Can i speculate about Heaven?

[BahadirArici]

I know some of you will definitely find it irritating to see something about "heaven" in a science forum but bear with me.

For a second lets think there is a place our clones reborn, lets say by a Type 3 civilization, to have a better understanding. So there is no an actual god or an actual heaven in this scenario.

What will they be doing, our clones?

If this was the case, i have this scenario:

I think there are 3 significant groups in general there. One group is the exclusively or very mostly “Real Lifers”, there are also the exclusively or very mostly “Cyber Lifers” and the Inbetweeners.

“It is after life. There is an ultimate-like energy, a Type 3 technology but you simply can not beat cyber posibilities” a Cyber Lifer would say. Indeed with an ultimate-like computer, you can have the most sophisticated cyber life which is quite like Matrix, directly connected to your brain and endless types of Worlds, abilities and rules.

One can understand a real lifer too. “It is cyber” would all they need to say, probably. You see, real lifers also vary.

To give a simple example, i am almost sure there is a real-time Earth copy in the Universe, both real and cyber. So Real Life is limited compare to Cyber Life but not that limited really.

I am almost sure there are Cyber Worlds in the Cyber Universe where our AI clones roam this very moment, before we even die.

Me? I ll most probably be an Inbetweener. I want to commend digital armies and conquer Worlds. You cannot do that in Real Life, you know. There are quite some stuff that is pretty ugly in Real Universe but mainstream in the Cyber Universe.

So there is no point of discussing how the Cyber Life is. It is only limited with the combined imagination. The ultimate-like computer can probably run the most sophisticated Worlds where you can be a 5 inch caterpillar if you want to be. You can rule Worlds, fight with your blood and sweat, fly not like birds, be one. Anything one can imagine.

Anything one can imagine but in a Cyber Universe you cannot have a real baby. That is why the Real Universe is superior, will always be. You may not be a 5 inch caterpillar but you may be one which is a bit bigger than your brain and essential parts of you. So the options in Real Universe are not exactly slim. Yes, i do think you have babies there. You can have one organically, of course, but better, you can design your baby with your partner, or partners. So there must be schools there too, so teachers too, even principals maybe, who knows, depending on which World you are living in but, snow breaks?

So, principally i dont do this, giving examples, one reason for that is, many people who reads these writings can make even better examples when i open a world of possibilities so my example would look a step back, and secondly my example would definitely look an example of lack of imagination comparing to the ones in the Universe.

But i ll do an exception. I know myself so i know my AI and i ll guess what he loves playing most right now.

Consider an Ultima Online like World. Anyone remembers that game? There are different clans and you are ranked in the clan with your Universal List Rank. Not because i think i have a high rank there, i do think i have, but because anyone would like to play with that rule so that they can be in the same team with people they like and can compete with people they also like. You are your Real World avatar by rule, except some necessity cases. There is a limited magic. You are more powerful if you are higher ranked. The World is GoTish with a pinch of LoTR and Dragonlance. We fight for lands. To have the land you have to get the castle. You can be or not be mean to villagers. You can be a fighter or any commoner folk. You have a family too, everything really, like real life. There are demi-god levels, so if you are very high on ranking, you are like Achilles.

There are some rules too. Every clan can have a limited of “special kin” like dragons and such. So, picking the kin goes as always, higher ranker picks first. So if no-one who is higher ranked than me picked black dragon, i pick that. So i can turn into a dragon and Helena can ride me to battles. It is a black dragon with mustard color on it on some parts, if anyone wonders.

Magery is considered as a kin so there are limited arch-mages and some apprentices, like Jedi’s pretty much in that sense.

There is a time limit for one to live it to automatic, one should attend personally so this sort of games are demanding. Considering time is not that relative, it means you have same 24 hours, if you know what i mean, so you cannot play many of these games simultaneously, unless that games let you go automatic for long periods.

So it is important where popular people prefers to play, because most of the people also work, so gaming time is limited. I ll be definitely playing this game, unless one convince me their game is superior. It is a bit about taste tho.

There is a level system and there is a Game Master AI like many mainstream games. So you are not entirely limited with your Rank.

You pay to play with your real life money. You pay it to your clan so your clan pays to many things, from food to soldiers salary, from catapults to the Ents salary who can be real people or not, making trees in the forrests for you to cut to make wood. Clans or in game players pay small money for lots of things to GM, GM after taking zir salary from that money, takes all the money to the “center”. That is pretty much a small example of how economy works there.

So, if you are a commoner, from a farmer to an inn owner, from a blacksmith to creatures like Ents you can be contributing the society in many ways. You can have your own business or you can work for a clan. Mainstream is being a part of a clan and getting protection by them but there are none-clan communities too out there, till either turning a clan themselves to protect themselves or till their land being conquered by a clan or maybe they are protected by some chivalry clans.

Having a productive community is important for clans because it means more taxes and a bigger economy. But slaves dont pay taxes. You can have a none-slave clan or you can enslave people. We dont enslave as a clan unless we need that persons work, than we make them work for us, even if you pay that is enslavement. We kill too. It is just a game, let me remind you.

For people who wants more details, it is a real time game and when you die, you loose all your “level”, “possessions on you”, your “limited ability” if you have any and you loose a whole day -i am not sure how long a day is there- so people will have the chance to take your ex-limited-ability. You start from your “base” from beginning, again.

 

Before critisizing me, i want to say i like the crowd here and i want to discuss my intellectual property with you guys. If my post is not against the rules, but you find it anoying, please simply ignore it. There might be other people who would like to discuss ifs and butts (haha humour) with me.

Edited February 12, 2018 by BahadirArici

[MigL]

I'm the last guy who would infringe on someone's right to any belief system they choose for themselves.
However, the rules are, that even speculations must be backed up.

And I don't see how any notion of 'heaven' can ever be backed up.

[BahadirArici]

Oh is that so. So there is no Subtopic where i can talk about my perspective of heaven with you guys in this site?

[Area54]

There is an excellent series of novels by the SF author Phillip Jose Farmer that begins with "To Your Scattered Bodies Go". The premise is that aliens have been recording the details of all humanity for tens of thousands of years. This has enabled them to resurrect everyone on Riverworld, a planet with a river flowing backwards and forwards across it, with no means of scaling the mountains that hem in each riverbank. You might be able to discuss your ideas in the context of SF, contrasting your thoughts with Farmer's view.

Here's a heads up. Farmer's aliens and the motive for their resurrection of humans and the quality of the afterlife is at odds with your optimistic view.

[BahadirArici]

37 minutes ago, Area54 said:

There is an excellent series of novels by the SF author Phillip Jose Farmer that begins with "To Your Scattered Bodies Go". The premise is that aliens have been recording the details of all humanity for tens of thousands of years. This has enabled them to resurrect everyone on Riverworld, a planet with a river flowing backwards and forwards across it, with no means of scaling the mountains that hem in each riverbank. You might be able to discuss your ideas in the context of SF, contrasting your thoughts with Farmer's view.

Here's a heads up. Farmer's aliens and the motive for their resurrection of humans and the quality of the afterlife is at odds with your optimistic view.

I should definitely look it up! Great contribution again Area54, thank you.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

Oh is that so. So there is no Subtopic where i can talk about my perspective of heaven with you guys in this site?

This really isn't discussable in a meaningful way. It's just you telling us your version of heaven, which is quite different from anyone else's, and none of them have a shred of evidence to support them. Discussing them like we could learn something from them is lunacy. 

As I've said before, your style is more suited to a blog, or fiction writing, where you can tell the readers the way things are. Here, you're just revealing wishful thinking with no basis in reality, and no concern for critical thinking or reasoned argument. 

Further, you're forced to make up all kinds of garbage, like Real Time, Lifers, and copies of Earth. You're "almost sure" your wild ass guesswork is true, whatever that's worth. You're trying to force a nature we don't observe into a discussion with science-minded people. 

There is a way to discuss religion scientifically, reasonably, critically, but this isn't it. Your perspective is subjective, and science is always trying to minimize subjective influences. I don't think we're the site for you when it comes to this type of post. We set the rigor bar high(er than most sites) to attract those who are attracted to science. 

[beecee]

Now there are three steps to heaven, Just listen and you will plainly see, And as life travels on, And things do go wrong , just follow steps one, two and three.

Step one, you find a girl you love,
Step two, she falls in love with you,
Step three, you kiss and hold her tightly,
Yeah, that sure seems like heaven to me. 

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

Now there are three steps to heaven, Just listen and you will plainly see, And as life travels on, And things do go wrong , just follow steps one, two and three.

Step one, you find a girl you love,
Step two, she falls in love with you,
Step three, you kiss and hold her tightly,
Yeah, that sure seems like heaven to me. 

Many men are now in trouble for skipping step two.

[BahadirArici]

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

There is a way to discuss religion scientifically, reasonably, critically, but this isn't it.

Is that so tho.

And i do think we should be able to talk about afterlife with science-minded people as with everyone else. Your forum may not have the section, i understand, but us aborginial intelligent beings should talk ifs. If there were heaven, how would it be? A science minded person can handle an if sentence, i asume?

Edited February 13, 2018 by BahadirArici

[Strange]

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

If there were heaven, how would it be? A science minded person can handle an if sentence, i asume?

The problem is not the “if” or even the question. There is zero evidence for the existence or nature of heaven. Your bizarre fantasies are not a basis for scientific discussion. 

[Area54]

Here are two "If" sentences. One of them falls within the scientific domain. The other one doesn't. The follow up questions and observations should illustrate why one is acceptable to science and the other is not.

If Oumuamua, the interstellar object currently passing through our system, were an artificial construct, how might we determine this? Here are some possibilities:

• Look for an elevated temperature above that of an object from deep space.
• Look for EM emissions, especially those with non-random variations.
• Look for otherwise inexplicable alterations of trajectory.

If there is an afterlife how might we determine its characteristics? Sceances have been shown to be fraudulent, mediums have been shown to be fraudulent or delusional, ghosts, as departed spirits, have no meaningful evidence in support of them. All the means by which information about the afterlife could allegedly be obtained have been discounted by investigation.

Thus any discussion of the afterlive is entirely speculative with no observational or evidential foundation whatsoever. It is not science. At best it is science fiction.

 

Edit: I see while I was writing that Strange said much the same thing, but with fewer words.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Area54

[Eise]

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

If there were heaven, how would it be? A science minded person can handle an if sentence, i asume?

Of course:

Premise: If there were heaven, how would it be.

Fact: Heaven was never observed.

Conclusion: we do not have to ask the question 'how would it be'.

That is an example how we, science minded persons, handle if-sentences.

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

And i do think we should be able to talk about afterlife with science-minded people as with everyone else.

No. Science per definition is rooted in empirical reality, which we can intersubjectively share. However, in the case of heaven we do not have such an empirical root. We have no observations about heaven, even no reason to think it exists at all.

So, now I, a science minded person, have talked about heaven. So you can talk about it, but the discussion is rather short. 

 

[BahadirArici]

Wow i ve never seen such elegant ways of duging a simple question. Scientific mind doesnt meean it only thinks issues science related.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

Wow i ve never seen such elegant ways of duging a simple question. Scientific mind doesnt meean it only thinks issues science related.

Scientific people might be interested in discussing things you make up (although I can't imagine why; your fantasies are quite banal). But a science forum (dedicated to discussing science) may not be the place for it. Try an SF forum. 

[Area54]

10 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

Wow i ve never seen such elegant ways of duging a simple question. Scientific mind doesnt meean it only thinks issues science related.

The question has not been dodged. It has been addressed directly by three members. Speculation about something for which no evidence exists is simply not something that falls within the purview of science. Science is not equipped to deal with it. Science is not interested in dealing with it.

You don't go on a forum devoted to scuba diving and complain that no one wants to talk about the breeding of Koala bears. Scuba diving has nothing meaningful to say about the famously terrestrial Australian mammals. Likewise, asking people to discuss in a scientific way the nature of heaven, when such a conversation is impossible, is either very foolish, or very arrogant.

And yes, when the scientific mind is operating as a scientific mind, it only thinks of issues that are amenable to scientific discussion. If I am on an Art forum, discussing Jackson Pollack, I don't go there with my scientific mind, I go there with my artistic mind.

Further, you appear to have an almost unwavering belief in how you imagine the after-life to be. Frankly, this is delusional and ludicrous in equal measure.

 

Edit: Damn, Strange, you beat me to it again, and once more with fewer words. Am I following you around?

Edited February 13, 2018 by Area54

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Damn, Strange, you beat me to it again, and once more with fewer words.

Typing on the phone: it forces me to be brief! But I like your extra detail. 

[BahadirArici]

21 minutes ago, Area54 said:

The question has not been dodged. It has been addressed directly by three members. Speculation about something for which no evidence exists is simply not something that falls within the purview of science. Science is not equipped to deal with it. Science is not interested in dealing with it.

And yes, when the scientific mind is operating as a scientific mind, it only thinks of issues that are amenable to scientific discussion. If I am on an Art forum, discussing Jackson Pollack, I don't go there with my scientific mind, I go there with my artistic mind.

 

Well, maybe this is one way of doing things. I d like to talk your mind about afterlife and such, beliefs and what ifs, one day.

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Scientific people might be interested in discussing things you make up (although I can't imagine why; your fantasies are quite banal). But a science forum (dedicated to discussing science) may not be the place for it. Try an SF forum. 

If you think it is banal, you should read the whole thing: inviters.org

Edited February 13, 2018 by BahadirArici

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

you should read the whole thing

Thanks but no thanks. There is a lot of good science fiction I haven’t read yet. 

[Area54]

7 minutes ago, BahadirArici said:

Well, maybe this is one way of doing things. I d like to talk your mind about afterlife and such, beliefs and what ifs, one day.

Yes, this is one way of doing things. It is the scientific way. It is because many thousands of individuals did things this way that we are able to converse with each other today, And that is boring compared with what the scientific way has revealed about the mysteries of the universe. But that is rather the point - it has revealed some of those mysteries by being rooted in validated observations, not engaged in imaginative speculations that lack any evidence.

Find a website where such conversations are acceptable, post a thread with your ideas, send me a pm and I'll be happy to discuss them there.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Area54

[swansont]

20 hours ago, beecee said:

Now there are three steps to heaven, Just listen and you will plainly see, And as life travels on, And things do go wrong , just follow steps one, two and three.

Step one, you find a girl you love,
Step two, she falls in love with you,
Step three, you kiss and hold her tightly,
Yeah, that sure seems like heaven to me. 

!

Moderator Note

Please acknowledge when you are quoting someone, even when it's lyrics

 

[Moontanman]

My take on Heaven is waking up and telling the ride operator I'd like to try be a god for a day ride next, that be a peon for a life time ride sucks... 

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, BahadirArici said:

I d like to talk your mind about afterlife and such, beliefs and what ifs, one day.

What we do here is discuss, rather than talk at other people. That usually means an exchange of knowledge occurs that dispels some amount of ignorance for some or all of the participants. We like to learn, this is what gives discussion meaning, and lends a richness to our communications that only humans can achieve.

If it turns out that my idea of the afterlife is as fixed and lacking in evidence as yours, what would we be "discussing"? If I claim heaven is like a big buffet-style restaurant, and all the angels bring you soup whenever you sneeze, and the streets are paved with Kaiser rolls, what are you going to say about it that would have any meaning? Is my unrealistic vision of the afterlife any more valid than yours? Are you going to argue that your vision is more "logical"?

Making up stories about what an afterlife might be like, and claiming then that you're "almost sure" you're right is NOT what science is about. I don't know why you want to talk about it here, but your concept will NEVER have any scientific validity without evidence. 

[beecee]

23 hours ago, beecee said:

Now there are three steps to heaven, Just listen and you will plainly see, And as life travels on, And things do go wrong , just follow steps one, two and three.

Step one, you find a girl you love,
Step two, she falls in love with you,
Step three, you kiss and hold her tightly,
Yeah, that sure seems like heaven to me. 

My apologies for not crediting the above lyrical arrangement and song......

Although there is a better arrangement by Foster and Allen which I can't seem to find.  

[BahadirArici]

13 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If it turns out that my idea of the afterlife is as fixed and lacking in evidence as yours, what would we be "discussing"? If I claim heaven is like a big buffet-style restaurant, and all the angels bring you soup whenever you sneeze, and the streets are paved with Kaiser rolls, what are you going to say about it that would have any meaning? Is my unrealistic vision of the afterlife any more valid than yours? Are you going to argue that your vision is more "logical"?

Making up stories about what an afterlife might be like, and claiming then that you're "almost sure" you're right is NOT what science is about. I don't know why you want to talk about it here, but your concept will NEVER have any scientific validity without evidence. 

Arent you contradicting with yourself here? By telling what you understand from "heaven" you start a discussion, or answer to mine, which is discussing. You can discuss and even rate which heaven is more probable if it exits. You can dissscuss a none-scientific subject with quite scientific methods, my friend. 

And obviously my "heaven" is more logical than yours. Why? Yours can be a cyber reality in mine for people exactly wants that but what about the people who wants nothing lik that. What sort of an heaven is that? "Heaven supposed to be a place where your most desires are satisfied, no?" this is defining what we discuss here, which is also in the metodology of science. Tell me your best heaven, not rubbish like this.

Off topic: you know what i like about this forum, not only the peoples determinition to scientific approach but also my topic is not blocked or anything and rather i am being tried to convinced that i am wrong to try to discuss here. Very highly of you. You can step your game up with actually discussing with me. But it is ok. I like it here. I ll stick around.

Edited February 14, 2018 by BahadirArici

[Strange]

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

rate which heaven is more probable if it exits

Of course you can’t. That is like saying you can decide if it is more likely that invisible unicorns are blue or pink. It is an insane idea.

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

And obviously my "heaven" is more logical than yours. Why?

Yours obviously appears more “logical” to you because you are using the crackpot meaning of logical (“it makes sense to me”). 

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

Arent you contradicting with yourself here? By telling what you understand from "heaven" you start a discussion, or answer to mine, which is discussing.

Reading comprehension problems?

Phi did not say what he understood heaven to be. 

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

Tell me your best heaven, not rubbish like this.

How about a place where cranks don't infest serious discussion forums?

1 hour ago, BahadirArici said:

I ll stick around.

Can we do anything to make you change your mind?

Edited February 14, 2018 by Strange