Greetings!
I have a question about heaven, for those of you who believe in such a place.
I'm not laying this out there as another version of the immovable object quandary, I really am curious. The best answer I've gotten to date is basically "Well, it wouldn't happen". Lets see if anyone has a better solution.
You and your spouse meet slightly later in life, say in your 40's. Your spouse is a widow or widower when you meet.
You both are very religious, god-fearin' types. Good people, with a loving marriage.
You die in a car crash, together, in your 80's, and end up at the pearly gates, or its equivalent.
Now your idea of heaven is to spend all eternity with your wife, (or husband) as he/she is your everything.
Your wife (or husband) loved you dearly during your marriage, but has been pining for her (his) first spouse, and really only wants to spend eternity with him or her. She feels that you two had a good life together, and now she wants to make up for lost time with spouse #1. Your vows do specify "till death do you part" after all.
However, without her (or him) heaven will be hell for you.
So what happens...?
Thanks for humoring me. All due respect. Just curious.
This is an interesting dilemma, actually, and heaven seems full of its like. What if sustaining my eternal happiness is somehow contingent on another heavenly resident's suffering? People change, or rather, their priorities do. If they stop changing in heaven, then I doubt I would even recognise a version of myself who could conform to such a place. And if I can't even recognize my heavenly self, how exactly did I go to heaven?
Another thing to consider is boredom. After an eternity or two of accomplishing all your goals and climbing every mountain and getting sick and tired of it all, followed by an eternity or two of utter boredom and re-watching the world's longest-running soap operas until you can run full episodes flawlessly in your sleep... Well, the idea of heaven sort of loses its shine, does it not?
Another thing to consider is boredom. After an eternity or two of accomplishing all your goals and climbing every mountain and getting sick and tired of it all
As you say, if "we" go to heaven, and not an entirely different being made from our flotsam, then we have to assume our brain chemistry remains the same even though our physical brain is not with us- after all, God presumably made our brain chemistry what it is for a reason, yeah? So, as any doctor or addict will tell you, the human brain is hard wired to grow accustomed to and then completely disregard feelings of euphoria in pretty short order- so heaven, no matter how awesome, would soon register as just another place to us...boredom.
I don't remember the bible talking about crime in heaven, which is a fairly inevitable result of millions of bored humans together in one place...
Precisely. Of course, you can send those who turn asshole in heaven downstairs, but that would quickly make it nothing but an echo-filled emptiness where it rains dopamine.
...Makes my chances of getting the spit turner job in hell even better though, so there is that.
In any case, indeed, it would be interesting to hear from someone who does believe in heaven about how an eternity of happiness actually works without encroaching on the happiness of others when at the end of the day, you are talking about people. And people, they all want different things, or even when they want the same thing, they want it in different ways.
Of course, you can send those who turn asshole in heaven downstairs, but that would quickly make it nothing but an echo-filled emptiness where it rains dopamine.
And then we're back to our point, as chances are at least some of those sent to "the other place" for being an asshole in heaven will be folks whose very existence in heaven makes yet another person's heaven complete...so sending them south for thievery destroys that other persons chance for happiness in heaven, which probably leads to criminal behavior or at least lawsuits for breach of contract with the LGA, or Lord God Almighty, hereafter known as the Accused, and since suing the LGA is probably a sin, those people will be relocated to a southern climate as well, meaning that anyone attached to them is also left high and dry, leading to....ad infinitum...
Yep. The slippery slope is slippery and the exponential butterfly effect is exponential.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 28, 2016, 10:43:53 AM
Yep. The slippery slope is slippery and the exponential butterfly effect is exponential.
I have always been strangely suspicious of butterflies...
DAMMIT! I pressed "modify" in stead of "quote" and when I spotted my error, the natural thing to do was submit. :-[. Massive mod fuckup. Apologies. -Asmo :(
I've been silenced! Censorship run rampant!! :) No problem. Probably nothing all that significant, anyway.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 28, 2016, 06:13:30 AM
If it's all real, I doubt it will be boring. But it's all speculation. Nobody knows.
The very last bit is, of course, the sensible answer to this question. However, I would like to address the first sentence.
Six point two billion years. On a short scale Americans are used to, that translates to 620000000 years. If once a century you reset your birthday clock to zero, you will get to fill 62 years old 10000000 (Ten million) times.
Now, that's a LONG time. However, it's not even a microscopic wart on the left butt cheek of eternity. Let me put it in perspective; on the
long scale that we use in continental Europe, a billion is 10^12, which is 1000000000000. 6.2 long billion years, using the same birthday reset example, will allow you to celebrate your 62nd birthday 10000000000 times. That is ten thousand million.
Ten thousand million sixty second birthdays. You don't think the cake and the silly song will have gotten a bit too much well before you even get to the last set of zeros in that number?
And even it is nothing compared to eternity. A long decilion years has 42 zeros behind it. Imagine that! Imagine existing that long! It's not an inviting thought, even given that I freely admit to being absolutely incapable of comprehanding that number.
Yes, it is hypothetically possible to change our internal clocks to tick a lot slower... But an eternity is eternally vast, and my example will still inevitably apply. The only solution I can think of is non-linear time... But that doesn't necessarilly allow you to exist forever by the common definition of what existing forever might mean.
Good question, but there really is no answer (or at least not one you can offer proof for).
Coming at it from a religious perspective, though, I can offer the following:
Since God is love, and one view of heaven is that it is becoming one with God, then all of those in heaven are one.
There may still be a "you" or "me" or "my wife", but all physical definitions of love and oneness would pale in comparison.
So... that means it really doesn't matter. You are with your wife, and your ex, and your family and friends, etc.
All one in God and his love.
... or so the thinking goes.
Quote from: joeactor on July 28, 2016, 03:08:52 PM
Good question, but there really is no answer (or at least not one you can offer proof for).
Coming at it from a religious perspective, though, I can offer the following:
Since God is love, and one view of heaven is that it is becoming one with God, then all of those in heaven are one.
There may still be a "you" or "me" or "my wife", but all physical definitions of love and oneness would pale in comparison.
So... that means it really doesn't matter. You are with your wife, and your ex, and your family and friends, etc.
All one in God and his love.
... or so the thinking goes.
Which is the fancy way of saying "Well, it wouldn't happen", yes?
Quote from: imaginaryfriendless on July 28, 2016, 07:27:50 PM
Quote from: joeactor on July 28, 2016, 03:08:52 PM
Good question, but there really is no answer (or at least not one you can offer proof for).
Coming at it from a religious perspective, though, I can offer the following:
Since God is love, and one view of heaven is that it is becoming one with God, then all of those in heaven are one.
There may still be a "you" or "me" or "my wife", but all physical definitions of love and oneness would pale in comparison.
So... that means it really doesn't matter. You are with your wife, and your ex, and your family and friends, etc.
All one in God and his love.
... or so the thinking goes.
Which is the fancy way of saying "Well, it wouldn't happen", yes?
Yes... but mental gymnastics to justify one's position seems to be a requirement for true believers ;-)
Yes... but mental gymnastics to justify one's position seems to be a requirement for true believers ;-)
Hmm...well said. They do seem afraid of both simplification and brevity. I wonder if that is because they're trying to convince themselves, or an attempt to...hide the flaws in the flowers, if you will?
Asmo, forgive me for being picky but I believe that your billion exponent should be 9 not 12. Never mind the concept is sufficiently correct.
Quote from: Icarus on July 30, 2016, 01:08:30 AM
Asmo, forgive me for being picky but I believe that your billion exponent should be 9 not 12. Never mind the concept is sufficiently correct.
It is in the first example. It's twelve in the second. The difference is also explained in the post. ;)
If that's too cloudy, here is a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales). :)
I used billion to indirectly point out how you could get a time interval one thousand times longer without even changing the name of the number.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 30, 2016, 09:37:49 AM
Quote from: Icarus on July 30, 2016, 01:08:30 AM
Asmo, forgive me for being picky but I believe that your billion exponent should be 9 not 12. Never mind the concept is sufficiently correct.
It is in the first example. It's twelve in the second. The difference is also explained in the post. ;)
If that's too cloudy, here is a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales). :)
I used billion to indirectly point out how you could get a time interval one thousand times longer without even changing the name of the number.
Another case where things expressed in maths terms, as numerical exponentials in this case, are universal whereas words mean what the speaker or listener understand them to mean.
Understanding is not a universal constant!
Yes. Personally, I prefer yet another (exponential) scale if them numbers really DO need names; basically, you go up until you run out of names, then invent a new name. It makes theoretical sense, but that's all there is to it.
For example,
A million million is a billion. (Because money and such do go that high, one could retain milliard to mean one thousand million)
A billion billion is a trillion.
A trillion trillion is a quadrillion.
Etc...
It's absolutely shit practically though. For example, a number could be five hundred and twenty seven million and twenty four billion fourty two thousand million seven thousand and eleven. Not easy to follow, yes? And I'm only up to billions.
(527000024042000007011)
Quote from: Asmodean on July 30, 2016, 11:23:48 AM
Yes. Personally, I prefer yet another (exponential) scale if them numbers really DO need names; basically, you go up until you run out of names, then invent a new name. It makes theoretical sense, but that's all there is to it.
For example,
A million million is a billion. (Because money and such do go that high, one could retain milliard to mean one thousand million)
A billion billion is a trillion.
A trillion trillion is a quadrillion.
Etc...
It's absolutely shit practically though. For example, a number could be five hundred and twenty seven billion fourty two thousand million seven thousand and eleven. Not easy to follow, yes? And I'm only up to billions.
'Twould have been better to start again! Three noughts being the "unit":
1 000 = one million ("million" has its routes in the Italian for "
one mile")
1 000 000 = one billion
1 000 000 000 = one trillion
Etc.
Bit late now though . . .
Well, yes. My version of the long scale is maybe a bit better to deal with than the standard one as you don't have to keep all them -ards in mind, except maybe the milliard because it can be useful for ye general crowd who do not intuitively understand exponents, but in general, the long scale, especially my version of it (I claim it somply because I forgot who to attribute it too and am too lazy to look it up) is too counter-intuitive. The short scale... I just disagree with using one thousand as a base for multiplication. Seems too arbitrary. (Same with the long scale's use of one million. However, it takes longer for the long scale to start smelling of arbitrary bullshit. The one I proposed does not do that at all, but it's practically unusable)
Quote from: Asmodean on July 30, 2016, 11:47:24 AM
Well, yes. My version of the long scale is maybe a bit better to deal with than the standard one as you don't have to keep all them -ards in mind, except maybe the milliard because it can be useful for ye general crowd who do not intuitively understand exponents, but in general, the long scale is too counter-intuitive. The short scale... I just disagree with using one thousand as a base for multiplication. Seems too arbitrary.
Thought "milliard" a bit archaic, can't remember seeing it used in UK for, oh, milliards of days.
Seems it has similar origin to "million" but via French, from the Italian for "mile".
By the way, I found this wiki-map interesting:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/EScalas_corta_y_larga.svg)
Blue: Long scale
Arterial blood: Short scale
Venous blood: Short scale (and milliard)
Gay and friendly purple: Both scales
Yellowish-orangeish-something: Other naming system
Asmo-gray: No data
Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales)
Quote from: Asmodean on July 28, 2016, 01:57:25 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 28, 2016, 06:13:30 AM
If it's all real, I doubt it will be boring. But it's all speculation. Nobody knows.
The very last bit is, of course, the sensible answer to this question. However, I would like to address the first sentence.
Six point two billion years. On a short scale Americans are used to, that translates to 620000000 years. If once a century you reset your birthday clock to zero, you will get to fill 62 years old 10000000 (Ten million) times.
Now, that's a LONG time. However, it's not even a microscopic wart on the left butt cheek of eternity. Let me put it in perspective; on the long scale that we use in continental Europe, a billion is 10^12, which is 1000000000000. 6.2 long billion years, using the same birthday reset example, will allow you to celebrate your 62nd birthday 10000000000 times. That is ten thousand million.
Ten thousand million sixty second birthdays. You don't think the cake and the silly song will have gotten a bit too much well before you even get to the last set of zeros in that number?
And even it is nothing compared to eternity. A long decilion years has 42 zeros behind it. Imagine that! Imagine existing that long! It's not an inviting thought, even given that I freely admit to being absolutely incapable of comprehanding that number.
Yes, it is hypothetically possible to change our internal clocks to tick a lot slower... But an eternity is eternally vast, and my example will still inevitably apply. The only solution I can think of is non-linear time... But that doesn't necessarilly allow you to exist forever by the common definition of what existing forever might mean.
As long as there is something else to do, I'm not bored. If I'm healthy, and have different things to do, I see no reason why existence forever or eternally, etc., would be insupportable. I like life, and I'm imaginative. Especially when I'm alone. Maybe we get our own universes to play with. Asmo could literally destroy Luxembourg every day. And inhabit his worlds with different types of ratties. How could that ever get boring?
Six point two long billion years of ratties. Ten thousand million (Count them! It would take more than a lifetime.*) sixty-second birthdays. Followed by a decilion and a quarter years of the Universe being a dark place with an occasional elementary particle zooming this way or that. Followed by another thousand years of... Yeah, pretty much the same. Followed by (insert whatever)...
Imagine being healthy and imaginative even for ten thousand years. What would you do? What would you talk and think about? Yes, I suppose ten thousand years could be manageable for some few individuals given they lived in an evolving society, but a stagnant place of absolute happiness? I doubt it. Stagnation leads to people very quickly becoming sick and tired. Even otherwise functional interpersonal relationships are a good example of that.
When you have done all that would even remotely interest you, seen everything you deem to be worth seeing (And one would assume that after witnessing the birth and subsequent death of one hundred billionth Universe, you'd not consider that all that worth seeing either) ...My point is, what else is there?
*Seriously. I'm giving it an optimistic one count per second. You would only get to something like 3,2 thousand million in one hundred years.
I don't know how time would be measured, if at all, in another realm. Assuming God exists, he apparently doesn't get bored - making new universes, destroying new universes, etc. Again, it's all speculation since we don't know. I'm game to try, and if it does get tedious, I suppose I could do away with myself.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 31, 2016, 03:34:23 PM
I don't know how time would be measured, if at all, in another realm. Assuming God exists, he apparently doesn't get bored - making new universes, destroying new universes, etc. Again, it's all speculation since we don't know. I'm game to try, and if it does get tedious, I suppose I could do away with myself.
Mmmh... Is not a human soul supposed to be immortal?