Does the universe still exist when you're dead? Think about

Too solipsist for me

When you are dead then your universe or reality ends. The universe as a whole does not end for those still alive

>>17220630
It's time to talk about it, anon.

You can die tomorrow for all you know.

OP should Google Solipsism.

Also, OP should look into the theory that all this is a computer simulation.

>>17220635
So if every living thing in this universe is dead, will the universe still exist?
>>17220640
>computer simulation
I'm not that autistic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mGf2JZGFIs

>>17220611
>>17220611

why wouldn't you be in this universe?

from a purely materialist perspective all you are is atoms in the correct alignment in such that your nervous systems imposes the illusion of consciousness.

Since matter can't be destroyed as far as we know you'd just go back into the ground and then in 10000 years you might be some mutated rabbit. who knows.

No, it does not.

We construct reality completely from our senses; it is not re-constructed as many assume but completely fabricated based on nervous impuleses.

When you cease to receive these impulses the world will cease to exist (lose sight, everything is dark, lose hearing, everything is quiet, etc. ) until there is only nothingness.

The universe may 'exist' for other people after your death all things equal, but make no mistake, their 'universe' is a far different one from the one that you have known, by very virtue of the fact that the biological nervous system which they have used to experience it is different from yours.


Think of it this way: How can one experience the world if they are not a human? Is a dogs world the same as ours? A fly's? A bacterias?

You will at least admit that your experience of this 'world' is different from that of a bacteria, simply because the difference in biology that allows us to experience.

But again, it is these differences in individuals, infinitely compounded by how we are shaped by our genetics and memories, that shape our brains and in the processes our 'existence'.

>>17220652
The universe is not dependent on human existence so yes it would still exist. It existed before humans and it will exist after.

Obviously. I'd love to believe it would, but I just know its real.

>>17220652
As in, will it still physically exist? That's similar to the old question about whether sound exists if no one is there to hear it.

Yes.

Those waves still exist. I'm not sure it's meant to but the idea that human observation makes things real is really unscientific and makes humans seem far more important than we actually are.

Regarding the computer Sim thing, that's a real theory that many scientists agree is actually almost probably true.

>>17220681
>computer sim

I think when they say simulation they mean that realityis a projection from a 2d dimension and that life is simulation in the sense that our 3d reality is an illusion created by said 2d

>>17220681

>old question about whether sound exists

Is the jury really out on that one though?

The waves are recorded, but didnt someone have to consciously do the recordings? Or at least design the instrument?


What is the world without humans? We can measure things with instruments greater than our senses, but isnt it just transmuting it into other data that we lookat/hear?

>>17220701
I see what you mean but what I'm saying is that a tree falling creates sound waves and human ears aren't needed for them to exist. They still exist.

>>17220699
I honestly don't have much background in anything other than basic physics so I really don't know. It was really just a suggestion, on my part, for something OP might find interesting and vaguely relevant.

>>17220741

But the record of sound waves=/=the experience of the sound itself

Is watching blowjob porn the same as getting a blowjob?

Is existence possible without experience?

>>17220847
I don't know if you legit don't get what I'm saying or you're trying to bait me.

Recorded or not, observed or not, those waves still exist.

>>17220611
Except when you die you are still here, just not consciously. You could pull the whole "I think therefore I am" thing and say that you only really know that you exist, not anyone else.

What you're saying is like if a computer stops working it doesn't exist anymore.

>>17220943
Right?

I could make an (I think) interesting philosophical argument to say that it doesn't but it clearly does. And I think it'd be mostly semantics to say that it doesn't.

>>17220611
>Wherever you go is not going to be apart of this universe
>you
>not part of this universe

that's not how 'going' works for 'things'
you can't 'go' someplace other than this universe, for everything is the universe, that's what universe means

as for where you'll 'go', you have to wait to 'see' for yourself

>>17220652
you sound autistic enough to believe anything.

the universe will exist no matter what happens to human, our perception of what the universe is will not but the universe still exist, whatever form it has.

>>17220667
This is stupid. We can argue semantics here, but what you're referring to is "experience" not "existence." Stop trying to be all philosophical. Yes everyone perceives the world differently, and our brains register things uniquely. But atoms are atoms and that shit is there, regardless of how conscious you are of it. When we die, all the building blocks will still be there, there just won't be anything to perceive it (by our standards)

Personally I think that everyone except you on this website is either 1) a bot or 2) hiroyuki

Isn't this deep?

When your dead that's it. Everything goes on without you. But you wouldn't know that. Because you will be dead. You will no longer know anything. But for all we know, you are the only thing, and reality is just lie, and part of our imagination. Good Luck!

>>17221539
thank you, so tired of shit tier philosophical talk.

File: 1346823987393.jpg (271KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 800x800px

I don't understand how one can perceive "nothing". That statement is meaningless. There is always something. Even if you think we just get locked up in a dark box forever. At least pure darkness is an experience but "nothing" by definition cannot exist as an experience so there is no experiencing "nothing".

>>17221790
I liked the first magic too, fuck parallel worlds and time travel

File: xRbhJ5U.png (2MB, 1916x1076px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1916x1076px

>>17220611
I secretly hope that I'm actually playing a virtual reality game like 'Roy' in Rick and Morty and that I'll wake up in an arcade somewhere after I die.

>>17220611
How do you even know you're alive right now to be honest.