‘laws’ can exist with out a physical counter part, but some thing physical requires a metaphysical ‘law’ for it’s existence. Think about it.
Math is a component of physics, not the other way around. Second, numbers and equations are metaphysical constructs. We use Arabic symbols to represent them, but what they represent doesn’t exist in the physical word. Numbers and equations are used to represent and make sense of physical things but are not in themselves, physical. Therefore, 2+2=4 will always be true no matter what. If the entire physical world disappeared, it would still be true. If we lived in an alternate universe the equation will still be true. Truth transcends all things.
Try to think of any instance or any mitigating factors that would cause 2+2 to equal something other than 4. It simply doesn’t exist.
[quote]
Its impossible to KNOW anything when every assumption you can make is based on this reality. Thats the point of the statement.[/quote]
But that’s not true, as proven by math. Proven a priori statements are transcendentally true, they are true no matter what. So somethings can be known even if limited by our physical nature. I agree our sensory abilities are limiting, but some things can be known.
The statement is wrong.
Learn metaphysics and you’ll see why that statement is wrong and misleading.[/quote]
I will look into metaphysics. Sounds interesting. Although I’m pretty sure it’ll still be a construct based on this reality.
You seem to have a good understanding of science. Surely you must accept that all scientific theories are based on the observable universe.
I’m talking about the unobservable universe.[/quote]
You talking about the truths of this world, not being able to be known as absolutes because of the limitations of physical existence. And metaphysics IS the study of the unobservable universe.
Scientific theories are based on observation of physical matter, that’s what science is, pure empiricism. It’s a measure. But I am not talking about that. I am saying that you can know somethings to be true even if limited by our physical make up, and socio/psychological paradigms. It’s called logic, particularly a priori/ deductive logic. What is found to be true, is always true no matter what. If the premises of an argument is true, and the conclusion drawn from the premises are accurate to the premises then the argument is a statement of truth. Truth is always true under any circumstance, time, space, or lack of all those things. That’s why you can ‘know’ things even as a limited physical being, not a lot, but somethings you can know.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL
Okay.
Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]
The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.
[quote]Think tank fish wrote:
I’m not really religious or particularly spiritual but I like some Buddhist principles such as applying logic to the afterlife.
I’m curious about fellow T-Nationers thoughts on the following statement:
“The physical laws of this life cannot possibly exist in any afterlife. Because the physical laws of this reality disable all your senses and perception after death.”
Deep,obvious or nonsense…
I think the logic is irrefutable but what conclusions could you draw from that?[/quote]
It’s neither, it’s flat wrong. I have little use for eastern philosophy mainly because it makes proclamations that may be right or wrong, but it never backs them up.
Here’s why that statement is wrong and the guy who wrote it an idiot.
The physical laws which are applicable to this life exist eternally. Laws are metaphysical entities. Since metaphysical entities do not take any time and require no space, they are eternal. So they still do exist and always will. Technically speaking laws only exist in the ‘after-lie’, because they are metaphysical and not physical. NOW, the physical objects to which these laws apply or control will also likely still exist, unless we are killed in a cataclysmic event that does away with all physical matter. So, when we die, physical laws still exist, and the physical objects that they apply to will probably still be around save for a minute chance.
Now it’s true that if when you die your existence is all metaphysical (spirit or something like that) and not physical, then the laws will not apply to ‘you’. You will not be restricted to a mere 5 senses of perception. But truth permeates the physical and non physical what we know to be true absolutely will still be true post-humerus, but presumably true will be more perceptible with out the impedance with out the limitations of physical existence, but we don’t know. The author cannot know that the physical reality in which we live ‘disable all your senses and perception’. I’ll admit it’s a limiting factor but despite that we can know that some things are absolutely true. For instance, with out the benefit of death we can know that 2+2=4. No matter what, no matter your state in the universe, no matter physical or not physical, we know that equation to be absolutely true. It will still be true when we are dead, we just may or may not know it.
That statement was neither irrefutable or all that deep, because it was incorrect.
[/quote]
How can you KNOW that physical laws permeate into the afterlife? No one knows anything about the afterlife. All this statement is about is based on what we know to be true of this reality.
We rely on physical entities to percieve the world.
[/quote]
Simple, ‘Laws’ are metaphysical constructs as is an after life. A pysical object and the ‘laws’ by which they behave are two things not one. Further, it’s a one way trust. ‘laws’ can exist with out a physical counter part, but some thing physical requires a metaphysical ‘law’ for it’s existence. Think about it.
[quote]
So to percieve anything after death it must eiher be through physical means that are not yet known and understood by us or by a completely different set of physical laws
You talking about the truths of this world, not being able to be known as absolutes because of the limitations of physical existence. And metaphysics IS the study of the unobservable universe.
Scientific theories are based on observation of physical matter, that’s what science is, pure empiricism. It’s a measure. But I am not talking about that. I am saying that you can know somethings to be true even if limited by our physical make up, and socio/psychological paradigms. It’s called logic, particularly a priori/ deductive logic. What is found to be true, is always true no matter what. If the premises of an argument is true, and the conclusion drawn from the premises are accurate to the premises then the argument is a statement of truth. Truth is always true under any circumstance, time, space, or lack of all those things. That’s why you can ‘know’ things even as a limited physical being, not a lot, but somethings you can know.[/quote]
I think it depends on whether you view death as leaving this universe and existing in an entirely different universe governed by different rules or existing within this universe in a completely different physical state.
Either way the physics of how you could perceive the world without eyes to see or ears to hear etc…is beyond me.
Think tank fish is looking like another wonder boy who knows all about the afterlife and how the universe functions. But he can’t quite figure out how to use the quote function. Ho hum…just another day on T Nation.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Physics of the afterlife?! LOL
Okay.
Physics is the study of fundamental forces of the universe and their influence on matter and energy. In order for it to be a valid field of knowledge the laws that govern the living world need to be the same for the non-living world. For example, the carbon that make up a piece of coal or a living tissue cell have the same properties and the same statistical rate of decay.[/quote]
The quote supposes an after life exists and that the laws of physics ceases to exist in it. I am explaining why that’s not true. Laws continue to exist even if one is dead. It may no longer apply to said dead person, but the laws still exist.[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Think tank fish is looking like another wonder boy who knows all about the afterlife and how the universe functions. But he can’t quite figure out how to use the quote function. Ho hum…just another day on T Nation.[/quote]
Lol. I think its worked this time. I was trying to make it shorter.
I know nothing of the afterlife. Thats the point. No one does.
