Science can definitely contribute to the debunking of spurious claims about an afterlife and philosophy can contribute to determining the logical consistency and coherency of conceptions of an afterlife. Confirmation of an afterlife has so far been elusive; near death experiences and channelings by mediums have been typically problematic in that regard. In a way, the question is similar to whether science can inform investigations into claims of extraterrestial contacts (or flyovers), the answer being "yes", but typically the investigations determine there to be better explanations and/or no convincing evidence.

Neither philosophy nor scientific rigour do anything with regard to the beyond! It is by definition that the hereafter is just that--after here. Science relies upon observations made through senses, which immediately disqualifies any enquiry of the beyond. Any philosophy of the beyond is mere conjecture, wishful thinking or projected fears.

As to the question of death: you'll need wait until you cross death's threshold for any answers.

What afterlife?

"possibility of life after death" - life is life. It ends after death; by definition.

It's like reactions for actions, but reality is another aspect. There is no limit to manifestation as per individuals in normal but in the domain of science it have to proceed on the shoulder of others and that is why no one accept things as per grounds. Probability is always right but every thing must exist somewhere mathematically also. As per old testaments every thing exists for reasons and for new testaments it is free energy with entropy and direction but beyond the limits of observers in the domain of time and not in space any where directly.

This thread is getting some attention and I got interested. The distinction between metaphysics and modern physics is becoming more blurred. Back in the old days, we made physical postulates and used them to make predictions of observable things, and compared the predictions with observations. If there are a lot of examples of agreement with no examples of disagreement, the physical postulates get more credibility and maybe even become the mainstream theory (until finally we do find a disagreement and conclude that more work is needed). In the more modern physics, some predictions can never be tested against observation because there is no way to make those observations. So if the ability to do this test is the distinction between regular physics and metaphysics, the distinction is becoming more blurred.

Regarding spirituality:

If I think I feel something then I feel something. That is the most absolute of all truths. The 5 senses can be fooled (magicians are good at that) regarding scientific explanations, but it is an absolute truth that I am in pain if I feel pain. I sense the existence of my own soul. I need no scientific evidence or theory for that, it is an indisputable fact. I have no idea what that implies about an afterlife. But there most definitely is a spiritual component of the universe because, by definition, it contains my soul (and therefore exists). I admit that I know nothing about the spiritual universe except that it exists. I don't claim to know anything about an afterlife but I don't think anybody could make that claim, including the naysayers that conclude that there is no afterlife because there is no scientific evidence for it. Do they actually believe that scientific evidence has some role here? That is hard for me to understand.

When I said I know nothing about the spiritual universe beyond its existence I forgot that I know some things implied by its existence. Two examples are:

1. While there is not very much interaction between the physical universe and the spiritual universe, there is some interaction. The fact that people (at least some of them) can perceive the existence of their own souls is the reason that all societies have some people belonging to some form of religion or are at least entertaining the thoughts of afterlife, just like I do. One observable and measurable effect that the spiritual universe has on the physical universe is to make some people go to church. Nobody would have thought of any kinds of religions if nobody perceived the existence of their own souls.

2. The spiritual universe defines absolute good and bad. Joy of a consciousness (consciousness is defined here to be the possession of a soul together with having an ability to feel) is good. Suffering of a consciousness is bad. But, of course, the evaluation gets more complicated when selecting the lesser of the evils, or the greater of the goods, and this is where the physical universe becomes involved. An evaluation of a joy that creates another suffering is done by humans. Enduring a suffering by going to a dentist now to avoid greater suffering later is an evaluation done by humans. The spiritual universe can only say that joy is good and suffering is bad, but trade-offs (the lesser of the evils or the greater of the goods) depend on people's individual values.

Book Respectfully and Unfortunately, The Improbability of, and Da...

It is beginning to look to me that this thread has the potential of creating some arguments. So maybe I should bail out now. I only know 3 things about the spiritual universe.

1. The spiritual universe exists (I perceive the existence of my own soul, i.e., I can feel pain, not just react to stimulus like a machine could do).

2. The spiritual universe has at least one interaction with the physical universe: By causing some people to go to church (awareness of ones own soul leads to various religions and that awareness is the interaction).

3. The spiritual universe defines good and bad, but there are so many qualifications (the lesser of the bads or greater of the goods that depend on an individual's sense of values) that it is not easy to separate spiritual from physical.

Otherwise I know nothing about the spiritual universe. I don't understand how anyone can claim to have any knowledge about it. I criticize not only the naysayers that think scientific evidence has a role, but also people arrogant enough to claim that they have the answers when there is no way that they could have the answers. Reincarnation (with no previous memory) or not, how can anyone know? Theories can be fun to discuss but they are just theories and should not be reported as fact.

There is a fourth thing that I know that I forgot about. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Without beholders there can be no beauty. Even the physical universe, without including a spiritual component, is awesome far beyond human comprehension. If all beholders of that beauty die, all of the beauty of this vast universe dies. So I hope, for the sake of appreciating the physical universe, that some kind of consciousness will survive to appreciate it. Maybe spirituality has something to say about this but that is a guess.

Cosmin Visan

You can't just make up rules during a philosophical inquiry to win a debate without reasonable conclusions. Don't misunderstand me, I'm all for hypothetical thought models in pursuit of new perspectives and understanding, "But you Can" test that we all see red the same way, unless you are color blind which raises all kinds of other lines of inquiry.

You and I have no way of knowing if someone is color blind having never spoke with them, yet you and I can test that we both see red the same way.

Further, how does the color blind individual manifest their color-blindedness before their birth if they were blind at birth?

Cosmin Visan

My definition of the physical universe is the collection of those things that can be perceived either directly or indirectly by one or more of our five senses. Indirect is by implication. For example, a laboratory instrument can detect things that our five senses cannot, but one or more of our five senses detects the reading of that instrument and from that detection from one or more of our five senses we deduce the implication of the instrument reading. That implication is part of the physical universe.

However, I do see a problem with my own definition. People going to church can be seen with our vision, and I previously said that this is an interaction with the spiritual universe, so the implication is a statement about the spiritual universe so, according to my definition, the spiritual universe is part of the physical universe. I'm trying to fix that problem by adjusting my definition of "indirect" but I'm still working on that.

Assuming that the flaw in my definition is not a fatal error and we can still go with that definition with the understanding that the meaning of "indirect" is going to be fixed, my definition of the physical universe is different than that used by Cosmin Visan

Cosmin Visan

There is one thing that I don't like about the illusion view. It means that the people that I love are merely stage props. I would rather think that they have an existence and souls just like I do. I don't know what is correct or what is incorrect, but I have hopes.

While trying to repair my definitions to avoid the seemingly absurd conclusion that the spiritual universe is part of the physical universe (not a statement of fact, merely an implication from some definitions I invented) it occurred to me that maybe no repairs to the definitions are needed. Maybe the spiritual universe is part of the physical universe. The physical universe is awesome far beyond human comprehension by any standards and might contain more than humans can see. If the spiritual universe (our souls) actually (and surprisingly to me) is part of what I have defined to be the physical universe, this does not make the spiritual universe (again, our souls) any less magical or spiritual. It merely changes the source of that spirituality from something (like God) outside the physical universe into being something within the physical universe. But all of the magic is still there.

@Cosmin Visan: That can't be true (that you are God) if everything is an illusion created for me by my consciousness because that means that all images of you (images are all you are) are illusions (you are an illusion) and I am God. We can't both be God because, as God, I declare that we can't both be God.

By the way, if you believe that all of reality is an illusion created for you by your consciousness (all that exists is you, there is nobody else), then why are you discussing this? Who are you trying to convince? Yourself? But you already know, so why argue with yourself about it?

Another "By the way" but on a different topic. I think I see the confusion in the statement "we all see red the same way". The perception that one person gets from red might be the same as another person gets from blue (an arbitrary made-up example), but we all call it red because we were taught that name when objects of the named color were shown to us.

Interesting and I'm not being sarcastic. I'm neither pro nor con because I don't know, but I'm going to think about that to see if I can think myself into some understanding.

I have entertained the idea that our senses (five external plus some internal senses, like emotions or awareness of our own thoughts) are from partial evolution and eventually there will be more evolution in which humans acquire another sense that allows us to see that all of our souls are one. Presently, we only perceive part of the picture, and that part of the picture is interpreted as our own private soul (each of us is alone in that sense). But this individual private thing might be due to limitations of our senses. Maybe a more evolved picture will see that we are united. Anyway, I am paying attention to what you said about us being one and the same God.

I made an edit to one of my answers, but the additional discussion from that edit might have been too late to be seen, so I am repeating that discussion below. These thoughts are not new to me but things that Cosmin Visan

I have entertained the idea that our senses (five external plus some internal senses, like emotions or awareness of our own thoughts) are from partial evolution and eventually there will be more evolution in which humans acquire another sense that allows us to see that all of our souls are one. Presently, we only perceive part of the picture, and that part of the picture is interpreted as our own private soul (each of us is alone in that sense). But this individual private thing might be due to limitations of our senses. Maybe a more evolved picture will see that we are united. Anyway, I am paying attention to what Cosmin said about us being one and the same God.

Thank you Randy N. Brown . I'm not disagreeing with you. Calling ourselves Gods seems a little extreme to me also. What is interesting though is that there might be more to beings that have souls than our senses are able to detect. Cosmin's statement forced me to consider that thought. I'm not reaching any conclusions because I don't know any of the answers, but I do believe that nobody else can be sure of the answers either. By the way, I think you and I have different concepts of God. Yours would be (if it exists) a creator (and maybe should be detectable if it exists). I am less specific about the meaning of God. I have no idea, but I want it to be something that somehow creates some kind of unity among all of the souls.

Randy N. Brown you accused me of things that I am not guilty of, like making statements of fact. I am the one that repeatedly claims to not know anything, except that I have a soul. That is all I know. Also, I opposed (based on desire, not knowledge) the idea that my reality is an illusion created for me by my consciousness. The reason was the separation between me and other people. But Cosmin Visan

Another interesting thought came from Randy N. Brown in the statement "But again we cannot be our own Creator as the "First" uncreated thing that created itself. Do you see the contradiction in this perspective. No matter how convincing the argument, something has to have always existed that was uncreated. The definition of "created" by its very nature is a secondary state of existence." Even without any spiritual or religious issues I think that this is beyond human understanding because there is always the question of what created the big bang. Expecting a religious or spiritual (that we really have no knowledge of) answer to a question that cannot even be answered in physical terms (that we do have some knowledge of) is asking a lot.

Here is a fun story as to why I entertain the idea of reality being perception. Between 50 and 60 years ago when I was a fun-loving person stoned out of my mind on marijuana, I walked into a public telephone booth because it was there. When looking through the glass walls it occurred to me that I am seeing things similar to what might be seen in a movie house. To go farther, if all of my sensations (sight, sound, taste, smell, touch) could somehow be reproduced (this was years before virtual reality became known, so I guess I was ahead of my time there) then there is no way for me to know where I really am. I think I am in the telephone booth but maybe I am in another world and just looking at images that make me think that. Maybe everything I see is a stage prop. As I said before, I can't except the idea that people that I love are merely stage props, so I am happier with the proposition from Cosmin Visan

I wonder WHY it is so attracting to answer a stupid question on 'afterlife' in a scientific forum...

You call that question stupid? Then I guess you must know all the answers. Please tell us the answers and also tell us how you know.

Many people experience being immortal, and volumes have been written on the subject. Experiencing is a valid form of learning. "Quantum suicide and immortality" in Wikipedia states "Eugene Shikhovtsev's biography of Everett states that ""Everett firmly believed that his many-worlds theory guaranteed him immortality: his consciousness, he argued, is bound at each branching to follow whatever path does not lead to death.""

I have had similar thoughts myself. I have had a number of close calls but my path in this many-worlds universe always makes me survive. ButI have trouble with the topic of old age in which there are no alternative paths to choose from. How do we survive that? Maybe it just never happens?

Maybe true that it doesn’t happen because I live in the present (not future) in which it hasn’t happened yet. This gets a little difficult to understand but I’m trying.

Good to know. One less thing to worry about.

I’m not trying to be insulting, I’m trying to be funny because I don’t know what to believe.

A problem that I have is with my own instinct. My meaning of "instinct" is a belief with absolutely no good reason; no scientific evidence, no logic, no reasoning, no nothing, but I still believe it anyway (and I don't even know why I believe it, I just do because the belief is involuntary). My instinct tells me that there is no afterlife. I don't want to believe that and, if I could control my beliefs, I would be a happy person with happy thoughts about everything. But my instinct goes its own way without my permission. And I don't like where it goes. Is there a way to fix that? I tried to be funny before but now I am serious in asking for suggestions.

We are not talking science here; we are talking about what we think without proof. There is no proof. This is not an exact science.

I need help to understand something. One statement to consider is "I exist". Another is "I exist today". Why is the first statement more appropriate than the second?

The original post itself is inappropriate in a forum like this that is focussed on science, i.e., naturalism.

Sth like 'afterlife' is simply bullshit because it lacks ANY proof of scientific (i.e., reproducible) existence.

I wonder why researchgate allows for such stupid posts.

I'll leave here if not corrected.

You called it inappropriate and stupid. Regarding inappropriate, I would like to hear of some thoughts even knowing that they are unprovable speculations. So, I am glad the topic is being discussed. You don't need to pay attention to it if you are not interested. Regarding stupid; really? Not everyone will agree with that.

I thought the answer might be something like that but I'm a little unclear on it. I will continue to think about it in the hopes that it will eventually sink in.

Thank you Cosmin Visan

Hans-H. Trutnau: More on the issue of appropriateness for RG. There is a television series called "Closer to Truth" with the series being entirely interviews with famous scientists and mathematicians discussing the very topic in this thread. Those famous scientists and mathematicians consider these to be worthy discussions, but apparently you don't. Also, why do you care what other people are interested in?