Grido Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 [quote]Liberty (ID:83289) we live, then at one moment we die, why do we have to die, whats purpose of death and what after we die? Mur: Living beeings are self containing mini universes, the principle ballances within us is perfect or tends to be. I believe we are manifestation of information fields that by nature seek to adapt to the principle ballance of the universe we live in. Life and death are the ballance between syntropy and entropy in our mini universe that we mirror. Based on this theory, cyclicity as well as other principles should be "satisfied" so it could be an explanation why life is cyclic. All the things we do , from filling our neurons with info to the gene that cause death (yup) is programmed by nature to fulfill and keep the principles stable. If one principle goes wrong the entire ballance is lost and the information fields causing all this can not manifest themselves anymore. This is just a theory, suited to fit with religious beliefs of many cultures as well with my own researches on the matter in cause. It could be tottaly wrong. Selected for public debate, but not for round 2 because of the popularity of the question.[/quote] i could give the scientist answer to this, being that each time our cells divide the chromosomes shorten, if they get too short the cell cant multiply anymore, this leads to cells such as brain cells reducing and the body slowly dying, if the cells were to artificially continue, then you would get all sorts of genetic abnormalities cropping up, and also the likelihood of cancer (mutation of the cells) would shoot through the roof. the purpose of death is so that there is a purpose to life if we did not die and we still reproduced then the planet would become rapidly overpopulated, as it is the death rate is slightly lower that the birth rate and something will need to be thought of...but that's digressing. and so if we did not reproduce, or did so slowly, then our population would become stagnant, the species would not develop geneticly, and there would be no way to naturally enhance the species, which is built into our genetics to do so after we die? that is contested between every religion, every branch of each religion, non-religious etc etc etc. they each have different views in the spiritual sense, in the physical sense, well decompose, nutrients from your body go back into the soil, helps other plants grow and such.
Liberty4life Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 eh but its possible to stop reproduction then by principal of balance it should be possible to stop dying
Shadowseeker Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 Let's just assume theoretically you could become something like an immortal... Now, wouldn't that just mean you step out of time, in a sense? If you don't change even a tiniest bit, then you cannot die...but then again, you don't live again. Humans have a let's say rather short life, burning their lifeforce like a candle. What you describe is that being frozen in between, you cannot progress, neither fall back...I assume if you reach that balance state you'll need to have very strict methods to enforce this, but in the end it's just preservation, not immortality.
Fenrir Greycloth Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 If you stop the reproduction of cells, then you cannot live, because just by the act of living, we are consuming and killing cells.
Grido Posted June 21, 2009 Author Report Posted June 21, 2009 in extension to Fenrir's post take the stomach, the acids within it which break down the food, also decay the cells inside the stomach lining, these cells are constantly reproduced, if you stopped cell reproduction, then you would die quickly
Burns Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 and as Shadow already mentioned, you wouldn't live in a common sense if you exist out of time... compare it to Vampires, who are neither dead nor alive, they need blood ('fuel') to do fancy things, but mere existance doesn't consume any power for them, so if you 'lived' a life in which time wouldn't pass, your cells would stop dieing, too... i guess :lol:
Liberty4life Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 nah i meant, life and death are part of cycle, if ya stop reproduction of species, us humans if we all stop fucking = no new life for us, and we would normally live till we die even without sex, which is theoretically possible, so its kinda a stop to principal of cyclicity, then by principal of balance, since its possible not to create new life, then it should be possible not to die, it is possible to stop the cycle without stopping time, hey if ya dont have sex and dont have kids ya will die, and no time will stop so by principal of balance there should be possible not to die and still with time flowing by i hope ya all understand now what i meant first time
Root Admin Muratus del Mur Posted June 21, 2009 Root Admin Report Posted June 21, 2009 life can not stay "in ballance" by not beeing cycle...that will simply mean its in ballance because its zero, not because its actualy ballanced. What happens after we die ... well have you ever thought that our brain protects us from the idea of a permanent death and simply puts in theories with despair just not to accept DEATH itself? We need explanations so bad, just to make sure there is SOMETHING after we die. When you turn off a computer, what is it left in its ram? nothing. What remains is in its HDD, same with living things, what remains is in their DNA memmory, or other types of collective memmories , why not, but our "ram" might simply just vanish in favor of others to appear.....might
Liberty4life Posted June 21, 2009 Report Posted June 21, 2009 hmm oke... but then by cyclicity, ya live then ya die, now ya should live again after ya die, and then die again, and so on, no? edit: also i thought that there is always a way not to play your part in "big machine"/"break all the rules" (not only counting in society system but also on overall natural system) also if mortality exists should then exist immortality? i think it should and if it should then there must be a way how to reach it
Talos Salvitore Posted June 23, 2009 Report Posted June 23, 2009 (edited) Simply by being alive in the first place you are contributing to the evolutionary spectrum since you immediately alter your environment by existing in the first place. The question of life after death is cannot be equated into any answer with any sense of honesty aside from a philosophical hypothesis since it would require an individual to die and then come back to report their findings. As to why we live and we die, it is a matter of cellular degradation and also the additional reasoning as to allowing population growth. ie: In a dense forest, the newer saplings will not receive light until the larger trees begin to wilt or die out. Life after death can be equated logically through memory or a recognizable trace (such as the measure of success left within my response to Shadowseeker's question) wherein the individual is no longer living, yet their traces remind those still living that they had existed, also why tombstones are used for the dead. This also raises the question as to whether the dead can be harmed. The answer is, in theory, yes. When an individual's trace is damaged (ie: theft of a grave, defaced grave, scandals coming to light after death), it in turn damages the memory of the person and thus the person themselves through recollection. Hope this ties some stuff up. (Addendum: [url="http://www.epiconeliner.com/"]http://www.epiconeliner.com/[/url] ) (edit made because I realized that I had somehow amalgamated two people into a single entity.) Edited June 24, 2009 by Talos Salvitore
aero Posted August 19, 2009 Report Posted August 19, 2009 In truth we may not have to die. Our technologies are advancing to the point where this generation might have the option to live for much longer that it was believed possible. We could live all of our dreams, experience all the world has to offer. After that, our race could advance with great speed. But there is a place for death. Though i think that immortality would only be reserved for the rich people who don't believe they are rich enough already. Eventually it will become as common as owning a car, and at that point overpopulation could become a big problem, resources would be stretched thin. There is always a price to immortality. Others must die for you to survive. And at this point humans are not ready for that power. We are too primative in terms of technology. Until we solve hunger, energy crisis, how to live outside of earth, etc. Immortality could doom us.
Recommended Posts