0

People say death is a black box, that you can know nothing about it, but is the following logical?

If you believe real time travel is possible maybe in the future and someone eventually may be able to travel back in time and meet your past self, that would mean the history of you would be preserved into the future. You don't know what exactly will be preserved, but at least some form of the abstract concept of history of you will be preserved into the future. Time is above the abstract concept of history? If time were abstract, if time were real; in either case, time would be above the abstract concept of history?

Do concepts by themselves exist somewhere out there in the world?

Yes, you might not have your self preserved into the future, but the abstract concept of the history of you will be preserved. You will have an abstract concept of you after you die.

This is assuming the abstract concept of your history belongs to you. I would think that it does. After all, it is your history.

If it's true, wouldn't that be knowing something about death? (a conditional statement whereby real time travel in going back in time is unrelated to death)

If it's not true that it belongs to you, then there would be an abstract concept of history of you after you die, but it wouldn't belong to you? Who would it belong to then? If it belonged to a non-sentient world, then that means the world is higher than you in some form of hierarchy, right? If it belonged to a higher being, then that's proof that a higher being exists, right?

If you believe that your abstract concept of history doesn't belong to you, and it belonged to something higher, that proves that you know there is something higher than you, regardless of it being sentient or non-sentient. Isn't that knowing something about death (that there is something higher than death in some kind of hierarchy), too so it's not a black box?

Yes, these are a bunch if conditional statements, but doesn't that prove that death is not a black box?

Edit: What I mean by "abstract" is that the concept of history of past civilizations, etc. aren't real anymore to us (although they were real), but do they exist (now) in some form "less than real" out there somewhere? How else would you be able to think about it? Does memory come from somewhere or is there something out in the world that can analyze the overall memory of a period? Something abstract out there that can be used for analytical purposes?

I know some mathematicians have considered conceptual numbers to be somewhere out there and truth to reside in Platonic heaven, but what about just the whole concept itself, both positive and negative aspects. Any philosophers believe that concepts reside somewhere if they are concrete?

I also believe it’s impossible to disappear completely forever unless one was to disappear from the timeline. This is why I believe space to be a higher dimension than time. Why is time considered the fourth dimension and not lower?

1
1

history of past civilizations, etc. aren't real anymore to us

I beg your pardon?... OK, at the very least, I beg you to reconsider, given that this particular question of yours was answered -- for real! -- like 2,500 years ago. And I quote:

"If all things were turned to smoke, the nostrils would distinguish them.

That's Heraclitus, explaining a certain law of conservation, to anyone paying attention. I could even quote "The souls smell in Hades", just for the heck of it... 'cause, literally, ppl be like "what the heck that supposed to mean???"

Well, it meant the conservation of information. You literally cannot kill it... so be careful with your words ;) Or your thoughts, for that matter... and the rest of you, now or ever -- you are information, recorded in your physical body at any given moment... Every bit will survive forever, and I don't mean it platonically, it's always physical, always carved on some kind of media. Any kind -- anything you can imagine, and then on your black hole... Eventually, because, eventually, there will be nothing else left in the Universe, nothing of the matter, but the black holes.

Ironically, black holes look like breaking the law of conservation. From the outside, they appear beautifully simple, described by just two numbers -- a mass and momentum. And charge maybe? OK, three numbers then. So what if you throw a book at it? No, wait, I... Seriously? That was the last copy of Heraclitus's book! Signed too...

Anyway, it's not even the black holes, it the law of conservation that comes with the fine print. Technically, no, the information is never lost, not even in black holes, despite the appearance. The law, however, doesn't promise that the info, tho having survived, will still be accessible. Burn a book and some of its content is going to be radiated as heat... One photon goes left, the other goes right, and there you are, watching them receding in the opposite ways at the speed of light... see the problem? You might never see them together again.

On the bright side, the black holes are not as simple as they appear according to Einstein's General Theory. They evaporate through Hawkins radiation, giving away every bit they ever ate. Eventually, the last of them will go poof, leaving the Universe filled with radio static, with no matter in it for the first time since it was 10-35 second old and about as big as a grain of sand. This time the Universe is much older, bigger, and colder. Well, last time we checked... 'Cause technically, with the matter gone, so is the time. No clock means no measuring stick either. The Universe could be as big or as small as that grain of sand, 1027 K hot, after it was expanding for a millionth of a second faster than the speed of light... We are, with apologies to Roger Penrose, at the end of the inflation phase.

We are, and it didn't lost on that white-hot grain of the Universe. Every memory, every thought, and every dream... engraved on a black hole or on the Big Bang, the Universe forgets nothing... It lost the track of time, it appears... But now it won't even take a millionth of a second before it cools down enough for the first quarks and leptons, the first bits of matter to crystalize, and

Then we rinse and repeat
And it just goes on.

This Kosmos, the same for all, none of gods nor humans made, but it was always and is and shall be: an ever-living fire, kindled by measures and extinguished by measures.
  -- Heraclitus, 450 BCE

1
  • 1
    Photons don't experience time, this undergurds conformal cyclic cosmology.
    – CriglCragl
    Jan 19 at 23:22
0

This question about the nature of death as being logical or illogical and this being grounded in history necessitates much of what we understand about death a similar to a process of remembering or forgetting.

Plato's allegory of cave observes this life as fundamentally illusionary and death as the "inversion point" between truth and illusion.

Death, much like the black box you argue, can be viewed as a logical entity:

A line (life) Inverts to another line through 0d point (death) where life and death can be observed as platonic forms in and of themselves strictly because of their nature in time.

This is justified true belief though, when applying platos JTB to his own arguments that all is form. This necessitates an inherent perspectivism where even our identity as historical is subject to manipulation.

Neitzche's perspectivism observes history as not just a perspective but an interpretation based upon certain points of view (the victor). This interpretation is used much in the same manner as the master slave morality as a means of control through a tension of perspectives in which one is dominant over the other.

Much of this is covered in the "Use and Abuse of History for Life"

A similar degree of interpretation can be observed in the philosophy fiction of Pirsig in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (which is required reading in some universities).

History is strictly a set of ghost stories invented to keep people entertained by the campfire and to avoid walking to far into the dark.

Thus what we understand of identity and perspective, history being the primary example here, is the repition of patterns of perspectives where each perspective of neitzche is a point of assumption thus following Plato with these perspective forming patterns that we further assume as part of our identities.

Perception and form are inseperable and death acts as point of inversion between identities in these respects...much in a similar manner to how one memory is interrupted by a blank space before we observe a new memory.

Space as also being subject to perspective, according to Kant, and neitzhes objective take on perspective as having diverging properties that necessitate a linear progression implies under a synthesis of perspectives that space is self aware or is conscious.

This collaborates with the circle as being "divine reason" in many socratic camps as well as the "⊙" (circumpunct, bindhu, monad, etc.) As being referenced in all cultures and religions as having some value.

The nature of the Munchauseen Trillema (all is assumed through "point" of observer, all axioms exist through a linear continuum, all axioms cycle) further observes this and can be referenced in platos works on Socrates where socraties in talking with phaedrus makes the claim the Gods (forms) cycle (circle) around the formless "one" (point)

So reading Plato, Kant Nietzche, Pirsig may help.

7
  • Thanks for the suggestion. One question. Plato's line(life) and point(death) moving with time implies that time is higher than death (and life) or governs both of them? Where is the proof that time is higher than (or governs) death? Aug 27 '19 at 23:45
  • 1
    The line is the grounding of platonic forms but this reference specifically would be observed in neoplatonism or the Greek myth of the fates cutting the cord (line) of life. Pythagoras observes this cord briefly. And if you do the research in life and death myth pay mind to the metaphor of cord or string as the line is the abstraction of these things from a platonic sense. As to time governing death that is a paradox most philosopher, as far as I am aware, have not addressed. Time, in heideggers philosophy was observed as bare minimum a line between two points with this notion of course...
    – Eodnhoj7
    Aug 28 '19 at 0:42
  • Necessitating a platonic form. Now using this form, the line, as an abstraction we see that the platonic form is inherently spatial in nature. The forms are axioms of space. Thus from a kantian point of view they are highly subjective much in the same manner time is relative to the observer. So we have time, grounded in a base platonic form of one point moving to another point (ie a hand on a clock or standard sand timer with grain moving from point a to point b), being subjective in the respect that is requires assumption. Now this may not make sense at first. But in measuring time...
    – Eodnhoj7
    Aug 28 '19 at 0:47
  • We assume a point of reference. It can be anything from the hand of a clock to watching a person cross the street. We assume one point of this vast reality and what as it progress through a medium (such as the hand of the clock or the person walking) to another point. This sets a foundation for a linear continuum where we defined further movements as ratios within ratios. So using a person moving from one point to another I may observe how many times a ball may bounce from on point to another and back to the original point or how many rotations of a clock occur with a rotation being the...
    – Eodnhoj7
    Aug 28 '19 at 0:51
  • 1
    The same point repeating itself. So time requires a subjective point of measuring which we assume, hence is subjective, but this still requires a constant linear form. So neitzche perspectivism and Platos forms actually complement eachother quite well. Now the "cord of life" where we "invert" from one state into birther and into another through death, observes how we measure reality and are aware of it through progression. This progression is grounded in our awareness itself where one self evident truth inverts to another than another, with the axioms we embody being equivalent to
    – Eodnhoj7
    Aug 28 '19 at 0:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.