Optimal decision of human (Longevity, death, etc.)

It seems that historically, humanity has always been drawn to that which is timeless. I think this is as far as it goes for us, like an eternal spiral of our imagination. We have extended our lifespans already, but it seems that our lives are less meaningful today then they were in the past. We have gained information, and time, but we also have lost meaningful quality of life (or a connection to other life forms). You want to gain more information and thus, meaning, but I’m not seeing this happening. Take an ancient warrior who died in the battle at a young age and juxtapose him with a today’s 102 yr old toothless lady living in a nursing home? Which one has lead a more meaningful life, and death. The only semblance of afterlife that we can establish of an individual is his/her reputation, or memory, passed on to the rest of the people, either through vocal traditions, architecture, or writing. In nature, it would be non-individual (only traits, or adaptations) that are passed on. Ancestor spirit worship was a parallel play on that, you will live in the memory of your descendants, just as your ancestors have lived through your own memory. Individual so called afterlife was possible only through extreme heroism and fame/wealth/influence; or a rare dumb chance (ex. Otzi). Otherwise, there is no compelling evidence of existence of an individual afterlife.

Thank you for the reply.

Yeah, I have started making actions for the attainment of longevity. It seems enough for now to know the complete working of human by particle physics or from any other elementary science which we know on. If we can explain all the working of human, completely, it might allow us know certain conformations/data/structures. And automation of knowing and searching data, and automation of making actions which we are doing now, might increase the speed of knowing more data.

Sorry, I didn’t understand you.

“And it will happen again. But noone knows exactly what body they will be born into.”

What proof do we have to say on we as to take birth again in other body? How can we say on it as to be the case, or it will be the case? Yes, from not knowing all the data, we can consider it as a possibility, among all the other possibilities, as there being no birth, or no after life, or some other after life than human world, etc; but I didn’t understand on what evidence is making you express rebirth as to be the conformation which would happen (from your usage of the word “will”).

[Will reply to others soon.]

If you want proof first you have to empty your glass. That’s pretty much what Bruce Lee said and I’m saying it again.

The way Americans view life is from a perspective of ego attachment. Let me explain it this way. That is the foundation of American’s way of thinking. With that mode of thinking as the foundation, it is harder for them to comprehend certain kinds of concepts. Everything in America is ego attachment, materialism, money, work, jobs, and their morality is founded on Abrahamic beliefs. Even atheists use the same Abrahamic, Western framework in their perception of how to go about reality. The western mind has a tough time comprehending reincarnation, because it uses a masculine, Abrahamic, framework, they aren’t good at using abstractions and everything has to be concrete. Proof of the afterlife has to be concrete for them to understand it, they are poor at understanding abstractions.

When they read Jesus, they view hims as someone who is being literal. They dont understand he didn’t mean to literally turn the other cheek. He was just going about it as a way of life. Not like it has to be literally done 100% of the time. Same as lust. You shouldnt be a pedophile preist who refuses to lust and then turns into a pedophile. You should just generally not go around lusting. Because its not making you happy. If you are in a harem of prostitutes then lust. But if you are around cunty feminists then don’t lust, it will only give you heartbreak misery and sexual frustration.

Jesus, never said anything about anyone would die and go to heaven. He said people would be written in the book of life. Or inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. And he said good and wise people will go to hell. Even that people who believed and worshipped him would go to Hell. Obvious he didn’t mean there was a literally Hell. Hell was made up by the Catholic Church later on. Jesus never talked literally everything he said was an abstraction. His idea of eternal life was reincarnation. But retarded westerners are incapable of grasping anything abstract. His idea of the golden rule was treating other people nice was because you might end up or reincarnate as them someday. Do into others as you would do unto yourself. Jesus said he was the King of the Jews and that he wouldn’t change a letter of the law. But he obviously changed a lot of the old jewish laws. So he wasn’t meaning anything he said literally. Just using abstractions that people with common sense should understand. But nobody has common sense and just take everything literally. Its like if Cartman of south park says he is the King of the Jews, that doesnt mean he actually really is a jew or wants to actually promote jewish customs. Jesus.

And its like this. How can you exist? Unless I am you. Because you seem like you to you. But not to me. To me your just a animated pile of meat, a talking flesh bag. The only way you would be real is if I am you. And the only way that can happen, is through some kind of reincarnation.

No one knows what happens after death but as everyone is going to eventually die the question is academic because if there is something it will be discovered

Decomposition does not happen at the atomic level as the particles you are composed of have the longest lifespan of anything that exists
Photons in vacuum do in theory have an infinite lifespan although not in actuality because so called empty space is not absolutely empty

Many particles such as electrons for example have an estimated lifespan of I0 25 years while the Universe is currently only I0 9 years old
So from a quantum perspective you will carry on existing in some form for significantly longer than physics can actually measure in time

Thank you for the reply.

Why can we not know all the data?
[As said to lordoflight in another context, it seems that, we not being able to know all the data, as the possibility, as seems that of we being able to know all the data. But, it seems that can’t say either as to be the case now, as we seem to be not knowing all the data, to prove either of them. To know we as to be knowing all or most of the data: if all the conformations/structures/data/things, are as we have thought, won’t it be expressing on we as to be at least near to the completion of knowing all the data, within our interaction domain?]

Different levels of abstraction = Different levels of compoundness? Example: Molecular view as a level of abstraction, atomic view as another level of abstraction, particle view as another view of abstraction?

If we can’t know all the data, can knowing greater quantity of the data, have greater probability of allowing us, to make optimal decisions or actions than the lesser quantity of data? I will think on this.

Are you saying that we can know elements, or elementary particles, from the words “basic structure of all information in reduced terms”?

I didn’t understand; what problem would there be, if know more data? If we know more data, we might be able to take more optimal decisions than before? How would that be not optimal?

I didn’t understand this completely.

It seems that data/conformations/structures/things might change only if the elementary particles which constructs it change.

My friend says similar to what you are saying on how smaller scale elementary particles we can know on. I don’t know on whether it same in the nature or not, i.e. on whether we can really break down every smaller scale particle or not. At least, if there is any uniform property for any pieces of certain smaller scale particles on division, that might allow us to know the complete working of humans precisely or exactly?

Didn’t understand; but may be, any other experience might get connected later, to understand it.

And what is your decision, will you try to increase lifespan to know more data, or will you not do anything for increasing lifespan, and die later?

Thank you for the reply.

You seem to be expressing that, with increase in our lifetime, we as to be not knowing greater “meaning” than when we had shorter lifespan? [Error in syncing of your meaning of meaning with my meaning of meaning :slight_smile: ? ] I don’t know how much correct it is. It seems that, with increase in lifespan, if we continue to know more data, we might be able to know more meaning of this world, and be able to make optimal actions for any of the conformations which might occur after our death or in the future.

That seems to be what it seems now, with our incomplete data. We might have to not depend on our present incomplete data, and might have to know the unknown for the later stability.

We might have to know more data, to know on what would happen later (if anything happens), and to be in stable state later. As I said before, we don’t know all the data, death itself could also be optimal, from the unknown data/conformation.

Thank you for the reply again. Till now: you seem to be expressing on there being rebirth of the dead (?); we need proof for that, right?; now in the reply for proof, you seem to be expressing on the existence of proof in abstraction. Can you please give that abstract proof? From my known data, I am not seeing any path, from which, I can say on there being a proof for the existence of rebirth.

From the above paragraph, did you mean to say that, your expression of rebirth, as to be not exactly meant to mean re-birth, but to have some other meaning?

Thank you very much for the reply. I had not thought on the lifespan of particles itself, it seems to be a relation which would be of utility in knowing on after-death conformations. Now, data on the existence of particles (and thus the possibility of us being in that particle) seem to be eliminating, the proof expressing on after death to be nothing from the decomposition, along with other data expressed in the post (we not being able to express the working of human from particle physics; on we may not be knowing complete data).

[Miscellaneous: I am thinking now, if we are composed of only the particles which we know now on, and if we can know the exact location of all the particles of a particular human, can we be able to form back the same human, by constructing the structure with all the particles in the location as that of the human or not? - A path for longevity!; Multiple mes?!]

we are not our particles or our bodies as they are made up of different atoms than 5 years ago.

if your life is the only life then you will never experience my life thus my life is not real and i am just a p-zombie NPC with no soul. since that is not the case, reincarnation is real.

We all experience the same non duality because everything is connected to everything else [ there are no gaps in reality ]
So we do not have to experience each others lives in order for them to be real

Except no, we kinda do. If I never experienced my life then it is not real.

You are experiencing your life though and so it must be real
You dont have to believe in reincarnation for this to be true

I have to live as you some point in the future (the future is the same as the past in this context.) Or else you are not real and a pzombie.

If i am immortal (in the flesh) that means I am the last and final lifeform ever. That all lives were in the past (preceded me.) Think of it like sending data online. You have to wait for the first stack to clear. If the stack is infinite no other data shall pass.

You cannot live as anyone in the future because all you will experience is the eternal NOW
The memories you have of the past can also only be experienced in the same eternal NOW

Thats kinda litterally what I just said.

You werent very precise with your use of language then but I shall let you off this time and my question is :
Can you NOW become Ecmandu and create a non zero sum reality because he doesnt actually know how to

If I had to live out Ecmandu’s life I’d have to live in hell for 4 million years so I’d rather not.

You have a very high IQ like him so the two of you working together might be able to solve the problem
You could also get your girlfriend Marilyn Vos Savant with her IQ of 228 to help you so why not ask her ?

I don’t have a girlfriend and she banned me from her forum and deleted all my posts and so I think she has psychotic issues. Because my posts were trying to be normal.

Euler080

I feel the need to answer your response to my response in more than one part, so here goes.

For an optimal decision of human: which in English, would be taken to mean the best or most favorable decision of human - we have to first ask what context we are using the word human in here; given the parameters(“Longevity, death, etc.”), I can only assume you are referring to humanity, that is, mankind as a whole. Further leading us to consider what the optimal outcome should/would be for humanity. Once we understand the outcome(the result of the decision) then we understand how optimal the decision is, but . . .

. . . there are a lot of people that can not agree on the simplest things . . .

. . . at the moment, as is evident on this site - many people would like to have their own definitions of concepts that have had definitions laid out long ago.

Because the value of data changes over time, for example: the value of historical data decays over time. We can only guess at the future with current models - this only serves the purpose of creating loopholes that can be exploited by the unscrupulous among us. Take away the unscrupulous and part of the data problem goes away. Basically you need to be able to snapshot the complete set of data at any given time and compare it to a snapshot from a different time to determine an outcome and compensate for the decay. This compensation is binomial in nature - that is - it adds to success or failure; the compensation can enhance the outcome or diminish the outcome.

The following may not seem intuitive and/or logical: there has to be rules and limits to what each of us can do but as you know man’s ability to stick with a set of rules and know his limits is flawed. This is likely due to the fact that, as history has shown us, rules and limits also change over time. Understanding change and what causes it is important - understand change, then you can keep fine tuning the decision. Understand change, and you can begin understanding rules and limits.

Certainly it can . . . but whether this would happen or not is dependent on many factors including humans themselves. We would have to rely on mankind to develop the ability to make better decisions based on more data - sometimes less is more. Currently it seems as though many people prefer exploiting loopholes which hinders sound decision making.

I could have included a lot more in this answer but I instead chose to limit my response - it should be noted that because of this, we are not fully exploring the available data.

:smiley: