Abstract Question About Variability in Existence

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
***tree waving branch in the

***tree waving branch in the very back***

I remember every seed I used to be...

***tree turns around, shaking its "head" while rumbling off***

chimp3's picture
What a bunch of shit to worry

What a bunch of shit to worry about. I just want to get laid again before I die!

Jhoop's picture
True, well you could get laid

True, well you could get laid and you might not remember after but that doesn't mean it never happened.

LogicFTW's picture
@Orignal post

@Orignal post

Maybe I am just way off base here, but:

Time is a human conceived measurement tool of events used to facilitate communication. A day is the event of the earth's rotation, a year is the time of the earth's orbit around the sun. A second now is the measurable decay of a certain radioactive atomic decay. (Okay I can't be arsed to look up exactly what it is what ever the scientist figured out for the atomic clock.)

Point is: we need to redefine/reuse time as a word if we are trying to define it between events.
Also everything in the known universe is in motion, events happen non stop, there is no "between." Sure it takes millions of years to form the grand canyon, but the canyon is being formed non stop at micro scale. Every picosecond.

arakish's picture


Funny you should write that. Thirty years ago I had an epiphanic revelation. Time, Date, Day, Year are all irrelevant. Only humans make them important. There is only NOW!


Dave Matson's picture


Who said that this experienced reality is the only one lived? A more interesting question might be: "Is it meaningful to even say that we can live other lives?" The question of what makes you "you" pops up and how it is answered will affect the answer to the prior question.

Jhoop's picture
Here is sort of an appeal to

Here is sort of an appeal to first hand experience. If others have access to lived realities beyond the body they practically refer to as ‘self’ that’s another story. At that point they’d have experienced a form of death already and this thread would indeed be irrelevant as you say. But such a thing isn’t widely held as possible. For instance, take the expression “you only live once,” to support the claim. And this singular sense of self is not new, it is indeed the philosophy upon which is built the foundation of self so commonly attributed to modern life.

Jhoop's picture
Basically self need be

Self need be distinguished from consciousness. This way we can determine more clearly between living multiple selves and living multiple consciousnesses. In my view, only one consciousness is possible because the meaning implies to me non-access to other consciousnesses as being fundamental to its definition. Multiple simultaneous consciousnesses would constitute one singular consciousness the same way multiple universes are impossible because having more than one breaks the core meaning of the word ‘uni(one)verse’ as we intend it to be used.

arakish's picture
And here are a couple of

And here are a couple of quotes. The first one I made up in a philosophy class in high school some 40+ years ago. And yes I do remember it after all this time. The second is Neil deGrasse Tyson almost rewording mine.

"The present is riding the waves of the past into an indeterminate future."

"Time makes of us all, a prisoner of the present, forever transitioning from our own past, into an unknown future."



Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.