Empty

Zach Alie · 2025-08-20 00:32:55

"I just want to disappear, i want to become nothing, just turn to dust, and let that dust glide forevermore across the vasteness of space" - Nomad of Stars

KerimF · 2025-08-20 09:55:55

Please don't worry, our created physical body (bounded by time and space) is programmed already to return, sooner or later, to its raw state, to nothingness (state before birth). But ...

Zach Alie · 2025-08-20 18:26:39

Perhaps you are right — maybe I am only yearning for what is already promised. Yet, in the waiting, I feel the weight of existing, and the silence of nothingness calls to me even before it arrives.

KerimF · 2025-08-21 00:01:58

Besides my birth, I am forced to exist in the time-space realm every time my living body has to wake up from its deep sleep, as preprogrammed (by design).
It happens that, sometimes before the wake up of my living body, I am forced to also exist in a realm not bounded by time and space (usually called a dream). So, I lose my existence in a dream when I return back to the time-space realm.

If we see the deep sleep as a short sample of the state of death, a dream could be a short sample of the everlasting realm/dream (a dead body cannot wake up to end it).

Zach Alie · 2025-08-21 00:34:15

Yes, I see dreams as a fleeting escape — a doorway beyond time and space. If eternal, they could be realms where the mind wanders unchained, shaping infinity with imagination. Yet, even there, might we still carry the weight of our human nature, binding us with invisible chains, reminding us that even dreams are not without their bounds?

Last edited by Zach Alie (2025-08-21 00:36:14)

KerimF · 2025-08-21 05:30:14

From the dream samples which I had (I am 75), I noticed that, in general, they reflect, in one way or another, the essence of how I treat and think of others.
It happened that, since I was teen, I chose not to be of the world; that is not to be a living robot guided solely by its preprogrammed instructions (like the instincts of survival, superiority, selfishness and applying justice on others, to name a few).

So, I used to live an unconditional love/care towards all others, good and evil. Yes, I don't judge anyone, the only one I may judge is me when I do something wrong because of ignorance.

Since I don't fear death, I used to love even my worst enemies (I even thank them for helping me proving to myself I am not a living robot whose preprogrammed duty is to defend itself by any available means).

Therefore, naturally, I feel well in every dream no matter whom I may see in it. I can't see sort of nightmare that many people claim to have once a while.

Many used to see me as a big loser. But every human, I included, will lose everything at death. At least, I lived in a way so that, in case I may exist in a dream-like eternal realm, I will enjoy it as I do now.

Last edited by KerimF (2025-08-21 05:30:58)

Zach Alie · 2025-08-21 15:30:52

I cannot see beyond death. To me, it is the end — no realm, no dream, no awakening, only nothing. Every other vision of afterlife is only a possibility, yet if one were to chase a single possibility, would it not follow that we must chase them all to truly be secure? And since they contradict one another, how could any path be certain? Perhaps that is why I choose to walk with the void — the only truth I can conclude.

KerimF · 2025-08-21 20:13:55

In science (related to the physical world), we don't need to see things to know they exist.
For example, we still don't know how two masses detect the presence of each other; that is the exact process (the mechanism) by which they communicate and attract each other, even in vacuum. We just refer to it by gravity waves or gravity field.
We know the existence of this unknown process by logical reasoning.

On the other hand, if, in a test, a stimulated object gives sometimes, for a single input, two different, if not opposing, outputs, we can say that its structure is formed by two separated systems in case repeating the same test gives always the same outputs (otherwise, it could be a damaged object).
But if the stimulated object gives always, for the same input, the same one output, it is formed by one system only.

I applied this analysis/test on myself (the object under test). I noticed, since I was teen, that when someone hurts me, I live two possibilities:
If I hurt him back, I have two opposite feelings: proud for being brave and sad for seeing him hurt.
If I stop myself to revenge, I have also two opposite feelings: ashamed for being coward and a sort of joy for being strong to control my programmed body.

I don't know about other humans, I just know that there are two separate systems (or whatever their names might be) in my actual living structure. While I exist now with both of them, there is always the possibility that I may also exist with one of them only (likely with the non-physical one, since my physical system has to return back, sooner or later, to its raw state, to nothingness).

Zach Alie · 2025-08-23 05:51:46

I did not mean to say that we must see something face to face in order to believe it. What I meant is that I lean toward what has the strongest evidence. And when new evidence appears, I will change my view — because even the highest truth we hold in science is still called a theory.

So I see all beliefs as theories: some strong and lasting, others weaker, shifting. For me, the evidence points to consciousness being born from the brain — trillions of neurons firing, shaping every thought and action. When the brain ends, the consciousness ends too. No soul, no higher realm — only the silence of nothing.

As for the two conflicting systems you describe, I believe they are not inborn souls but the result of life’s shaping. One side is instinct — the old joy of survival, of defending oneself. The other side is the mind’s reflection — shaped by the societies we’ve built where survival no longer depends on tooth and claw. To resist instinct is also human, just as to follow it is.

For me, I have always found meaning in standing up for myself, in seeking success and joy for me and my family — not because of any higher purpose, but because this life is the only one I will ever have. Yet even I see that too much conflict only consumes itself, so I choose my battles.

You see beyond death. I see nothing beyond it. But in the end, we both live — here, now — and that is the realm where our choices still matter.

KerimF · 2025-08-23 10:38:41

There is nothing wrong in what you say. I simply started my view with the fact (relative to my perception) that I am forced to exist and re-exist (after each wake up) in the time-space realm. Actually, my past ancestors (starting from the first living cells, billions years ago) were all forced to exist too. Also, during the deep sleep of my body, I have no control at all about when and how to exist in a dream.

This implies that, based on my logic, there is a WILL beyond mine that forced/forces me to exist in both realms. To me, this is a fact though it may not be so for many people who have their own different views/stories.

“But in the end, we both live — here, now — and that is the realm where our choices still matter.”

And I decided that my choices should help me make my existence in my dreams pleasant and joyful, as possible (I can’t achieve this by following my instincts only which are supposed to please and protect my physical body instead and as long as possible). And I will lose nothing (after the return of my body to nothingness) in case the WILL beyond mine will not let me exist in a dream-like realm (without my body).

For instance, I see my body much like a button, made (designed) to switch on and off my existence in dreams (while it is alive). Removing an on-off button doesn't imply removing the system behind it.

Zach Alie · 2025-08-23 14:43:17

Well, that may be specific to you. For me, dreams have always felt more like reflections of what I’ve lived — or distortions of them, as if I were walking through parallel versions of my own life. To me, they seem less like messages from beyond and more like the work of the mind itself — perhaps shaped by evolution for survival, or simply a byproduct of its complexity.

I’ve even noticed that I can influence my dreams. If I dwell on something deeply, it may appear when I sleep. And like many others, I’ve experienced lucid dreams — where I felt transported into a vivid world where I had more control. This makes me think dreams are not the voice of some higher WILL, but simply another theater of the brain. Without evidence beyond personal experience, I find it hard to treat them as anything else.

That said, I respect the way you choose to live — with peace, love, and comfort. I only question whether we should root that way of life in an ambiguous higher power. For me, we are not buttons switching on or off some hidden system, but the system itself — always changing, breaking, and rebuilding through time.

I do not mean to inhibit your view; I only extend mine. If you’ve lived seventy-five years, your perspective is born of deep experience, and I value hearing it. I simply offer my side — a broader view shaped by my belief in nothing beyond the physical. Still, I remain open to understanding the many ways people shape their lives through their own beliefs.

KerimF · 2025-08-23 23:12:40

Zach Alie wrote:

Well, that may be specific to you. For me, dreams have always felt more like reflections of what I’ve lived — or distortions of them, as if I were walking through parallel versions of my own life.

This is exactly how I see my dreams.

Zach Alie wrote:

To me, they seem less like messages from beyond and more like the work of the mind itself.

They don't have to be messages from beyond. They are, as you said, reflections of the essence of what one's has lived, and what he is ready to do.

Naturally, I wondered why the WILL beyond mine has allowed me (or my brain, if you like) to let me feel that I, once a while, exist in a realm which is different from the time-space one. I am afraid that my answer is based on my logical reasoning (not of anyone else).

Among our preprogrammed instructions (instincts), humans see that one of their duties is to apply justice and/or ask for justice (for others and self). This is why people, anywhere on earth, talk about justice and judgment, a heavenly/worldly judgment in case of theists or a worldly judgment only in case of atheists.

One of my axioms (which cannot be proven directly) is that the WILL beyond mine is just (taken from the ideal case among humans). A relation is said just if both sides can judge each other. It is also just if none of the two sides is allowed to judge the other. But when one side only (a powerful one) has the right to judge another side (a weak one), the relation is obviously unjust.

Naturally, the WILL beyond mine knows that I have no means at all to judge 'It', no matter what 'It' does (or may do) to me or else. So, to be just, 'It' had to find a way by which 'It' doesn't need to judge me too. The solution is to let a human judge himself in another realm, a dream-like one. This lets everyone happy.

But this truth doesn't prevent most people around the world, if not all, accept (always based on their preprogrammed instincts) that it is natural for the most powerful sides only (natural or supernatural) to have the right to judge others (based on a certain set of rules) for they know what they do much better than the weak sides do.
.

Last edited by KerimF (2025-08-23 23:17:32)

Zach Alie · 2025-08-24 02:00:47

Do you truly believe in the metaphysical, or do you see it only as a possibility? Or is it that you live peacefully so that, if the metaphysical does not exist, you die like everyone else, and if it does exist, you continue to exist just as peacefully there?

KerimF · 2025-08-24 03:18:21

What I know is that almost all persons I knew in my environment see me a weird person every time I oppose my instincts of survival, superiority, selfishness or applying justice, while I have the means (the power) not to do it.

It seems that what lets me choose to live this way cannot be physical, unless I was born with a different/opposite set of instincts that all humans are supposed to have.

To my big surprise, one man only, in the human history, agrees clearly with me on how I live and do. So, after all, I am not unique in this respect.

From this, I deduced other things related to my life and death, but they are also not of the physical world.

Zach Alie · 2025-08-24 06:43:27

Hmm intriguing indeed, but there are many persons like which you describe youreself to be, people who as you say do not give in to their instincts (and as i said before it is equally human to not give in to you're instincts as it is to give in to them), i have tried to find the root for you're ideology and it seems it's grounded in you're belief that you do not follow the instincts "normal" human's follow and hence it must not be realated to you're human biology but rooted in something higher or beyond yourself, which you refer to as the "WILL" that causes you to oppose these, but these acts of opposition in itself are what makes us human we are not just bound by our instincts infact we go as far as opposing them to the point of even death, just to name a few whom resonated with you on this i will mention many historical figures that share this so called instinct override:

1. Socrates (470–399 BCE)

Chose to drink hemlock (execution) instead of fleeing Athens, even though he had the chance.

Went against the instinct of survival to remain loyal to his principles and the law.

2. Jesus of Nazareth (c. 4 BCE – 30 CE)

Preached love for enemies, forgiveness instead of revenge.

Went against survival/self-preservation by willingly accepting crucifixion.

3. Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, 563–483 BCE)

Renounced his royal life, wealth, and power.

Abandoned superiority/selfishness instincts in pursuit of enlightenment.

4. Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948)

Advocated nonviolence and fasting, even when under threat.

Refused the instinct for aggression or self-defense, choosing peace and suffering.

5. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968)

Preached nonviolence and love despite receiving death threats.

Put justice and morality over survival instinct.

6. Nelson Mandela (1918–2013)

Spent 27 years in prison when he could’ve compromised.

Chose forgiveness instead of revenge when he gained power.

7. Stoic Philosophers (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca)

Emphasized rejecting desires, ego, and revenge instincts.

Lived by rational control over instincts rather than indulging them.

So it is not just you but a trait of the human species in itself to sometimes "override" their instincts, Infact it may be due to the marvelous complexity of the human mind. We have the ability to think for ourseleves unlike other mammals, it was even said somewhere that humans have this intriguing "ability" sometimes referred to as cognitive dissonance and in George Orwell's 1984 book referred to as double-think where a person can have two ideas which are totally contradictory to each other, this is just an example of one of the many marvelous ways the in which the human mind works. Now lets go back to you're situation, you for example have this belief that you are going against you're instincts but isn't that just another one of you're instincts, perhaps necessary for evolutionary progress becuase diversity and change was required for evolution. To really establish if a human is actually going against his instincts we cannot use one or even many life experiences, to truly find out if a human has escaped his/her intincts (which in my opinion is near impossible (if not impossible)) is to put a human at his/her breaking point or limit, as im sure you know or have heard that a wolf takes off his sheeps disguise when he is triggered, according to which we can devise an experiment to see if a human has truly went above and beyond his instincts. This exact test was mentioned in 1984 and was done on Winston Smith (the protagonist of 1984) where he was tortured and beaten yet he did not give in to his instincts of denouncing his love for Julia and want for freedom until he was faced with his most horrifying experience yet, which for him was placing his hand in a cage full of wild hungry rats (he loathed rats) which would bite of his hand, now when faced with such a situation his instincts kicked in and he immediatly said "don't do it to me do it to Julia" (his lover whom he previously declared his love for), he denounced his love for her and told the torturers to do the evils to his lover instead of him. That was one example of the many where if a human is pushed to his limits his mind would force him to submit as submition can't be prevented due to the fact that the human instincts of survival are built in or programmed as you say into the human mind. To conclude i tell you this to wonder upon: Are you really opposing you're instincts?, Is it a WILL or is it just another forging of the mind which causes you to seemingly oppose you instincts?. Using Logic to justify Philosophy is not an easy path to tread as there are many hurdles you have to overcome since these are both grounded in different systems, one is of the human minds ability to wander across seas of imagination and another where it builds itself on bricks of reason and Logic.

Last edited by Zach Alie (2025-08-24 06:54:42)

KerimF · 2025-08-24 11:30:29

It seems that the key word in your analyses is ‘the mind’ (one’s mind).
You cleverly simplified/explained all things in one’s life by relating them all to the power of his mind, assumed to be versatile.
Therefore, the various differences in how humans live are due to their different minds they got at birth.
And every human, with his mind, will return back to nothingness at death.

The good news is that, in general, every human sees himself right in what he used to believe and do.

Zach Alie · 2025-08-24 17:57:56

I don’t mean to sound dismissive, but I do wonder whether this is unrelenting trust in your philosophy rather than engagement with what I’m actually saying. What I’ve put forward isn’t just a one-off thought — everything we do, from talking and eating to replying to each other, happens through the power of the mind. It isn’t just an ability of the mind — it is the mind, where all conceivable thought resides.

I’ve never claimed absolute certainty that I’m right, and if you read carefully you’ll notice I didn’t dismiss your way of thinking outright. I engaged with it and asked why you might think that way. If someone presented me with a more reasonable argument, I’d be open to being swayed too.

That’s why I find it a bit limiting to label someone without really knowing them. I haven’t done that with you; instead, I’ve made assumptions and explored what kind of philosophy you might follow. My aim isn’t to put you in a box but to offer another perspective you might reflect on.

I was fortunate to grow up in a very free-thinking environment — thanks largely to my father — which gave me a habit of looking beyond the norms. So my intention here is to exchange ideas, philosophies, and reasoning in a way that’s genuinely fruitful. If we’re only going to repeat “I am right” and “no, I am right,” then yes, that goes nowhere. But if you’d like to continue a genuine, thoughtful back-and-forth, I’d welcome that - if not then thank you.

Last edited by Zach Alie (2025-08-24 17:58:17)

KerimF · 2025-08-24 19:01:34

It is clear that we are just exchanging ideas on how we perceive life. Me too, I try to follow your way of thinking by presenting what I have understood from you so far.

For example, if I understood you well, it seems that the END of a living human has only one possibility in your logical reasoning. He will return, sooner or later, back to nothingness (as if he didn't exist in the first place).

This reminds me my first question, when I was around 17, which I had to find out its logical answer:
"What could be the end purpose that I have to exist temporarily in the time-space realm?"
I think we likely have different answers to such a question.

Last edited by KerimF (2025-08-24 20:01:00)

Zach Alie · 2025-08-24 22:40:48

Yes, the question that has frustrated many great minds: “What is the purpose of life if I am to die anyway?” Personally, I believe there is no inherent purpose. The universe is neither intelligent nor foolish—it is simply blind. There is no higher set of rules guiding everything. Life itself was a chance occurrence that continued. Your existence, like mine, came about more as part of the continuation of a species than as an individually intended purpose. Our individuality, however, helped us survive better and longer.

Ultimately, life did not occur because some higher purpose deemed it so, but because previous events happened to lead to it. I too once struggled with this existential crisis, but I realized that we cannot change it. Instead, it is better to use the time we have to actually live, rather than wallow in distress forever.

Also, to correct your earlier misunderstanding: I did not view this purely as an exchange of ideas, but also as an educational debate—a way to understand, learn, and sharpen my ideas, while seeing if you might offer a logical alternative.

In the end, I’m not forcing you to change your way of life. I am simply suggesting that it is not wrong to be open to foreign ideas and ways of thinking. I do believe a person can become trapped in his faith, precisely because his belief reinforces itself and justifies its own existence.

KerimF · 2025-08-25 00:46:28

Zach Alie wrote:

I do believe a person can become trapped in his faith, precisely because his belief reinforces itself and justifies its own existence.

My problem is that I, being a realistic rational person, cannot have faith (religious or else). I am simply trapped by how I perceive my own existence and the world around me.

I used to gain my living as an independent (private) designer/producer in electronics (by producing whatever the local market may need in every period of time). So, I knew that designing and building even a simple controller (hardware and firmware) cannot be done by chance/hazard. I mean if I mistyped even one number in a crucial part of my code, the entire system crashes. So, it is impossible for me to believe that, behind my rather very complex system (living body, including its mind), there is no sort of intelligence (actually higher intelligence). But knowing there is a higher Will/Power behind my existence (my will) has no practical value by itself. It just opened a door for me to discover more things about life, by asking and answering more questions.

Zach Alie · 2025-08-25 02:34:41

There is nothing wrong in not being religious, i myself am not religious. Now allow me to explain, nature follows the gold old principal of trial and error, it is common sense to know that if something fails it is scraped and it regoes building, if you made a controller that was faulty you would scrape and restart wouldnt you, that is how nature works what is faulty doesn't survive and dies off what is succesfull continues and progressess. The fact that it is impossible for you to think otherwise as you say is because you are trapped in the classic conundrum which is if everything is so fine-tuned then that must mean it was by design, so according to that: "fine-tuned=design", but here the flaw arises:

If the nuclear strong force were just a little weaker, atoms wouldn’t hold together.

If gravity were stronger, stars would burn out too quickly.

If the cosmological constant were larger, the universe would expand too fast for structures to form.

It tells us to be wary of the fact that the universe is so fine-tuned because if it wasn't like this nothing would exist. To further clarify even if this puts some people at unease our complex design wasn't formed in a day or a year or even centuries, it formed over millions of years, through countless trial and error, so there is no inherent intelligence, the universe by nature is blind, For example, take the universe as a blind man somewhere if he steps on a manhole he falls, the next time he doesn't walk that way and if he doesnt fall he continues going that way. There is no evidence for a higher being apart from ones own want of the existence of a higher being because it simply makes things easier and things seem to click in place and person is like "Oh, so that's how it is", but understanding the universe and life is difficult and so we must be prepared to follow that difficult route.

P.S If you feel the need for further clarity feel free to ask

Last edited by Zach Alie (2025-08-25 02:39:19)

KerimF · 2025-08-25 03:45:23

The key process seems to be ‘Trial and Error’ which can replace the ‘Will beyond mine’.

Thinking of this, I wonder how something could be scraped when it fails.
Doesn’t this process (of scraping) have to also follow the principal of 'trial and error' (perhaps after saving, in a way, the nature and the cause of failure to avoid repeating it) in order to ensure it is also done very well?

On the other hand, to me in the least, saying that something is this or that is always relative to something else.
For example, when my designed controller failed, it means it failed to achieve certain predefined goals.
What were/are the predefined goals while our universe is being formed by trial and error?
Did the nature also have a huge set of goals (saved somewhere) for all its elements, the inert and living ones, while they are formed so that it can detect the failed cases?

Last edited by KerimF (2025-08-25 03:47:21)

Zach Alie · 2025-08-25 04:22:40

I just simplified it for you, in evolution and natural processes, there are no predefined goals. A mutation isn’t “failed” or “successful” in an absolute sense — it either allows survival/reproduction, or it doesn’t. Nature doesn’t “save” the rules anywhere; survival itself is the only filter. When you make a controller, yes, you have goals. But nature doesn’t — it just filters out what doesn’t work. You're right to say that “failure” and “success” are relative, but in evolution, the reference point isn’t an abstract “goal” but whether something survives long enough to reproduce in its environment. That’s it.
If you're asking me "whose keeping the score" then the answer to that is: No one is. The environment itself is the scorekeeper. Nature doesn’t plan — what works, continues; what doesn’t, disappears. No intelligence needed.

KerimF · 2025-08-25 08:11:29

Zach Alie wrote:

Nature doesn’t plan — what works, continues; what doesn’t, disappears. No intelligence needed.

Well, this could work on what we may call living things (as the tiny cells, plants, mammals and humans).

What about the non-living elements in our universe? Did each of them have also needed the process of trial and error to exist the form it is now?
One may say they existed all, the way they are now, when the Big Bang occurred.
Then, by a mere coincidence, many of them were able to help/assist/support in the survival of the various living things (also from the tiny cells to humans) during the process of the trial and error.

For instance, as far as I know, the image by which I see the 'WILL/Power beyond mine' is not like (actually, is not supposed to be like) of any 'God' known by the different theists around the world.

Zach Alie · 2025-08-25 15:37:56

We don’t know much about the universe’s origins, but we do know that when the Big Bang occurred, everything else followed—energy, mass, and space. These gave rise to the first tiny particles, which later formed atoms, and over time combined into elements, stars, and planets.

It isn’t really a coincidence that non-living matter ended up being useful for life—life simply wouldn’t exist without it. These elements literally are the building blocks of life. What is a coincidence or not even a coincidence but an emergence through chemistry + natural selection is that life emerged from those building blocks.

As for your idea of a “will” or higher order—it doesn’t quite fit the evidence. If such a will existed, why would it create things this way? Why make the process so long, so chaotic, so indifferent? It seems like you want to place a higher intelligence behind the universe’s complexity because it feels too vast to be accidental. But complexity didn’t arise in a day—it emerged gradually, over billions of years, step by step.

Even now, we’re still learning how the universe came into being. But instead of asking “why everything came,” it’s more practical and meaningful to understand how it did.

Last edited by Zach Alie (2025-08-25 15:40:26)

Math Is Fun Forum

#1 2025-08-20 00:32:55

Empty

#2 2025-08-20 09:55:55

Re: Empty

#3 2025-08-20 18:26:39

Re: Empty

#4 2025-08-21 00:01:58

Re: Empty

#5 2025-08-21 00:34:15

Re: Empty

#6 2025-08-21 05:30:14

Re: Empty

#7 2025-08-21 15:30:52

Re: Empty

#8 2025-08-21 20:13:55

Re: Empty

#9 2025-08-23 05:51:46

Re: Empty

#10 2025-08-23 10:38:41

Re: Empty

#11 2025-08-23 14:43:17

Re: Empty

#12 2025-08-23 23:12:40

Re: Empty

#13 2025-08-24 02:00:47

Re: Empty

#14 2025-08-24 03:18:21

Re: Empty

#15 2025-08-24 06:43:27

Re: Empty

#16 2025-08-24 11:30:29

Re: Empty

#17 2025-08-24 17:57:56

Re: Empty

#18 2025-08-24 19:01:34

Re: Empty

#19 2025-08-24 22:40:48

Re: Empty

#20 2025-08-25 00:46:28

Re: Empty

#21 2025-08-25 02:34:41

Re: Empty

#22 2025-08-25 03:45:23

Re: Empty

#23 2025-08-25 04:22:40

Re: Empty

#24 2025-08-25 08:11:29

Re: Empty

#25 2025-08-25 15:37:56

Re: Empty

Board footer