Thank god you can just steal it from your parents.
And actually, here is a <a href=“http://www.geocities.com/sartresite/”>free resource</a>…<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sartre”>and another</a>. And for all things Sartre, try <a href=“http://www.google.com”>this site</a>.
e-book. We have this new thing called piracy.
What are we chatting about?
You all need to <s>die</s> stop existing.
However, we do not need to fear such a fate, since you cannot grasp the concept behind us doing so.
Setz, this is the single most intellegent thing I’ve seen come out of you. Good job.
One flaw is that, if you believe your theory, there would be a new universe parallel to our own for each milisecond times each existing object and force. Despite the theory of a continuouly ongoing universe, one must assume that space itself would eventually become full and all these timelines would converge, thus causing a reaction to cause the end of time. This would not seem to be a problem except that with the knowledge of how old the earth might possibly be, one might assume that this should have already happened by now. The earth in itself is also assumed to not be the oldest body in the universe, in which case there might be bodies thousands or millions of millinia older than this planet. Continueing, one must also realize that with the theory of an infantant universe, which would seem to be the only probable situation in which this would be able to occur, there would be other life forces and fields of power that would also each create their own alternate time line for each milisecond. Infinity is nonconprehendable for humans, thus I assume that infinate situations revolve in a circle, which is similair to youe own thinking. But in a circle or sphere, there is still only so much space. Despite whatever size might be assumed of this circle, it is aparant that the end of time should have already occured and we all would cease to exist permanately.
There, I’ve proved you wrong.
Good thing I’m not that sap Redcoment, cuz he sounds like he sucks.
Wow, my proving Setz wrong the right way was completely overlooked.
You’re assuming that space can become full. As previously stated, mankind can not grasp non-existance. I believe we also can’t grasp infinity. Thus, we can’t begin to imagine that an unlimited number of parallel universes exist. That doesn’t necessarily negate it, though.
While I somewhat believe Setz’ theory about an unlimited number of parallel universes (meaning I believe it to the point that I think it’s just as likely as any number of other options), I don’t think that at all explains non-existance, but rather just explains one possible temporary alternative to non-existance. That is, if, by non-existance, one refers to the lack of cognizance in a once living being. That being still technically exists; all of the parts that made it alive are still there (in most scenarios, anyway), but they simply aren’t cognizant anymore. In that regard, I simply don’t think we have the ability to understand the end of one’s life.
I’d say that we simply “weren’t intended” to know how it works, but that’d imply that there was an intention in our existance. I don’t necessarily believe that, either. I’m of the mindset that we came to be over countless centuries of creatures trying to become us, and finally “succeeding,” as it were. Whether or not we have a purpose now that we’ve hit this point is currently unknown to us, but I don’t believe we do. I think we’re just creatures on this planet, and we get to live out our time here. Whether or not we affect anything is a moot point. I think the only reason we wish to learn more about our “afterlife” as it were is so that we can either a) control it or b) prevent it. I don’t think either are within our ability, and if so, certainly not yet.
Time is a cycle
Time is a continuum. You should really stop invalidating entire posts like this
Suppose that time is indeed a cycle as Setz postulates. Suppose that there can be a divergence point between life and death, where a person (let’s call him Frank) in one universe retains life and in the other dies. Why would Frank kill himself? Maybe during sex he called his girlfriend Joe by mistake and she dumped him and threw him out of her house. But couldn’t there have been a divergence point during the act of copulation, where one Frank said “Oh Joe, don’t stop” and the other said “Oh Mandy, don’t stop” instead? For that matter, couldn’t there be a divergence point during insemination of the egg that would be Frank? Couldn’t there be a point where the sperm would hit at just the right angle in one universe and didn’t in another?
The fact of the matter is, we can discuss it all we want, but it doesn’t really make a damn bit of difference. My good friend Justin recently stopped his car in front of train tracks with an oncoming cargo hauler inbound. He got out of his car, jumped in front of the train, and died. I don’t know why he killed himself; I talked to him the Friday before he died and he seemed great.
Now, suppose there was a divergence point where he decided not to kill himself. What do I care, he’s dead. I’m not going to see him again. Theories like this are only good for pedants who have far too much time on their hands. It’s great for you to come up with this stuff, but don’t expect anyone to take it seriously.
Sorry about your friend.
I’m going to half to say that time is a continuing cycle, just to keep everyone happy. Although it is beyond one’s control to fully comprehend the full force and nature behind the alternate realities in question, one can speculate on the large concepts of the nature of the subject, without gaining truw comprehension of the relevence of the subject.
Wow, I didn’t know you were still around man! Where have you been?
Just produce some kind of weird random thread which looks like it has at least a deeper meaning but in fact doesn’t. and Jabri will appear 
Jabricruds, who better to tribute than you? You.
And all the arguments in here are baseless. According to the same science you guys are backing your arguments with, consciousness doesn’t exist. It’s rather tough having the continued existance of consciousness after death if conciousness doesn’t even exist in the first place. According to science, non-existance is the norm.
But on the flipside, if you give into traditional beliefs which all allow the existance of a consciousness, then the question of an afterlife is easy to answer. For most religions there is an afterlife, and thus non-existance isn’t an issue since there’s a world after this one to live in.
This sounds a lot like the theory of a “multiverse” in “The One”, (that movie with Jet-Li as the cop in future LA).
But if this does work, then would there not have to be a separate one created, or already existant to counter the other to keep a balance, and not “fall to one side”, or so to say?
I like to keep things short, PM me if you’re interested in my theories.
Ninten:cool:
Your PENIS is, ok? Good.
Was that to me or someone else?
If you’re asking, my mental age is about 16/17+
Ninten:cool:
So your mental age angsts a lot while listening to shitty music and spouting crackpot theories about the government. Okay.
Well that’s good to know.
